- President Trump shocked NATO by appearing to encourage attacks on member states that did not meet spending targets.
- Some leaders are rushing to strike defense deals and increase military contributions.
- But experts say it has nothing to do with Trump and that there are no real “signs of hope” in his threats.
Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
When President Trump said at a rally earlier this month that he would urge Russia to “do whatever they want” to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries that don’t meet defense spending expectations, world leaders They were shocked.
The White House condemned the remarks as “rambling,” and the NATO secretary general said they made soldiers in both the United States and Europe less safe.
But whether they like it or not, the prospect of having to defend themselves without the United States by their side could prompt at least some NATO allies to increase much-needed military spending. Some people suggest that it is sexual.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kalas Said This statement may “wake up some of our allies who have not done much in the past.”
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte I recently said this to a fellow leader. Stop “bitching” about Trump and start investing in their military.
But Edward Hunter-Christie, a senior fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and a former NATO official, said the idea that Trump’s sharp comments have emerged as a “sign of hope” for strengthening NATO’s defenses is “naive or delusional.” ”, he points out.
The recent increase in defense spending by NATO countries has little to do with Trump, experts told BI.
Mr. Trump was already rushing through an open door.
Trump has long boasted that he alone would fix NATO.
“I got them to pay me,” he told supporters at the same rally. “NATO was falling apart until I came along.”
“I have never seen more money coming in,” he added.
NATO spending has certainly accelerated since President Trump entered politics. As of last week, 18 of the 31 NATO member states plan to hold a meeting The recommended standard is to spend 2% of GDP on defense. This compares to just three countries in 2014.
But the biggest driver of this uproar is almost certainly not Trump, experts told BI.
“I would say almost all of the increase since 2014 has been in response to Russia,” Hunter Christie said.
William Alverk, a former NATO arms control expert and current director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, believes that if Russia had not annexed Crimea in 2014 and if Russia had He said he wished he had not launched a military operation. If an invasion begins in 2022, “no matter how angry President Trump gets, we’re going to see a very different trajectory in terms of NATO spending.”
Alverque said some officials privately welcome external pressure from Trump and could use him as a scapegoat for already planned spending decisions for the public. “It’s useful to blame the United States,” he said.
But such politics could work in reverse, he said, with leaders who had planned to spend more becoming irritated by the pressure and changing course.
“It’s not a bad instinct to put pressure on allies,” he says. “What’s his method? Terrible instinct.”
It’s not what you do, it’s how you do it
President Trump’s demands on NATO allies also did not depart from existing U.S. policy.
“This percentage has been going on forever and ever,” Alverque said. “And there is always a general impression that the Europeans are not doing enough.”
For Patrick Berry, a former NATO analyst and current lecturer in international security at the University of Bath, it is not unreasonable for European countries to demand increased costs for collective self-defense.
He said there was “outrage” in the United States, “an ally that twice in the last 100 years sent generations of young people to save Europe.”
According to Alberque, the problem is how Trump has been involved in the alliance, but the relationship is purely transactional and poorly communicated.
In 2018, President Trump suddenly Withdrew the United States from an important nuclear arms control treaty. Alverque said the move is in line with President Barack Obama’s policies. The question is how he went about it.
“He announced it one day,” he said. “He didn’t preview it to any country. He didn’t prepare them. One day he just dropped it and everyone was running around with it. became.”
This meant he was “just annoyed” even with the countries that agreed to the move.
By framing NATO spending demands in a highly transactional manner, President Trump caused “lasting damage” to U.S. relations with South Korea and Japan — leaving it up to President Joe Biden to repair them, Alverque said. added.
The person being threatened is “Banana”
Berry said that while President Trump’s transactional view of NATO’s collective defense is ultimately reasonable, encouraging other countries to attack NATO allies is “bananas.”
“I think there’s a reappraisal going on” among U.S. allies, he added.
If America’s allies are spending more on NATO defense, it’s not because President Trump is provoking them, it’s because they’re concerned about increasing global instability. And one of the people driving this instability is President Trump.
“His comments that threaten America’s future alliances will make countries want to spend more on defense because they can no longer rely on the United States,” Alverque said.
He said it’s wrong to claim that spending increased because President Trump asked for it. “No, that’s because you’re an idiot.”
“Fundamentally, it has to do with the fact that he is trying to discredit the United States as an ally.”
This is a “warning shot,” he added. Not only should NATO countries spend more, but if Trump were to lead the United States again, he could easily strike a deal with Russia that would be detrimental to European security. is.
Alverque pointed to current Republican efforts under the influence of President Trump to block further funding to Ukraine, a move that has only emboldened President Vladimir Putin in the face of NATO.
The prospect that the United States might support Russia, Europe’s biggest threat, is what has other world leaders most alarmed.
“We are in a very dangerous situation, and I think President Trump poses a grave danger to the future of the Atlantic Alliance,” Hunter Christie said.
“And that is actually a very negative development for European security.”