The NATO Summit

 Tomorrow morning, I'll be on China Global Television Network's World Today. They have sent me the talking points. As a warm-up, I'll add some preliminary responses.

1. NATO just agreed to a massive increase in defense spending which Trump hailed as a “big win for Western civilization.” Does this mean NATO has emerged stronger and more united?

Stronger and more united than earlier this year, a low bar. Still, the unity on display this week is meaningful, if only because it also reflects how most European member states in recent months have taken more responsibility for their common defense, very much including Ukraine. The Alliance also kept the U.S. president within the fold, maybe pulled him a little closer even, and that certainly counts for something, also because it may reflect a realization in Washington that U.S. interests continue to be at stake in this part of the world, as they were in 1917, 1941, and so on and so forth. And so, U.S. allegiance to NATO may actually last.

2. Mark Rutte cited the rising threat from Russia as the primary reason for the spending hike, saying Moscow will be capable of launching an attack on NATO members within three to five years. How credible is that assessment, or is the threat being overstated to justify rearmament? 

The exact time-frame is uncertain, but Russia's intentions are not. Just this week, Putin said that "wherever a Russian soldier sets foot, that's ours." It's just the latest in a long line of actions and pronouncements confirming his hostility to the West in general and NATO in particular, and it also brings to mind how he has not accepted losing the sphere of influence Stalin established in 1945. His assault on Ukraine aims to end that state's independent existence, but it is also a first step in pushing back NATO from the old sphere of influence. 

 

3. The 5% defense spending goal brings NATO military investment to levels not seen since the Cold War. Could it trigger a new arms race? 

We have been in a new arms race for a while now, in Europe, in Asia, in de Middle East. 

4. European leaders now frame massive military spending as a necessity in an increasingly volatile world. But how much of this volatility has been created or worsened by Western policy decisions over the past 20 years? 

Just talking about Europe, and specifically Ukraine, the West has been faced with a dilemma in the past two decades: live up to its own principles and pronouncements and open a path for a democratic Ukraine to EU and NATO membership, versus risking an angry and eventually aggressive response from Moscow. By emphasizing the importance of the former over the risk of the latter, one could say that the West has contributed. But that conclusion assumes that trying to maintain a constructive relationship with Putin's regime could have succeeded. However, right up to February 2022, there was plenty of that (think of Nordstream 2), in spite of what everyone should have known about Putin's intentions since his outburst at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, certainly since his attack on Ukraine in 2014. So a better answer would be that, yes, the West has contributed to the volatility by not doing what it belatedly started doing with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Western appeasement, instead of confrontation, helped to get us where we are now. 

5. During the summit, Trump likened the US strikes on Iran to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you find that kind of comparison worrisome, and does it signal a more aggressive doctrine that NATO may now be tied to? And Does NATO risk being drawn into US-led Middle East policies that may not align with European interests?

We would all be better off if we didn't pay so much attention every time the president says something on social media or elsewhere. As far as NATO is concerned, it is increasing its deterrent capabilities so as to remove any doubt in the mind of the adversary that a new attack will cost it way more--militarily, politically--than could possibly be gained. 

6. How do you view Mark Rutte’s flattery of Trump for his Iran strikes, even calling him “the Daddy”? Do you think he’s bending too far to keep Trump onside? Or is this just what modern transatlantic leadership looks like?

I would not want to be in Rutte's shoes right now. Let's just say that NATO had a rather successful summit meeting, one many people did not think was possible a couple of months ago. It's not all Rutte, but it certainly did not hurt to have a secretary-general who has managed to have a working relationship with this president.

7. Do you think the increased defense spending is enough to keep the US engaged in NATO? 

One can never really tell with the current administration, but since U.S. interests are at stake with a Europe that is prosperous and willing enough to keep buying U.S. products and able to handle most security challenges by itself, I would say: yes.

8. The 5% target could divert enormous national resources toward defense. What will be the social cost of this rearmament? And will leaders be able to balance domestic pressure with their commitment to the alliance?

It has been pointed out this week that a much less prosperous Western Europe managed to do this during the Cold War. Much of this is political, the ability of politicians to make the case to their populations, and nothing in these matters is automatic. But because of Russia's assault on Ukraine the populations of many European countries have already accepted that the security situation on the continent has deteriorated, and that this has consequences for the way of life in this part of the world. When we're talking about NATO today, it's not the old, Cold War alliance. Instead, it includes Eastern European countries who have a very different view of the Russian threat from, say, Spain or Italy. And it now includes Finland and Sweden, two countries that only joined after it became crystal clear in 2022 what Putin's intentions really are. 

9. Trump publicly attacked Spain for spending too little and threatened to impose higher tariffs on Spain for not meeting the 5% target. Are we seeing a dangerous fusion of security obligations and trade coercion?

See the beginning of the answer to question 5. 

10. As a product of the Cold War, is NATO increasingly out of step with today’s multipolar world? And do you think it’s still operating with a Cold War mindset which may now be exacerbating global insecurity rather than reducing it? 

NATO's strength has always been its ability to evolve with a changing international environment. After this week's summit, one could say that the alliance currently is as much a product of Putin's war as it is an inheritance of the Cold War. There are parallels with the Cold War, and Cold War thinking, today, but a much more relevant and dangerous mindset is the Russian imperial mindset pronounced and practiced by Putin.