The recent NATO Summit in Washington was an impressive testament to transatlantic unity and solidarity. On its 75th anniversary, NATO is proving to be the most successful military alliance in history. But there are big challenges ahead: along with the question of Ukraine’s future, the security dilemma in the Indo-Pacific region was also discussed. In addition, what will Trump’s election victory mean for NATO?
Here is a translation of the article by Christian Forstner, our partner from the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
The NATO summit in Washington was more than just a self-congratulatory celebration of the Alliance’s 75th anniversary.
It was an expression of rediscovered transatlantic unity and solidarity.
NATO is back in business, a return to collective security. Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine, hybrid warfare against the West, and geopolitical tensions with China illustrate the unstable situation in the world.
Security cannot be taken for granted – conflicts in Europe and the Indo-Pacific are interconnected. Revisionist and authoritarian states such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are working together against the United States, the West, NATO and Europe. They want to drive a wedge between America and Europe, weaken the United States in the international arena, and rewrite the principles of global governance.
The NATO summit finally demonstrated transatlantic unity and solidarity again. This was due to Putin’s war against Ukraine, but also to the outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. He led NATO through the difficult years of the Trump administration without causing any major upheaval in the Alliance and without allowing the worst-case scenario of a US withdrawal from NATO to materialize. It was the last NATO summit under Jens Stoltenberg’s leadership, and Joe Biden awarded him the Medal of Freedom, the highest US honor, for his achievements.
Stoltenberg’s successor from October, Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, waits on the sidelines, while for Sweden it was the first NATO summit. NATO is stronger with new members Sweden and Finland. Nevertheless, one third of NATO members still have not reached the goal of spending two percent of economic output on defense. Germany almost meets this target, but only at the expense of a special fund of the Bundeswehr. In the medium-term financial planning, Germany’s defense budget is 50 billion euros short. This causes at least gloomy views in America.
The future of Ukraine
The measure for the NATO summit was the relationship with Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared for a failed NATO invitation, but instead received: a commitment to a sustainable security partnership, the supply of missile defense systems and fighter jets, permission to shell military infrastructure on Russian territory, and intensified military cooperation. Ukraine’s future is in NATO, and the key term in the summit declaration is “irreversible/inevitable.”
Ukraine can live with these results, especially since important decisions have already been made on the eve of the NATO summit. After a lengthy debate in the spring, the U.S. Congress approved an additional $60 billion in military aid to Ukraine. At the G7 summit in Italy, an agreement was reached to freeze Russian state assets and use $50 billion in interest as loans to Ukraine. Even if the summit’s decisions did not go far enough for Ukraine’s supporters in Washington think tanks, the policy toward Ukraine was not a subject of public controversy this time.
The Security Dilemma in the Indo-Pacific Region
Despite the return to European defense, NATO sees itself as a global security organization. As in previous years, partner countries from the Indo-Pacific region, such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia, were invited. China is a regional and global security risk. Given its borderless partnership with Russia and exports of dual-use goods, China has been called an accomplice and a “decisive factor” in Russia’s war against Ukraine.
NATO is responding to the threat posed by an increasingly assertive and demanding China with a security policy partnership in the Indo-Pacific. NATO must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of its Russia policy in its China policy. NATO rightly says that it is a defensive alliance. But it excludes controversial but powerful opponents from the regional security policy agenda: Russia in Europe and China in Asia. NATO must manage its partnerships in the Indo-Pacific in a way that prevents escalation into a war with China.
Biden and Trump as topics for the summit
Joe Biden’s health and Donald Trump’s impending re-election overshadowed the summit’s agenda. Journalists were interested in Biden-81, not NATO-75, and political, public, and media pressure on Biden to withdraw his candidacy is growing. Every step and every speech is carefully monitored for weaknesses and mistakes. The content takes a back seat. The NATO summit did not change anything: Joe Biden is physically beaten and politically exhausted. The NATO world is anxiously awaiting the November 5 elections.
What will Trump’s election victory mean for NATO? Two schools of thought have crystallized. For some, a Trump II administration will spell the end of transatlantic unity and multilateral cooperation. Others favor a calm analysis. NATO has already survived Trump I and will survive Trump II. Practical cooperation at the military level has been very visible during the Trump years, despite his anti-NATO rhetoric. It is likely that those responsible for foreign and security policy in the US Congress will again use their budgetary authority to offset Trump’s anti-NATO actions – at least that is the hope.
NATO is in a good position today, it is the most successful alliance in military history, as was proudly noted at its 75th anniversary. But there are still many important challenges ahead: Ukraine needs more support to stand up to Russia. And China sees NATO as a threat to its interests. In addition, arms cooperation within the alliance needs to improve – too many different weapons systems reduce efficiency and jeopardize repairs and future deliveries. Donald Trump is no friend of NATO.
Too many countries are falling short of the two percent target, and the harsh reality has returned after the Washington summit. So NATO has no time to rest on its laurels.
