Politeness and custom lead European leaders to adopt a noncommittal stance when asked whether Donald Trump’s presidency will have a negative impact on NATO. But despite rhetoric about “stopping Trump,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) cohesion has been challenged by a hostile or isolationist Republican president who previously threatened to leave the alliance unless European defense spending increases. will be at risk.
“The truth is that the United States is NATO and NATO is the United States. Our dependence on the United States is basically as great as ever,” said Jamie Shea, a former NATO official and lecturer at the University of Exeter. spoke. “Coordinate support for Ukraine at a new NATO command center in Wiesbaden, Germany. It is housed in a U.S. military barracks and relies on U.S. logistics and software.”
US defense spending is expected to reach a record high of $968 billion in 2024 (the proportion of US spending on Europe has not been disclosed). The budget for the 30 European allies plus Canada amounts to $506 billion, or 34% of the total. Indeed, 23 out of 32 member states expect to spend more than 2% of GDP on defense this year, compared to 24% of non-U.S. defense spending in NATO in 2014, when the goal was set. It’s lower than it is now, but not dramatically.
There are more than 100,000 US military personnel in Europe, more than British troops, and that number was increased by more than 20,000 under Joe Biden in June 2022 in response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The U.S. military has long been based in Germany, but Biden has moved a 3,000-strong brigade to Romania and placed a forward command post in Poland, allowing U.S. forces to contribute to the defense of the Baltic states. Fighter and bomber squadrons are based in Poland. Five British and Spanish naval destroyers.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius was recently asked if NATO was ready to deal with President Trump. After he began saying, “The results of the election will come out no matter what,” many European countries delayed increasing their defense budgets, ignored warnings about Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea, and reacted substantively. He admitted that it will not be until 2022, after Russia’s full-scale invasion. “What we did was hit the snooze button and turn around,” Pistorius said.
During his time in office, Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO at a chaotic 2018 summit in Brussels in an effort to force other allies to increase defense spending.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump has been less active in public, but the altercations have been similar. In February, Republicans suggested they would encourage countries that are “in arrears” because they “failed” to pay their share to Russia to do “whatever it wants.”
One could argue that Trump is simply in campaign mode. However, we expect that by the next NATO summit there will be discussions about setting higher defense spending targets (possibly either 2.5% or 3%), due in part to Russia’s blatant acts of aggression in Ukraine. has been done. Meanwhile, the annual NATO summit during his four-year presidential term is unlikely to go smoothly, as President Trump loves attention, tolerates chaos, and makes last-minute decisions.
Mr. Shea “appeals to Mr. Trump’s ego and vanity” by convincing recently resigned NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that Mr. Trump’s dissatisfaction led to increased defense spending by other alliance members. He said it was extremely successful. A year after the Brussels debacle, the 2019 NATO summit was relatively uneventful. That’s partly because President Trump said he was persuaded that NATO had become “more flexible.”
Mr. Stoltenberg’s successor, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, will have the same task even if the Republicans win, Mr. Shea added. “Mr. Rutte knows Mr. Trump very well and can demonstrate to Mr. Trump that he is a solid European on defense spending,” he said. But during a recent visit to London, Rutte took a different attitude. Trump wondered if he would want to risk being isolated in a “harsh and uncompromising world” if the United States did indeed leave NATO.
There are two major differences now compared to President Trump’s first term. The most obvious is the eastern impact of the war in Ukraine. With Finland and Sweden participating, the frontline countries have significantly increased their defense spending, especially Poland’s budget, which exceeds 4% of GDP. Among the weapons Warsaw is purchasing are 1,000 K2 tanks from South Korea and more than 350 M1A1 Abrams tanks from the United States.
“Increasing defense spending is not a controversial issue in Polish politics. The general approach is that there is homework to be done and it must be done,” said Przemysław Biskup of the Polish Institute of Foreign Relations. At the same time, concerns that President Trump will try to force a humiliating peace on Ukraine by cutting off military aid to Kiev are “very concerning” for Eastern Alliance members. We have no choice but to keep spending and hope Russia doesn’t try to start a war. There was chaos elsewhere too.
sign up for this is europe
The most pressing topics and debates for Europeans – from identity to economy to environment
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
Mr Biskup also warned that eastern frontline countries were spending well over 2% of GDP, creating “clear regional disparities”. Countries further west, especially Italy, Canada, Belgium and Spain, spend less than 1.5%, but the advantage for countries like Poland is their “increased relative power” within the alliance framework. is.
The second difference is that U.S. conservatives have a more sophisticated mindset, capitalizing on President Trump’s visceral dissatisfaction with European defense spending and providing intellectual ballast for withdrawal from NATO. is. A widely cited February 2023 article by Sumantra Maitra advocating the idea of a “dormant NATO” essentially states that the United States needs to decisively pivot to counter China’s growing military power. , he claims that as a result, “Europe, which is protected by Europeans, will be forced by sheer force.” US Navy (support) and as a logistics provider of last resort. ”
Although this would mean a significant withdrawal of US troops, the chances of a Russian invasion are limited by the fact that the Kremlin wields significant military power in Ukraine. Even if that war were to stop on terms favorable to Russia, even if Trump were indeed able to force peace on Ukraine, the estimated 600,000 casualties and destruction of munitions suffered by Russia would be , which would probably mean it will probably take more than a decade to recover further. offensive potential.
Estonia’s ambassador to the UK, Viljar Rubi, argues that it may be possible to link the importance of NATO in supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia to long-term US concerns about China expressed by US conservatives. did. “Will the presence of North Korean troops on Ukrainian soil change the calculus? We are already seeing Iranian weapons end up in both Ukraine and the Middle East.” “What if it was a proxy war in Ukraine and Russia was the proxy, China was the proxy,” he asked.
This is a chillingly sophisticated argument, one made by Mr Pistorius and his British colleague John Healy. Healey argued that North Korea’s participation in the Ukraine war on Russia’s side shows that it is “integral to security concerns in the Indo-Pacific region.” But it is uncertain whether that will be convincing enough for Mr. Trump, whose politics are largely instinctual and personality-driven.
With tough spending decisions looming and war continuing on the edge of Europe, Trump’s presidency promises to be at least eventful. Meanwhile, post-Cold War alliances are more relevant than ever.
