The surest way for NATO to “Trump-proof” itself is to address former President Donald Trump’s primary complaint about the defense alliance.
Namely, for every member to increase defense spending at greater speed so that every ally meets the 2%-of-GDP minimum defense budget target. Trump has repeatedly said that too many of NATO’s 31 other members are freeloading off the United States and that they are doing so even as Russia’s territorial threat to Europe is obviously more significant than its threat to the U.S. Trump’s contention is accurate, even if his delivery is overly simplistic. Top Trump allies such as Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) have also firmly but politely made this case. The problem isn’t that Trump-proofing is complicated, simply that it can’t be done on the cheap.
The BBC and the Washington Post separately reported on “Trump-proofing” efforts at last week’s NATO leaders summit. And the Post carried two points that effectively encapsulate the discrepancy between those in NATO who are delusional about Trump-proofing and those who are serious about Trump-proofing the alliance in recognition of the great benefits it provides to all of its allies.
On the delusional side come those “many [allies who] fear Trump would bring a far more transactional approach to the alliance, and some take seriously his vow that he would look at whether they are meeting their defense spending commitments before deciding whether to come to their aid if they are attacked.”
Welcome to the intersection of arrogance and delusion. This is very silly stuff. For a start, this argument ignores the fact that all eastern-flank NATO allies already exceed (in some cases, exceed significantly) NATO’s 2% target. Considering that Trump has pledged he would “100%” defend any NATO ally meeting the 2% target, the fearmongering of NATO’s imminent implosion is way overdone. In addition, however, the question must be asked as to why the U.S. should automatically defend allies that cannot be bothered to defend themselves.
More specifically, why should allies such as Canada, Spain, Belgium, and others that haven’t even come close to reaching the 2% target 10 years after they pledged to move toward it be guaranteed U.S. protection? How can that be justified to the American public, especially in a strategic environment in which the U.S. faces a very significant risk of a brutal near-term war with China? Such disdain for U.S. concerns and NATO’s burden-sharing needs means that these nations are NATO allies far more in name than in practice.
Absurdly, too many U.S. officials reinforce this delusional arrogance. Responding to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s absurdly pathetic claim last week that Canada will reach the 2% target by 2032 (which would be 18 years after Canada and all other allies pledged to move toward 2%), U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen said that statement “further solidified its status as a valued NATO and U.S. partner.” Cohen made similar remarks after an equally pathetic defense announcement from Trudeau in April. This utterly counterproductive rhetoric underlines why it’s a bad idea to put political donors in U.S. ambassador residences.
Instead of attempting to calm freeloaders who have freeloaded for far too long, the U.S. should be reinforcing those allies such as Poland and the Baltic states, which actually have the political courage to invest in our shared security.
Fortunately, we also have the more serious Trump-proof argument as offered by Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom. He told the Post that “Europe needs to step up regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election. We also have to take a greater responsibility for Ukraine, because Ukraine is in our backyard.”
Bingo. The U.S. should continue to support Ukraine robustly. But as I’ve previously argued: “While the European Union has committed greater financial aid to Ukraine than has the United States, European cheerleaders ignore some key context. For one, the fact that four EU member states border Ukraine, and another EU state, Estonia, has a preeminent position on Putin’s wanted list. The consequences of Ukraine’s defeat would obviously be more significant for Europe than for America. The Europeans also leave out that much of the aid they have pledged to Ukraine is yet to be delivered. This mismatch between European rhetoric and action is particularly stark in key areas such as artillery shells. That needs to change. As does the EU’s tolerance for naked sanctions evasion in using Kyrgyzstan as a conduit for high-value trade with Russia.”
The Europeans need to stop crying about Trump and start meeting their defensive responsibilities.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The top line is clear.
If NATO wants to Trump-proof itself, all its allies need only prove that they have addressed Trump’s primary complaint. Put simply, those spending less than 2%-of-GDP need to spend a lot more on defense now. If so, the alliance will be good to go.