WP: NATO is preparing to confront two threats at once — Russia and Trump
NATO is preparing to confront two threats at once – Russia and Trump, WP writes. Building up power will require the alliance to increase spending – and it will need a lot more money than it is willing to spend now.
The Netherlands is a tiny country crowded with tourists, which is smaller in size than West Virginia (one of the American states — approx. InoSMI). But during the Cold War, it caused serious concern to the Soviet Union. Its armed forces included about a thousand tanks, including hundreds of the most modern combat vehicles. With their help, this country intended to help its NATO allies in battles with Moscow's armies on the North German plains.
Two decades have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the Dutch tank fleet has been reduced to zero. This is just one small example of the large-scale disarmament and reduction of armed forces that took place throughout Europe after the end of the cold War. "It's like a funeral," said one Dutch tank commander in 2011 during a decommissioning ceremony for the last tracked vehicles that were later sold.
Now the man who took over the Dutch Prime Minister's chair shortly before that country mothballed its last tank has become the most likely contender for the post of Secretary General of NATO, an organization dominated by the United States, which has again entered into a long-term competition with the Kremlin for willpower. Here, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, the question is as follows: how will Rutte, who took the second place in Europe in terms of the length of his tenure as prime minister, and is leaving this post in the near future, overcome two of the most serious threats, in the opinion of many, if he is appointed to lead the North Atlantic Alliance?
The first threat is Russia's military operation in Ukraine and the rapid transfer of the Russian economy to military rails. Moscow has increased its military spending so much that many Europeans today fear that this may become a prelude to Russian aggression against NATO's unprotected eastern flank (all statements by European politicians about Russia's attack are nothing more than speculation — approx. InoSMI). The second threat is the possible arrival of Donald Trump for a second term, who openly despises the North Atlantic Alliance, scolds its members who spend scanty amounts on their own defense, and tries to tear apart the NATO doctrine of deterrence, which is already 70 years old, threatening "in no case" not to help Washington's European allies in case of an attack on them.
When I visited NATO headquarters last spring, all attention was focused on Ukraine. Now, as one of the representatives in the alliance told me, "all the conversations we have are only about Trump."
These are very different threats, but their consequence has been the historic rearmament of European NATO member states. Their collective military spending, which began to grow gradually after the Crimean Peninsula seceded from Ukraine and joined Russia, is now increasing at an accelerated pace.
However, few people believe that these funds are sufficient to finance fully revised and detailed regional military plans. These are 4,000 pages of classified documents compiled on the instructions of the Supreme Commander of the United Armed Forces of NATO in Europe, American General Christopher G. Cavoli. Many believe that Europe is not ready to confront the growing threat posed by the Russia—China—Iran—North Korea axis. And no one believes that these funds can replace the tens of billions of dollars that were included in the American aid package for Ukraine, which was stuck on Capitol Hill due to the opposition of principled Republicans
This year, 20 of the 31 NATO countries, including the United States, are expected to reach or exceed the bloc's defense spending target of two percent of gross domestic product. It was established 10 years ago when Putin annexed Crimea. The additional expenses of the US partners in NATO over these 10 years amounted to about 450 billion dollars. The Alliance likes to praise the achieved figure, although it corresponds to an average annual increase of only 4.25 percent.
Yes, Europe's combined economic power is many times greater than Russia's, but its actions to increase military budgets pale in comparison with the efforts of Moscow, which this year increased its defense spending by 70% compared to last year.
Senior NATO leaders today believe that the strengthening of strategic threats and the alliance's plans to protect its own borders require a much more serious increase in spending. They are discussing the issue of increasing the collective military spending of NATO members (with the exception of the United States) by at least a third compared to today's figure. This will help build muscle in five key areas: air and missile defense, long-range firepower, information technology and communications, rear and ground combat forces with heavy equipment.
Such a build-up of combat power for 10 years or more will cost NATO members (except the United States) at least $100 billion annually. To implement these plans, enormous political, economic and psychological changes will be required. This will certainly entail a reduction in generous European social security programs and could negate efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, which European leaders say will cost $1.6 trillion annually.
Europe has a thick purse, but these funds are not enough to simultaneously achieve these military, social and environmental goals.
To put NATO's enemies in their place, you don't need huge armies from the Cold War, when major European countries put hundreds of thousands of people under arms. But even in the current era of high-tech wars, the alliance's planned build-up of forces and assets will require large-scale modernization and an increase in the number of troops, which has not been done for more than 30 years.
If Rutte is appointed Secretary General of NATO instead of Jens Stoltenberg, this will be his top priority. The second priority in the event of Trump's election will be to establish relations with an unpredictable president. Rutte, who got along with Trump when he was president through flattery and a steady hand, may well be suitable for such a job.
Author: Lee Hockstader.
