Washington’s steamy and suffocating humidity of European diplomats wafting through their business suits wasn’t the only cloud over this week’s NATO summit. It had already been clear for weeks that the gathering in DC to commemorate the coalition’s founding here 75 years ago would be overshadowed by questions about the upcoming US presidential election. And that was before President Joe Biden’s disastrous June 27 debate, which made it increasingly likely that NATO leaders would soon be dealing with Donald Trump, not Biden, in the White House.
“The debate between Biden and Trump is like the elephant in the room,” Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow and expert on NATO at the Atlantic Council, told Vox. “And I think if you’re a European ally and you’re watching that debate, you’re probably concerned about Biden’s ability to win the election.”
Speaking to reporters Thursday, National Security Adviser Jack Sullivan denied that any allies had raised concerns about Biden’s performance in office. On the contrary, he said, he “heard a drumbeat of praise for the United States, but also for President Biden, personally, for what he has done to strengthen NATO.” Reporting from more than one news outlet suggests otherwise, but however misguided these allies may be, they have little incentive to air them publicly.
“No European leader is going to come out and insult the US president,” Rizzo noted. “It doesn’t help to come to Washington and tell everybody you’re concerned about this.”
Any hopes that Biden would be able to use the summit to reassure his critics about his fitness for the campaign were dashed Thursday afternoon when he mistakenly introduced Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “President Putin” — the man currently trying to assassinate Zelensky.
Whether he’s on the ticket or not, it increasingly appears that Biden, a longtime fixture of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and a longtime supporter of the transatlantic alliance, may have just a few months left in office.
As Zelensky Put it slightly obliquely in a speech In Washington on Tuesday, “Let’s be frank and frank. Now everyone is waiting for November.
Waiting for Trump
Trump’s skepticism about the value of long-term alliances, which he sees primarily as opportunities for countries to ride freely on American security guarantees and defense spending, has arguably been most consistent with his foreign policy line as president. The prospect of his return has raised concerns about the future of those alliances. The Japanese press even coined a term for this concern: “Moshitora” or “What if Trump?”
There has been a special place for a long time For Trump’s anger NATO, which he called “obsolete” and “As bad as NAFTA(NAFTA, in Trump’s protectionist view, was As bad as international transactions.) Trump threat He has repeatedly said to withdraw from the alliance as president probably will be If he is re-elected in 2020.
Trump’s main complaint was that a significant number of NATO members had long failed to meet the alliance’s goal of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. This complaint was not new – voiced by former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush the same Allegations – Although Trump’s comments misleadingly suggest that these countries are owed money NATO, even to the United States. (They didn’t and won’t — the targets, which are not binding, refer to countries spending on them own Defense.)
More recently, Trump was proud Countries that “didn’t pay” would let Russia “do whatever they want”. This week, Trump underlined the concerns of NATO leaders Had a meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor OrbanCoalition chief gadfly and Putin defender.
“Mashitora” This week in Washington created insecurity for a coalition that might otherwise have had some reason to falter on its 75th birthday, albeit for a very unfortunate reason. During the war on terror, NATO struggled to define its post-Cold War mission in long-term, long-range deployments like Afghanistan, for which it often seemed ill-suited. Just five years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron, hardly a Trump isolationist, called the alliance “brain-dead“
That changed with Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, which brought the alliance back to its original core objective: protecting Europe from Russia. As Sen. James Risch (R-ID), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put it Wednesday before 2022, “NATO was stagnant. We forgot what it was created for. NATO was created for the situation we’re in today.” .”
The most obvious post-war change for the alliance is the addition of two new flags outside its headquarters in Brussels: Sweden and Finland, which joined in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine after decades of neutrality. Allies have also come a long way toward addressing Trump’s chief complaint. In 2024, 23 out of 32 members expected to spend The defense sector accounts for more than 2 percent of their GDP, up from just three in 2014. Trump’s The Allies took some credit for this, like Biden administration officials. But in fact, most of the credit for reminding NATO’s member-states why it exists probably goes to Vladimir Putin.
Bargaining stage
In recent months, Trump has somewhat softened his rhetoric on NATO, saying he “100 sharesStay in the alliance, until the European countries “play fair.” But he still seems ready to downplay NATO’s top priority: helping Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump news Plans to pressure Ukraine US threatens to cut off military aid in talks with Russia Without it, the war will not end, but the defense of Ukraine will not be able to protect.
This week’s summit in Washington, which took place in the wake of a devastating event Missile attack A children’s hospital in Kiev, Ukraine Got some major new aid commitmentsUS-made F-16 fighter jets with dozens of new air defense batteries and much-anticipated announcements Will be on the way to the country From Denmark and the Netherlands. Ukraine was not offered full NATO membership but the summit announced Confirmed Its “irreversible path” to membership is stronger language than has been used before.
NATO policymakers are working “Trump-Proof” Some aspects of assistance to Ukraine, such as establishing a New command center in Germany To coordinate military aid and training of Ukrainian soldiers. But the strain on Ukraine’s defenses caused by a months-long delay in Congress approving new aid this year has made clear how much the international aid effort still depends on US support.
As I reported around the summit this week, it became clear that the discussion was less about “Trump-proofing” — perhaps impossible — than making a pitch for the coalition and its mission to be seen as MAGA-friendly. If not entirely receptive, it seems officials at least reached a bargaining chip when it came to Trump’s return.
At a reception hosted by the European Union on Tuesday night, Ukraine’s Strategic Industries Minister Oleksandr Kamyshyn suggested that what’s good for Ukraine is also good for American business, whoever occupies the White House. “I’ve heard that the Republicans are standing up for the defense industry. We are bringing value to the US defense industry,” he said.
At the same event, Lithuanian Defense Minister Laurinas Kaschiunas said, “There are many areas where we can work with a potential Trump administration in the future if this happens.” A bad strategy, he suggested, would be “if we try to build a moral wall against Trump in Europe. We have to calm down and find a way to communicate with him.” He also noted that Trump’s hostility to the Euro-Atlantic mission was often more talk than practice. After all, US troops were under Trump First deployed to LithuaniaOn the Russian border.
A senior NATO official, speaking on background in Washington this week, suggested that recent increases in defense spending by NATO countries could ease some tensions.
“European allies and Canada should have been urged to spend more on defence,” the official said. “Raising the issue of defense spending was not exclusive to the Trump administration. [Now] We are in a different place. We’ve turned a corner and I think we have quite a few examples to show for it.”
Zelensky notably spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, though it sounded like an appeal to an internationalist Republican Party that no longer exists.
Whatever your opinion of the former president, it’s hard to fault European leaders for their Trump-friendly appeal this week. There are few other options.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told a panel at NATO’s public forum on Wednesday, referring to US complaints about European reliance on American military power: “We have to admit from a European perspective that we were relying on you. We still depend on you. Never leave us.”
