How Trump had his way in Nato’s Hague summit – Firstpost

The Nato Summit, held recently on June 24–25 in The Hague, has been described as both “transformational” and “historic”. “We’re witnessing the birth of a new Nato,” said Finland’s President Alexander Stubb. Following the conclusion of the summit, the White House stated: “In a defining moment for global security, President Donald J Trump achieved a monumental victory for the United States and its allies, brokering a historic deal to dramatically increase defense contributions across the Nato alliance — marking a new era of shared responsibility and strength in the face of global threats.”

Nato is a political and military alliance of countries from Europe and North America. Its members are committed to protecting each other from any threat. It was created by 12 countries from Europe and North America on April 4, 1949. Since then, 20 more countries have joined Nato through 10 rounds of enlargement. At present, Nato has 32 member countries—30 from Europe, besides the USA and Canada. These countries, called Nato Allies, are sovereign states that come together through Nato to discuss political and security issues and make collective decisions by consensus.

The principle of collective security is at the heart of Nato’s founding treaty. Article 5 of Nato’s Charter says that “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” and that “if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

Recent geopolitical shifts, particularly Trump’s stance on burden-sharing, have raised concerns about Nato’s future. In his first term as president, Trump had repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe as part of his “America First” policy.

Moreover, Trump had also declared that he was not going to protect Nato members that failed to meet their defence spending targets. Therefore, during the run-up to the Nato Summit at The Hague, there were anxieties among the other Nato members that if the US withdrew from Nato, it would have enormous strategic consequences as Russia would get emboldened to be more aggressive towards its European neighbours.

In 2023, the US Congress had passed a legislation requiring Congressional assent for any US withdrawal from Nato. Even so, the procedure for withdrawal remains relatively straightforward, requiring only one year’s notice under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Given Trump’s threats in his first term that he would not protect allies who failed to spend enough on defence and even quit Nato, the stakes for this intergovernmental military alliance have been high. Not surprisingly, Trump’s Nato allies spared no effort in putting him at ease at the two-day summit, and he completely dominated the summit.

There are some important takeaways from the recent Nato Summit. The first takeaway is the big hike in defence spending. Nato members have committed to a 5 per cent defence spending target which has to be reached within a decade. It’s a remarkable jump from the current 2 per cent guideline, which too isn’t met by eight Nato members out of 32. Only 3.5 per cent of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons. The remaining 1.5 per cent can be shown as being for “defence-related expenditure”.

Thus, Trump returned to Washington with a deal which he was happy with. The other member states had agreed to increase their Nato spending, which is what he wanted. As he put it, “I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It’s not a rip-off, and we’re here to help them protect their country.” However, not all European Nato members came on board. Spain officially refused to be a party to the agreement, while Slovakia had reservations.

The second major takeaway, which is important from the point of view of the European countries, is that the Nato Summit declaration reaffirmed its commitment to provide support to Ukraine. The declaration called it an ’enduring sovereign commitment’ towards Ukraine’s defence and its defence industry. The declaration also stated that the security of Ukraine contributes to their own, and to this end they would make direct contributions towards Ukraine’s defence and its defence industry.

It is generally felt that the European Nato members persuaded Trump to agree to this in return for their pledges to increase defence spending. Significantly, the declaration stated that contributions to Ukraine’s security could be included by members when calculating their own defence spending. This is important in the context of their being able to meet the 5 per cent defence spending target.

The third takeaway is that there are some important signals about how things are changing. The recent Nato summit communique is much shorter and its language much weaker as compared to previous years. The statement issued after last year’s Nato Summit in Washington had stated that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and gravely undermined global security. It had also said that Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to the Nato Allies’ security. In contrast to this, the declaration issued after the recent Nato Summit in The Hague does not even mention the Russian invasion of Ukraine, though it does make a reference to ’the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security’.

Again, while the Nato Summit held in Washington last year under then-US President Joe Biden had issued a declaration that mentioned Ukraine 59 times, this year’s much shorter declaration only has two mentions of Ukraine. It is clear that other Nato leaders were deferential towards US President Donald Trump, who has for years embraced Putin and sharply criticised Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The fourth big takeaway is that The Hague summit declaration is not only very short, but it is also focused on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. The declaration of every Nato summit after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: “We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.” The declaration issued by The Hague Summit on June 25 conspicuously does not have any mention of international law, the UN Charter or a rules-based international order.

In the unfolding scenario, questions regarding the future of Ukraine are particularly important, particularly as US support for Ukraine has dried up under Trump. Last year, at the Nato Summit in Washington, Zelenskyy was feted by the then US President Joe Biden and secured a pledge from Nato that Ukraine’s push for membership was “irreversible”. This year – despite Nato chief Mark Rutte insisting that remains the case – the final declaration of the summit had no mention of Ukraine’s bid to join. In essence, Trump has ruled out Nato membership for Kyiv, and Zelenskyy, who has been vociferous on the subject before, was quiet this time round at the Nato Summit in The Hague.

In fact, Zelenskyy was left largely on the margins of this Nato summit, though he managed to get a closed-doors meeting with US President Donald Trump. While Zelenskyy was successful in securing aid for Ukraine from Europe, he did not make much progress with the US, which had been Ukraine’s most important benefactor and whose equipment had been critical for checking Russia’s advance.

At a press conference following the meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump acknowledged that it is “possible” that Putin has ambitions to invade a Nato country, but when asked whether money and equipment will still flow from Washington to Kyiv, he appeared to show reluctance. On the issue of giving Ukraine additional Patriot air defence systems, which it badly needs, Trump said that “we’re going to see if we can make some available — they’re very hard to get”. As regards financial aid to Ukraine, Trump said, “As far as money going, we’ll see what happens.”

Though there were none of the bumper pledges of new weaponry to Kyiv that had been a hallmark of earlier gatherings, a consolation for Zelensky was Trump’s remark, “I had a good meeting with Zelensky. He’s fighting a brave battle. It’s a tough battle.” Trump added, ‘Vladimir Putin really has to end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven’t seen before for a long time’. While Trump said that he would talk again soon to Russian President Vladimir Putin to push stalled peace efforts, he made no mention of any possible sanctions on Moscow for stalling on these talks.

Trump called the summit outcome “a monumental win for the United States” and “a big win for Western civilisation”.

However, what this recent Nato summit and the run-up to it made quite clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having the same common enemy.

Europe is focused on Russia as the major threat to international peace, while the US is devoting more attention to the increasingly bellicose China. Their perceptions are not identical at all, and this undeniable fact is important for understanding how global geopolitics is unfolding.

The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.