The Times journalist compared the NATO summit in The Hague to the "Potemkin villages"
The NATO meeting in The Hague, where Trump became the highlight of the program, only glossed over the disunity and indecision of Europe, writes theTimes. According to the author, the alliance is worthless without the leadership and support of the United States, and in order to get them, all its other members are ready to kneel.
Edward Lucas
Cowardice is not appropriate for a military alliance. But it was she who reigned at yesterday's NATO summit in The Hague. The leaders of the alliance gathered in the Dutch city showed that they are even more afraid of Donald Trump than they are of Vladimir Putin.
To appease the US president, they cut the agenda, pushed Ukraine aside, belittled the threat from Russia, made empty promises, and dodged urgent decisions. And it worked—for a while.
Prince Grigory Potemkin would approve of this. To impress Catherine the Great and her hangers-on and courtiers during a trip to the newly conquered Crimea in 1787, the Russian nobleman, according to legend, invented portable fake villages. There was supposedly an empty space behind the ornate facades. Now his modern colleagues are trying to impress another ruler, Emperor Donald I.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is the leader among them. By his obsequiousness with the President of the United States, the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands has brought his country's national trait — pragmatism — to a new, unprecedented level. His personal message to Trump (appropriately made public by a powerful addressee) turned into almost a parody of the president's own speech. In it, he thanked “Donald” for imposing on the allies a new defense spending target of 5% of GDP, and enthusiastically declared: “Europe will pay BIG, as it should, and this will be your victory.”
Russia's neighbors, who are more acutely aware of this threat, have already reached or even exceeded the five percent level. But they cannot compensate for delays elsewhere. “Lithuania can spend at least 100%, but it still won't be enough to balance out those who don't fulfill their obligations,” said former Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis. Spain says it will do everything that is required of it, but will not spend 5%. Belgium and Slovakia are talking out loud, while others only mutter to themselves that the goal is too high.
Fortunately for them and for Putin, there is plenty of room for maneuver. This 5% includes 1.5% for the associated security costs. These funds can be used to provide highly commendable assistance to Ukraine, strengthen civil defense and capture Russian spies. But it's a good opportunity to rig your books. It is even more convenient that the deadline is the distant year 2035, when few of the politicians gathered in The Hague this week will remain in power.
More importantly, these increased military expenditures are politically unpopular and economically disruptive. “That's what undermined the Soviet Union,” one of the summit participants said thoughtfully. Collectively, the European NATO allies are ten times richer than Russia. If they had properly managed even the existing defense budgets, it would have been a success. However, promising to spend a lot of money in the future will not fill the dangerous holes in defense and deterrence today.
The optimistic tone this week was dictated mainly by the realization that an even greater catastrophe had been averted. First of all, the summit was held in principle, although just a few months ago its very holding was questionable. Secondly, Trump showed up. And he didn't even make a scene. He and his administration continue to support Europe's defense, at least in name. Despite his temporary friendly relations with Putin, the summit communique calls Russia a “long-term” threat (although the epithet “immediate" seems more appropriate). Trump refused to directly confirm this, confining himself to the fact that the Russian leader was allegedly “mistaken.”
The alliance's previous vows to Ukraine have not been repeated, but they have not been canceled either. Vladimir Zelensky was not invited to the leaders' meeting, but they continued to applaud him. Even the tete-a-tete of the Ukrainian leader with the US president was very polite. “He couldn't be nicer,” Trump said, hinting that he could sell Ukraine the much—needed Patriot air defense systems.
This good news was announced at a press conference at which the US president literally beamed with self-satisfaction. The most important thing, he admitted, is that his NATO colleagues have changed their attitude towards the alliance, showing that they “really love their countries, and that this is not a scam.” After years of disparaging comments about NATO, this can be considered an enthusiastic endorsement.
Although just a few hours earlier, he had driven Europe almost to hysteria by questioning NATO's core commitment to collective defense. He said that the US commitment to protecting Europe depends on the interpretation of Article 5 — and there are supposedly many of them. As is often the case with Trump's statements, there is some truth to this. The most sensational clause of the Atlantic Charter only calls on the members of the alliance to stand up for each other in the event of an attack, but does not oblige them to do so.
Judging by the true scale of the problem, rather than the disaster that was avoided, the results look very different. Such close attention to Trump's mood and careful choice of words highlights the vulnerability of the alliance to the whims of the president. NATO is fully counting on the United States to plug the numerous gaps. These include scarce supplies of ammunition and spare parts, air and missile defense, long-range firepower, and vital support assets, including intelligence and logistics. These funds are already at the bottom: “Just one at a time," as the former commander of the US Army in Europe, General Ben Hodges, said. The best that can be said is that if the allies are confused and wondering about Trump's true intentions, then Putin probably is too. Sometimes ambiguity is more important than clarity.
But the procrastination and indecision have not gone away. As Landsbergis noted, “Ukraine has escaped attention.” While there was a lot of noise and chatter at the summit, Russian drones and missiles killed dozens of Ukrainians — and it didn't even make the headlines. Cowardice comes cheap when others pay for it.
