_martijn_beekman_-_nato__xlarge.jpg "Trump’s dual triumph: deference and defence")
(c) Martijn Beekman
Trump’s dual triumph: deference and defence
Trump pats himself on the back after NATO leaders agree to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035.
This figure is made up of 3.5 per cent on pure defence spending and 1.5 per cent for related expenditure such as developing critical infrastructure, resilience and the industrial base for defence.
A US victory?
Following the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday (25 June), the US president is celebrating what he considers a personal victory, despite the deadline of 2035 being a longer one than he, and some others, had been pushing for.
He is also basking in the glow of a great deal of attention from his fellow leaders, with a particularly obsequious display from NATO secretary general Mark Rutte attracting much criticism in the European media. Many commentators are suggesting that this whole exercise was, in fact, nothing more than an exercise in massaging Trump’s ego and getting the US back on side.
But when Latvia’s president, Edgars Rinkēvičs, who is a firm proponent of this increased defence spending, was asked by journalists, including our colleague at Latvijas Radio, if he felt at all humiliated by all the praises the US president has been showered with over recent days, he gave a sharp riposte.
Edgars Rinkēvičs, President of Latvia (in Latvian):
“It is more humiliating what we have done to ourselves over the years. Now we have woken up all of a sudden and become very emotional. Personally, I am unemotional about the way we work with one ally or another. I am more emotional about the fact that we have let ourselves down up to now, and that everyone has only woken up because someone from outside has told us to.”
And German chancellor Friedrich Merz insists, as he made clear in a statement delivered to the Bundestag just ahead of Wednesday’s summit, that these latest developments inside NATO are not motivated by a desire to do the US any favours. His words are shared by AMS.
Friedrich Merz, Chancellor of Germany (in German):
“We are not doing this, as is occasionally claimed, to do the USA and its president a favour. We are doing this out of our own perception and conviction, because Russia in particular is actively and aggressively threatening the security and freedom of the entire Euro-Atlantic region, and because we fear that Russia will take the war beyond Ukraine. We are doing this with a shared conviction: that together we must be so strong that no one will dare to attack us. That is why we find ourselves in a historic situation. In this situation, Germany must also take responsibility, and that is what we are doing.”
Yet, speaking to Renascença, João Oliveira, an MEP from the European Parliament’s Left group, strongly criticises NATO for organising an event that, in his view, only served to benefit the United States.
João Oliveira, Member of the European Parliament – The Left, Portugal (in Portuguese):
“Donald Trump is neither a defender of peace nor on the road to the peace that we need to build. He continues, like previous American presidents, to manage war and militarism to suit American interests. And let nobody be under any illusions. The increase in military spending being agreed at this NATO summit is to support the US military industrial complex and to enrich the large US corporations that profit from and do business at the expense of death and destruction.”
Oliveira also regrets that Portugal will be spending money on defence that could be channelled into health and education.
But on the doorstep of the meeting of the 32 heads of state and government in The Hague, the Portuguese PM, Luís Montenegro, confirmed that Portugal would meet the 3.5-per-cent target in so-called pure defence spending, without jeopardising other important areas.
Luís Montenegro, Prime Minister of Portugal (in Portuguese):
“We have the prospect of being able to invest 3.5% of GDP over the next ten years. But what is important for us to ensure is that we do this with balance, reconciling all our responsibilities, namely financial stability and, through this, the responsibility we have to ensure that Portuguese citizens continue to receive full social support. So we must not jeopardise any of our public policy axes with this increased investment.”
There are calls, though, to ensure progress is steady. The scenario NATO wants to avoid is certain allies leaving it until the last minute to act, as some have done with the two-per-cent target. Indeed, this threshold is only finally to be achieved by some NATO members – such as Belgium – this year.
Belgian prime minister Bart de Wever told reporters outside the summit that, albeit a challenge, reaching 3.5 per cent within ten years was doable. Yet the country’s deputy PM and foreign minister Maxime Prévot had told RTBF, just on Tuesday, that achieving 3.5 per cent was “out of our budgetary reach”. In fact, this is unsurprising, given that his government is still struggling to work out how to finance the increase to two per cent by the end of this year.
So, you might wonder, why would Belgium sign up to an even-higher target? Because, says Prévot, they have some ground to make up.
Maxime Prévot, Foreign Minister of Belgium (in French):
“We have been one of the worst performers, of course, for a very long time. So our allies’ patience is now wearing thin. This is why we need to show a willingness to get back in line with reliable partners, but at a pace that remains sustainable for our finances.”
Spain takes a stand
Spain was the only country to formally hold back from committing to the higher defence investment target, despite signing the joint statement at the end of the summit.
Prime Minister Sánchez seems to be on board with the level of defence capability required from his country, but believes it is “realistic” for Spain to meet this without paying any more than 2.1 per cent. esRadio reports.
Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain (in Spanish):
“[This is] an investment that we consider sufficient, realistic and, something that is also very important for Spain, compatible with our social model, with our welfare state, with the international and multilateral commitments that are also fundamental for Spain's development, stability and prosperity.”
As such, Madrid seems to have achieved a derogation of sorts, allowing it to chart “its own sovereign path” to meeting the capability target.
Trump’s response to this? Well, suffice to say Spain should brace itself for impact.
Donald Trump, President of the United States (in English):
“I think it's terrible. And, you know, they're doing very well. The economy is very well. […] So we'll make it up. You know what we're going to do? We're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal. We're going to make them pay twice as much. […] Spain is the only country out of all of the countries that refuses to pay. But they'll have to pay it back to us on trade because I'm not going to let that happen. It's unfair.”
Although other NATO allies have their doubts about the new target, none of them have formally asked for the same flexibility as Spain. But, as Belgium’s Prévot points out, this doesn’t mean negotiations have not been taking place behind closed doors.
Maxime Prévot, Foreign Minister of Belgium (in French):
“We may not have [made] a flashy declaration like Spain did, but I can assure you that our diplomats have been working for weeks to obtain the flexibility mechanisms that are expected. Of course, we will embrace anything that can help to ease the Belgian burden, and we are happy to do so. Now, don't get us wrong, we're not going to be able to have ‘à la carte’ targets. The threshold that has to be reached by one country or another cannot vary according to the mood of the country. The very principle of NATO is one of solidarity, and so the objective must be the same for everyone. Although each country must be able to move forward at its own pace, in the light of its reality, within its public opinion and above all its budgetary reality.”
Bucharest, on the other hand, sees no issue with the five-per-cent target. The question is when, not if, says the new Romanian president, Nicuşor Dan. Radio România reports.
Nicuşor Dan, President of Romania (in Romanian):
“As you know, there were discussions on five per cent and 2035. Romania was ready to agree to 2032... Let's see how we balance the economy in the next year and a half, and then we can talk about targets. The target regarding 2035 is assumed.”
https://www.rri.ro/actualitate/in-actualitate/decizii-majore-la-haga-id903095.html
Just an accounting exercise?
Commenting on the increase in European defence spending, Clyde Kull, a former Estonian ambassador to France, Germany, the EU and NATO, suggests to Kuku Raadio that this recent development is more about blinding people with numbers than the actual expansion of defence capabilities.
Clyde Kull, Diplomat (in Estonian):
"It is unfortunate that this summit has become more of an accounting exercise than a credible reinforcement of NATO's defence capabilities. Of course, all the signals they are trying to give are aimed at demonstrating the unity of the alliance. After all, Europe has been in the shadow of American support and defence spending for decades. This change that has come about with the second coming of President Trump, namely the increase in Europe's own defence capabilities, is a painful process. It's not like you can refinance your common needs overnight."
NATO's secretary general, on the other hand, considers that the compromise reached by the allies will fuel a “quantum leap” in the defence of the alliance. Yet he warns that the work has only just begun.
Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO (in English) 1:
“Work does not stop here. This is day one. And part of this requires that we rapidly expand our defence industrial capacity on both sides of the Atlantic. We need quality and quantity, we need to innovate, and we need to act fast.”
The final declaration reaffirms the allies’ “ironclad commitment” to the principle that an attack on one NATO member would lead to a response from the full alliance. It additionally mentions the “long-term threat” posed by Russia, reiterates the allies’ pledge to provide support to Ukraine, and states that direct contributions to Kyiv’s defence can be counted as part of a nation’s core defence spending.
Great, the deal is done. But in an interview for BNR, economist Adrian Nikolov from the Institute for Market Economics in Sofia asks a key question: What mechanisms are available to help the EU’s NATO members hike up their defence spending in the required timeframe?
Adrian Nikolov, Economist at Institute for Market Economics (in Bulgarian):
“On the one hand, there is talk of relaxing the budget deficit rules. That is, not classing military spending as additional budget spending according to EU fiscal rules. In other words, we should get some form of concession from the usual fiscal discipline. That sounds plausible, but most European countries, especially in Western Europe, are already running budget deficits well above the Maastricht Treaty limits. As such, even if they were willing to spend more on defence, they will find it very difficult to do so.”
So, what other options are available then?
Adrian Nikolov, Economist at Institute for Market Economics (in Bulgarian):
“Perhaps the most realistic approach, and the easiest to achieve, is to reformat European instruments. The Cohesion Fund is the most likely because this is aimed at building infrastructure and enterprise capacity in the first place, and these seem the most accessible funds to redirect.”
At Thursday's European Council, EU leaders called on officials in Brussels to present a roadmap for achieving defence preparedness at the October 2025 summit. This should include details on financing the substantial increase in defence spendining.