28 March 2024

Thursday, 18:25

TOUGH ATMOSPHERE

Trump’s stress test for NATO

Author:

15.07.2018

As expected, a major newsmaker of the last NATO Summit in Brussels was the U.S. President Donald Trump. In fact, everyone already knew that the event would take place in a difficult atmosphere because of disagreements between the U.S. and the EU due to Washington's decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal, and due to the introduction of American duties on steel and aluminium. In addition, during the summit, Trump expressed his discontent with partners in the Alliance making them wary of the outcome of the summit: at best, regarding the signing of the final declaration, and at worst, the leave of the U.S. from the NATO. But the expectations did not come true: the North Atlantic alliance is still the most powerful military organisation on the planet, although the American president has exposed the most of its vulnerabilities.

 

Germany as a hostage

The most unexpected thing was Trump’s criticism of Germany, for it allegedly “became dependent on Russia” due to the construction of the Nord Stream-2 pipeline. This project is expected to ensure the construction of two natural gas lines with a total annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) from the Russian coast through the Baltic Sea to Germany. It is believed that the Trump administration is against this project primarily for purely economic reasons, as it wants to export American liquid natural gas (LNG) to Europe without competitors. That is why Trump was so angry at Berlin “paying billions” for the Russian gas and constructing the Nord Stream-2. At the same time, Trump believes that Germany spends little for its own security within NATO, hence shifting the entire financial burden to American taxpayers, who cover 90% of the NATO contributions. Indeed, in 2017, the total volume of sales of Russian oil and natural gas to Germany was €19.8 billion.

“We are supposed to be guarding you against Russia. But why you go out and pay billions of dollars a year to Russia for energy? Why are NATO member states, particularly Germany, are buying energy from Russia? Germany is a captive of the Russians. They got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear, and they’re getting so much of their oil and gas from Russia. I think it is something NATO has to look at. It is very inappropriate,” Trump said without hesitation at the meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg.

Stoltenberg tried to find the right words. “The strength of NATO is that despite these differences, we have always been able to unite around our core task to protect and defend each other because we understand that we are stronger together than apart,” he said. Trump fired back: “How can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the person you want protection against or from the group that you want protection against?”. Stoltenberg had only to say that the construction of the gas pipeline was a national decision and such issues were not in the NATO format, and to hand over the relay of communication with Trump to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

As a result, the final declaration included a separate statement that “energy developments can have significant political and security implications for Allies and also affect our partners.” However, there are no claims to Berlin in the document concerning the Nord Stream-2. In the meantime, Berlin will hardly forget Trump's words. According to many Western media outlets, Germany, “the richest and most powerful ally on the continent”, found the “tone” in which the issue of the Nord Stream-2 was raised rather rude and insulting, even if Trump's statements had their own logic and truth.

 

How much is security?

In fact, there is logic in Trump’s statements. He was telling to his European partners that if, in addition to collective obligations, there is a personal business interest, then security can also be considered as a commodity. Being a successful entrepreneur, Trump definitely knows what he means. As always, he began complaining through Twitter saying that NATO member states should immediately start spending 2% of their GDP on defence. Furthermore, media leaked rumours that Trump intended to establish a new barrier, 4%. This issue was not raised officially but, apparently, it was the main topic of discussions and media publications.

Trump was not supported by anyone because 4% of GDP spending is simply unrealistic. Although the decision on 2% was adopted back in 2014 at the NATO summit in Bucharest, as of June 2017, only the U.S., Greece, Great Britain, Estonia, Romania, and Poland follow the new standard. In other words, 4% is a far-fetched limit anyway. At the same time, many observers noted that in trying to achieve maximum economic benefits for the U.S., American president risks increasing the accumulated tension between the U.S. and the EU. Trump's entrepreneurial approach violates the most basic NATO principle of unity. According to the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, the USSR and Russia caused less damage to NATO in 70 years than Trump during 18 months of his tenure as the president of the United States. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said bluntly that Trump's “strange and counterproductive” statements at the NATO summit “destroy the U.S. reputation in the world.” “It was shameful, detrimental and contrary to the current interests of the United States,” Kerry wrote on Twitter. The chairman of the EU Council Donald Tusk reminded the American president that not everything can be measured in money in the security sphere, and that the EU soldiers, together with the Americans, are in Afghanistan.

Finally, Trump, as expected, confirmed Washington's commitment to the Alliance. “The U.S. remains committed to NATO. Additional contributions that we have made prove this fact. We additionally contributed another $33 billion,” Trump stated at the press conference.

 

Four thirties

The final declaration devoted a great deal of space to Russia, albeit there was nothing new. NATO believes that “Russia is also challenging Euro-Atlantic security and stability through hybrid actions, including attempted interference in the election processes, and the sovereignty of our nations.” At the same time, all the allegations were, on the one hand, softened by assurances of readiness to hold a dialogue with Moscow, and on the other hand, were reinforced by steps to ensure its military deterrence. It concerns the deployment of NATO troops near the Russian borders under the new program Four Thirties. The objective is to increase the readiness of NATO forces and the creation by 2020 of 30 mechanized battalions, 30 warships and 30 squadrons, which will be deployed in a timely manner within 30 days. In addition, the members of the Alliance agreed to establish two new command centres (in the U.S. and Germany), as well as to increase the air force mobility. It is also planned to strengthen the presence of the NATO Navy in the Baltic and Black Seas.

As to other results of the summit, NATO once again supported Ukraine in its desire to join the organization. As to Georgia, it was noted that the country “has all the practical tools for preparing for future membership.” Jens Stoltenberg said that “Georgia will become a member of NATO.” However, the terms of accession were not revealed. Macedonia has more chances of joining the Alliance “as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached within the framework of the UN.” NATO members also confirmed the principles of collective defence not excluding that they can apply them in the case of a “hybrid war”, approved an adapted command structure, the creation of a centre for cyber-security operations. At the request of the Iraqi government and in coordination with the international coalition, it was decided to establish a training mission in Iraq, to ​​increase assistance to the Afghan security forces, providing more trainers and financial support.

It is noteworthy that the final declaration was signed on the same day when the centre was opened. Perhaps the European leaders were afraid that Trump could find other reasons to criticise this action. In fact, the Brussels summit ended in a draw. Trump could not get anything from his European allies, the financial issues were not resolved, but the summit adopted a significant final document with seemingly concrete actions and plans. Finally, NATO member states concluded that their “unity and solidarity are stronger than ever”.



RECOMMEND:

338