An Alliance of the Uncooperative: How NATO Went Through Its Anniversary Summit
Published in RBC
(Russia) on 05 December 2019
by Sergei Utkin (link to original)
(Russia) on 05 December 2019
by Sergei Utkin (link to original)
Translated from
by Iana Shchetinskaia.
Edited by Arielle Eirienne.
From the final declaration of the NATO meeting in London, one could see that the participants managed to downplay the contradictions and confirm their commitment to support and defend each other. However, it turned out to be much harder to come up with a common vision for the future.
In spring 2019, the Trans-Atlantic alliance turned 70, so the London meeting on Dec. 3-4 was supposed to mark the anniversary of the organization. Many of the participants were hoping that this summit was going to be the last one for Donald Trump, and at the next meeting in 2021, they would have to deal with a new U.S. president. For now, they have no choice but to persevere and try to gain the upper hand where it is possible, by presenting information to Trump in the most attractive way for him. However, underneath Trump’s austerity and clumsiness lies an experienced political animal who fights to survive. Survival is much more important for him than the results of the summit.
The Ballet of Leaders
Preparations for the summit began with discussions of the fact that French President Emmanuel Macron had diagnosed NATO as brain-dead. The disagreements between Turkey, the U.S. and other members of the alliance were obvious, but it is important to note that the interpretations of Macron’s colorful metaphor went way too far beyond its original meaning. A few political opponents of Macron’s across Western countries used his comment against him by arguing that such statements prove Macron’s incompetence in foreign policy. Trump joined Macron’s critics, even though earlier he had criticized the alliance on multiple occasions.
President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also been a troublemaker. The Turkish offensive in Syria and its recent military cooperation with Russia are now the most significant reasons for tensions between Washington and Ankara. Turkey has hinted that if NATO members are not going to be more flexible with it, especially in the Middle East, Turkey will not cooperate when it comes to resolving such problems as constraining Russia in Poland or the Baltic states. Turkey is not going to officially withdraw from NATO, and, at the same time, the alliance has no mechanism to effectively expel it. Furthermore, Turkey’s strategic significance in the Middle East is overwhelming NATO members, and they would not even think of risking further deterioration over petty fights.
Regardless, Trump was the center of everyone’s attention. At the same time, it did not look as if he had come to London to scandalize other world leaders. It seemed as though he was trying to make an impression on the U.S. taxpayer that thanks to Trump, NATO members were now going to fulfill their financial obligations. It turned out, however, that most NATO members perceived Trump as a crazy uncle, whom they did not necessarily want to confront directly but could still make fun of when he did not see them.
Furthermore, Macron, Trump and Erdogan have to deal with domestic turbulence in their countries. Trump is in the middle of the impeachment inquiry in the United States;* Erdogan is dealing with the opposition and political polarization; Macron has been pressured by French labor unions and “the yellow vests.” For each of them, the London summit was a chance to try to project images of a confident leader in control of the current situation.
Who Is Going To Pay?
In the final declaration, the NATO members also pledged to increase their defense investment. This issue was a priority for President Trump and his supporters. On the other hand, the U.S. political establishment had called for changes in the NATO budget before Trump was elected, not only because of the unfair financial burden on the U.S. but also because the U.S. would probably want to spend part of this money on its defense projects.
Trump’s notorious inattention to detail makes it easier for his counterparts to meet his expectations. Since Trump misinterprets all defense expenditures of NATO members as “a contribution to the alliance,”** Germany, for example, could simply increase its contribution to a relatively modest administrative budget of NATO and present it as if it had fulfilled Trump’s requests. Many countries have agreed to increase their defense spending by up to 2% of their GDP because they understand that they will not have to take any real steps for a couple of years. As of 2019, only seven or eight members out of the total 29 will be able to meet the defense spending targets. Sixteen of them currently meet the 20% spending goal on major equipment (in the United States – 27.5%).
However, even mainstream observers find 2% of gross domestic spending a dubious goal. They claim that this threshold is arbitrary and does not consider the specific conditions of each member state. For instance, for larger economies, the 2% goal means spending more than the defense needs might justify.
A Vision for the Future
The London Declaration of the summit represents more continuity than change. However, 70 years is a lot for a coalition that has gone through turbulent times in the rapidly changing world. After all this time, its members believe that NATO is still relevant. The president of Russia, however, disagrees — he used the summit as a pretext for reminding everyone that, on the one hand, Russia and NATO have had positive experiences in their cooperation, yet on the other, NATO deserves lots of criticism.
Russia sees NATO as a Cold War rudiment, while NATO members believe they can adapt to modern challenges. Yet, the adaptation process is a complex one, and it is not a distinct final state, because the circumstances tend to change rapidly. That said, the leaders asked Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, who is going to serve in this role until 2022, to come up with a framework and organize discussions on strengthening the political dimension of NATO, which is as important as the military one.
At the same time, NATO remains specifically a military alliance, aimed at tackling threats under U.S. leadership. Washington does not doubt that China is going to be its key adversary for decades to come. However, it is very difficult to come up with coordinated policies toward China, both within the Trans-Atlantic alliance and the European Union. So far, NATO leaders have agreed that China’s rise creates both challenges and opportunities. Coming up with this common perspective, however, does not produce any substantial changes. The attitude toward Russia is similar but tougher. For NATO, Russia is still a destabilizing force, but they agreed that maintaining communication and cooperation in certain areas is vital. The final declaration also contained a concealed reference to China – a clause on the importance of the 5G mobile phone network security. The Chinese companies are now the leaders in this area, and the West does not seem to trust them.
Trump's comments about Russia as well as the points in the final declaration were somewhat conciliatory. It definitely looks as if Trump considers the possibility of extending the New START Treaty, despite what a bunch of alarmists say. Regardless of all the existing contradictions, nuclear arms control remains a major goal for both Russia and the U.S., and NATO, as well as the whole world, will depend on cooperation between the two countries.
*Editor’s note: Trump was impeached on Dec. 18, 2019.
**Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.
In spring 2019, the Trans-Atlantic alliance turned 70, so the London meeting on Dec. 3-4 was supposed to mark the anniversary of the organization. Many of the participants were hoping that this summit was going to be the last one for Donald Trump, and at the next meeting in 2021, they would have to deal with a new U.S. president. For now, they have no choice but to persevere and try to gain the upper hand where it is possible, by presenting information to Trump in the most attractive way for him. However, underneath Trump’s austerity and clumsiness lies an experienced political animal who fights to survive. Survival is much more important for him than the results of the summit.
The Ballet of Leaders
Preparations for the summit began with discussions of the fact that French President Emmanuel Macron had diagnosed NATO as brain-dead. The disagreements between Turkey, the U.S. and other members of the alliance were obvious, but it is important to note that the interpretations of Macron’s colorful metaphor went way too far beyond its original meaning. A few political opponents of Macron’s across Western countries used his comment against him by arguing that such statements prove Macron’s incompetence in foreign policy. Trump joined Macron’s critics, even though earlier he had criticized the alliance on multiple occasions.
President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also been a troublemaker. The Turkish offensive in Syria and its recent military cooperation with Russia are now the most significant reasons for tensions between Washington and Ankara. Turkey has hinted that if NATO members are not going to be more flexible with it, especially in the Middle East, Turkey will not cooperate when it comes to resolving such problems as constraining Russia in Poland or the Baltic states. Turkey is not going to officially withdraw from NATO, and, at the same time, the alliance has no mechanism to effectively expel it. Furthermore, Turkey’s strategic significance in the Middle East is overwhelming NATO members, and they would not even think of risking further deterioration over petty fights.
Regardless, Trump was the center of everyone’s attention. At the same time, it did not look as if he had come to London to scandalize other world leaders. It seemed as though he was trying to make an impression on the U.S. taxpayer that thanks to Trump, NATO members were now going to fulfill their financial obligations. It turned out, however, that most NATO members perceived Trump as a crazy uncle, whom they did not necessarily want to confront directly but could still make fun of when he did not see them.
Furthermore, Macron, Trump and Erdogan have to deal with domestic turbulence in their countries. Trump is in the middle of the impeachment inquiry in the United States;* Erdogan is dealing with the opposition and political polarization; Macron has been pressured by French labor unions and “the yellow vests.” For each of them, the London summit was a chance to try to project images of a confident leader in control of the current situation.
Who Is Going To Pay?
In the final declaration, the NATO members also pledged to increase their defense investment. This issue was a priority for President Trump and his supporters. On the other hand, the U.S. political establishment had called for changes in the NATO budget before Trump was elected, not only because of the unfair financial burden on the U.S. but also because the U.S. would probably want to spend part of this money on its defense projects.
Trump’s notorious inattention to detail makes it easier for his counterparts to meet his expectations. Since Trump misinterprets all defense expenditures of NATO members as “a contribution to the alliance,”** Germany, for example, could simply increase its contribution to a relatively modest administrative budget of NATO and present it as if it had fulfilled Trump’s requests. Many countries have agreed to increase their defense spending by up to 2% of their GDP because they understand that they will not have to take any real steps for a couple of years. As of 2019, only seven or eight members out of the total 29 will be able to meet the defense spending targets. Sixteen of them currently meet the 20% spending goal on major equipment (in the United States – 27.5%).
However, even mainstream observers find 2% of gross domestic spending a dubious goal. They claim that this threshold is arbitrary and does not consider the specific conditions of each member state. For instance, for larger economies, the 2% goal means spending more than the defense needs might justify.
A Vision for the Future
The London Declaration of the summit represents more continuity than change. However, 70 years is a lot for a coalition that has gone through turbulent times in the rapidly changing world. After all this time, its members believe that NATO is still relevant. The president of Russia, however, disagrees — he used the summit as a pretext for reminding everyone that, on the one hand, Russia and NATO have had positive experiences in their cooperation, yet on the other, NATO deserves lots of criticism.
Russia sees NATO as a Cold War rudiment, while NATO members believe they can adapt to modern challenges. Yet, the adaptation process is a complex one, and it is not a distinct final state, because the circumstances tend to change rapidly. That said, the leaders asked Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, who is going to serve in this role until 2022, to come up with a framework and organize discussions on strengthening the political dimension of NATO, which is as important as the military one.
At the same time, NATO remains specifically a military alliance, aimed at tackling threats under U.S. leadership. Washington does not doubt that China is going to be its key adversary for decades to come. However, it is very difficult to come up with coordinated policies toward China, both within the Trans-Atlantic alliance and the European Union. So far, NATO leaders have agreed that China’s rise creates both challenges and opportunities. Coming up with this common perspective, however, does not produce any substantial changes. The attitude toward Russia is similar but tougher. For NATO, Russia is still a destabilizing force, but they agreed that maintaining communication and cooperation in certain areas is vital. The final declaration also contained a concealed reference to China – a clause on the importance of the 5G mobile phone network security. The Chinese companies are now the leaders in this area, and the West does not seem to trust them.
Trump's comments about Russia as well as the points in the final declaration were somewhat conciliatory. It definitely looks as if Trump considers the possibility of extending the New START Treaty, despite what a bunch of alarmists say. Regardless of all the existing contradictions, nuclear arms control remains a major goal for both Russia and the U.S., and NATO, as well as the whole world, will depend on cooperation between the two countries.
*Editor’s note: Trump was impeached on Dec. 18, 2019.
**Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "Impeachment: Judging Trump or the Rejection of Cynicism")
Next article![]( "Uncle Sam Divorces García Luna")