LONDON (AP) — When Donald Trump suggested during the 2016 presidential campaign that he might not honor America’s commitment to defend other NATO countries if they were attacked, it sparked widespread alarm across the trans-Atlantic alliance.
With Trump’s “America First” rhetoric drawing cheers from ardent supporters, the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is back on the agenda. But this time, European leaders are recognizing that the alliance must evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century and saying they are prepared to take greater responsibility for their own defense.
A lot has changed in eight years.
First, Trump’s presidency forced Europe to acknowledge that US military support was no longer guaranteed, then Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscored the threat on its eastern border. Meanwhile, the US is increasingly focused on China’s expansion in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as Iran and North Korea.
“Faced with powers like Russia and China, and the United States whose pivot to Asia seems inevitable, we Europeans, regardless of who wins the next elections, must do more to ensure our own security,” Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, wrote in The Times of London over the weekend.
After relying on US leadership of NATO to protect them with overwhelming nuclear and conventional capabilities for the past 75 years, European countries must now play a greater role in financing and leading the 32-nation alliance as their interests increasingly diverge from those of the United States.
“We’re talking about a NATO where the United States is still part of it, but where the United States is no longer the indispensable leader,” said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank focused on defense and security. “I mean, that’s what J.D. Vance and Donald Trump are talking about. They’re talking about a NATO that has been transformed, and where the Europeans are carrying most of the burden.”
NATO emerged from secret discussions among U.S. officials after World War II about how to supply military equipment to Western Europe and ensure a coordinated response to any Soviet attack. The 12 founding members signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949.
NATO’s military structure is headed by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who is also the commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe. The U.S. is expected to spend nearly twice as much on its military this year as all other allies combined, according to NATO statistics.
Trump’s skepticism about NATO was underscored last week when he named Vance as his running mate. Vance opposes U.S. aid to Ukraine, criticized European countries for cutting defense spending since the Cold War and said it was time for “Europe to stand on its own two feet.”
Europe received another wake-up call on Sunday when President Joe Bidenwhose strong support for NATO was cemented during the confrontations with the Soviet Union in the 1970s, said he would not seek re-election. Vice President Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, has supported the administration’s stance on NATO and aid to Ukraine, but she entered politics well after the Cold War and is better known for her work on domestic issues.
“The question is whether she will have the same strong transatlantic vision that is in her blood, as Biden had,” said Armida van Rij, an expert on European security policy at the Chatham House think tank in London.
Trump’s threat to tear up NATO’s collective security guarantee, a cornerstone of the alliance, is based on his belief that member states are failing to meet their financial commitments, leaving American taxpayers to subsidize European defense.
Since 2016, that argument has become less strong.
Twenty-three of the alliance’s 31 non-U.S. members will meet or exceed their pledge to spend at least 2 percent of economic output on defense this year, compared with just three a decade ago, according to figures compiled by NATO. Overall, non-U.S. members now spend 2.02 percent of gross domestic product on defense, compared with 3.4 percent by the U.S.
In addition, the European Union has ambitious plans to boost its defense industry in response to the threat of Russia’s war on Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron has called on European countries to seek greater independence in air defense and move production to the continent instead of buying off-the-shelf equipment from U.S. arms dealers.
The EU’s plans aim to streamline arms purchases and increasingly produce them within the 27-state bloc, a multi-billion dollar investment aimed at distancing itself from the United States.
The risks for Europe, and also for the United States, are evolving. It is not just about Russian tanks on Europe’s borders. NATO, as a defensive alliance, must also take into account threats from Iran, China and North Korea and be prepared for cyber warfare and foreign interference in elections, as well as conventional military attacks, van Rij said.
That means European countries must increase their troops, modernise their equipment such as tanks, fighter jets and transport aircraft, and improve their ability to counter technological threats, she said.
“We should not see this as Trump-proofing, but as future-proofing European security and the NATO alliance as a whole,” van Rij said. “Because yes, while there are concerns about US engagement in Europe … — and the nomination of J.D. Vance as Trump’s running mate has only fueled those concerns — there is a bipartisan focus on China, which in the medium to long term could mean that we see resources being reallocated elsewhere.”
An example of this is the newest members of NATO, Finland and Sweden. They joined the alliance to increase their security against Russian aggression.
As historically non-aligned nations, they have been forced to develop strategies to fend off Russian incursions largely on their own, equipping their militaries with a full range of capabilities sometimes lacking in NATO nations accustomed to relying on the U.S. for commanders and battle plans. Both have military forces, significant arms industries, and large standing armies.
“The Finnish defense people would say… we had planned so far to fight Russia ourselves, now NATO is definitely a bonus…,” Chalmers said. “The NATO countries have the opposite problem. They are so used to thinking about fighting with others and especially fighting with the Americans, that they sometimes get out of the habit of thinking about fighting for themselves.”
The risks of overreliance on the US were underscored this year when the House of Representatives blocked $61 billion in military aid to Ukraine for months, while conservative Republicans argued that the government should focus on securing the country’s domestic borders and tackling the country’s rising national debt.
Although the funding was eventually approved, the delay left Ukraine short of ammunition and equipment, allowing Russia to launch a brutal offensive in the spring.
A second Trump presidency would bring that mentality to the White House.
“Today … we gaze anxiously across the Atlantic at a worst-case scenario in which an erratic, ignorant, self-righteous future American president might abandon us,” historian Max Hastings wrote in The Times. “Trump is right about one big thing: behind an American shield, Europeans have profited almost for free since the 1950s. That is over now, and Vladimir Putin is licking his lips.”
