The stifling humidity in Washington, which lures European diplomats through their suits, wasn’t the only cloud hanging over this week’s NATO summit. It had been clear for weeks that the gathering in Washington, D.C., to mark the alliance’s founding 75 years ago, would be overshadowed by questions about the upcoming U.S. presidential election. 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 Biden-Trump debate is like the elephant in the room,” Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow and NATO expert at the Atlantic Council, told Vox. “I think if you’re a European ally and you’re watching that debate, you’re probably worried about Biden’s ability to win the election.”
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan denied that any allies had expressed concerns about Biden’s performance in office. On the contrary, he said he had heard “a wave of praise for the United States, but also for President Biden personally, for what he has done to strengthen NATO.” Report from several News outlets This suggests otherwise, but whatever doubts these allies may have, they have little incentive to air them publicly.
“No European leader is going to come out and insult the American president,” Rizzo said. “It would be no use coming to Washington to tell everyone that you are panicking about this.”
Any hopes that Biden could use the summit to reassure his critics about his fitness to campaign were dashed Thursday afternoon when he mistakenly introduced Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “President Putin” — the man currently trying to have Zelensky killed.
Whether or not he remains on the list, it seems increasingly likely that Biden, a longtime fixture in the US foreign policy establishment and a longtime supporter of the transatlantic alliance, may only have a few months left in office.
As Zelensky said Put it somewhat indirectly in a speech. In Washington on Tuesday, “Let’s be frank and clear. Now everyone is waiting for November.”
Trump’s skepticism about the value of long-term alliances, which he largely sees as opportunities for countries to free ride on U.S. security guarantees and defense spending, has been perhaps the most consistent line of his foreign policy as president. The prospect of his return has raised concerns about the future of these alliances. The Japanese press has even coined a word for this concern: “com.moshitora“Or what if it was Trump?”
There has been a special place for a long time. In Trump’s wrath NATO, which he described as “obsolete” and “As bad as NAFTA“. (NAFTA, in Trump’s protectionist view, was The worst of international deals.) Winning card threatening On several occasions as president, he has withdrawn from the coalition, and advisers say he It is likely to be If he is re-elected in 2020.
Trump’s main complaint was that many NATO members had long failed to meet the alliance’s goal of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. This was not a new complaint—presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush both expressed concern that the goal would not be met unless the alliance continued to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense. The same Complaint – Although Trump’s comments misleadingly suggest that these countries owe money to NATO, or even the United States. (They do not and will not – the target, which is non-binding, refers to countries’ spending on their military aid.) king defense.)
at recent days, Trump is bragging Trump said he would let Russia “do what they want” with countries that “don’t pay.” This week, Trump underscored the concerns of NATO leaders by Meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbanthe main irritant to the coalition and Putin’s defender.
The “mochitura” in Washington this week has created a sense of insecurity for an alliance that might otherwise have had some reason to brag on its 75th birthday, albeit for a very unfortunate reason. Throughout the war on terror, NATO has struggled to define its post-Cold War mission amid long-term, far-reaching deployments, such as Afghanistan, for which it has often felt ill-suited. Just five years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron, no Trumpian isolationist, called the alliance “incapable of assuming responsibility.”brain death“.”
But all that changed with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has returned the alliance to its original mission: protecting Europe from Russia. As Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday, ahead of 2022: “NATO has become stagnant. We’ve forgotten what it was for. NATO was created for the very conditions we find ourselves in today.”
The most visible postwar change to the alliance is the addition of two new flags outside its Brussels headquarters: Sweden and Finland, which joined in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine after decades of neutrality. The allies have also come a long way toward addressing Trump’s chief complaint. In 2024, there will be 23 of the 32 members. Expected to spend The United States spends more than 2 percent of its GDP on defense, up from just 3 percent in 2014. The Allies took some credit for this.So did Biden administration officials. But in fact, most of the credit probably goes to Vladimir Putin for reminding NATO members of his presence.
In recent months, Trump has toned down his rhetoric on NATO somewhat, saying he would “do it.”100 percentTrump still seems willing to abandon the alliance, as long as European countries “play fair.” But he still seems willing to undermine what has become a top priority for NATO: helping Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump is said to be Plans to pressure Ukraine The United States may resort to negotiating with Russia by threatening to withhold American military aid. Without that, the war will not end, but Ukraine’s defenses may not be able to hold out.
At the summit held in Washington this week, which was held in the wake of the devastating financial crisis that hit the world, missile attack In a children’s hospital in Kyiv, Ukraine I got some new pledges of major aid.Including dozens of new air defense batteries and the long-awaited announcement of American-made F-16 fighter jets. They will be on their way to the country. From Denmark and the Netherlands. Ukraine was not offered full NATO membership, but the summit statement Did you confirm? Its “irreversible path” to membership, stronger language than had been used before.
NATO policymakers have been working on “Anti-Trump” Some aspects of the assistance provided to Ukraine, such as the establishment of New Command Center in Germany But the strain on Ukraine’s defenses caused by Congress’s months-long delay in approving new aid this year has made clear how much international aid efforts still depend on American support.
As I noted at the summit this week, it became clear that the talk was less about “Trumpproofing”—which is probably impossible—than about presenting the alliance and its mission in terms that could be seen as “Make America Great Again.” If not entirely acceptable, officials seemed to have at least reached a bargaining point when it came to Trump’s return.
At an EU reception Tuesday evening, Oleksandr Kamyshin, Ukraine’s minister of strategic industries, suggested that what’s good for Ukraine is also good for American business, regardless of who occupies the White House. “I’ve heard Republicans defend the defense industry,” he said. “We provide value to the U.S. defense industry.”
At the same event, Lithuanian Defense Minister Laurynas Kaciunas said: “There are many directions where we can work with a possible future Trump administration if that happens.” He suggested that the worst strategy would be “if we try to build a moral wall in Europe against Trump. We need to calm down and find ways to communicate with him.” He also noted that Trump’s hostility to the Euro-Atlantic mission was often more rhetoric than action. Under Trump, after all, U.S. forces were on high alert. First published in LithuaniaOn the Russian border.
A senior NATO official, speaking privately in Washington this week, suggested that recent increases in defense spending by NATO countries might ease some of the tensions.
“The call for European allies and Canada to spend more money on defense was justified,” the official said. “The issue of defense spending was not unique to the Trump administration.” [Now] “We are in a different place now. We have come through a difficult period and I think we have many examples to prove that.”
It was noteworthy that Zelensky spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, though this appeared to be an appeal to a now-defunct Republican internationalist party.
Whatever your views on the former president, it’s hard to criticize European leaders for their pro-Trump calls this week. There’s no other choice.
As Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said at a NATO public forum on Wednesday, referring to U.S. complaints about Europe’s reliance on American military power: “We have to recognize, from a European perspective, that we were dependent on you. We still are dependent on you. Don’t ever leave us.”
“Infuriatingly humble alcohol fanatic. Unapologetic beer practitioner. Analyst.”
