NATO and the Phenomenon Called Trump
NATO and the Trump Barrier: Trump’s harsh statements about NATO worry European partners and reignite the discussion on the EU’s joint defense. The NATO issue seeped into the U.S. election campaigns, causing significant concerns across the Atlantic.
In recent weeks, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks encouraging Russia to attack NATO countries that, in his opinion, do not spend enough on Atlantic alliance defense have once again sparked controversy.
The presidential candidate for a second term emphasized again on his social platform Truth that during his administration, he succeeded in making European partners pay their dues, a result he described as a beautiful display. Meanwhile, after months of tough and lengthy negotiations, the U.S. Senate passed an aid package for Ukraine and Israel, which still needs to be voted on in the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold the majority.
The new declarations by this New York businessman do not leave the parties of the old continent indifferent, to the extent that the discussion about the need for a joint EU defense system that complements NATO has resurfaced. However, domestically, the reactions of various Republican representatives to Trump’s words once again demonstrated that the former president still holds significant power and influence over the GOP.
It’s just election propaganda.
The reduction of U.S. military commitments worldwide has always been a strong point for Trump since his 2016 campaign and victory. For NATO, this businessman’s policy was to ask allies to spend more to complete the U.S. protective umbrella. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that both Barack Obama and George W. Bush held similar positions to Trump.
It is likely that the former White House resident wants to use this issue again for his electoral purposes, and this is at least what European partners assume or, better put, hope for.
Antonio Tajani, Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, said these are strange words, perhaps stemming from an election campaign, and added that it’s not a good message, especially from someone who wants to lead the United States after the elections and invites the Russians to attack the Atlantic alliance countries. Tajani concluded by emphasizing that he is certain that with any president, the relations between Rome and Washington will remain strong.
Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, expressed his view indirectly but with a stronger tone. In a joint press conference with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, he said no one should play with Europe’s security. The Federal Chancellor emphasized how Russia currently threatens our shared security in Europe and added that ‘one for all, all for one’ is a promise of NATO protection that will be applied without limits.
The EU Defense Commissioner
As periodically happens when conflicts arise within NATO, the topic of joint EU defense quickly returns to the center of discussion. The Italian Foreign Minister spoke about this in a press conference with his Argentine counterpart, stating that Europe needs joint defense to be more significant in international politics. Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament, shares this view. During her visit to Estonia, an EU and Atlantic alliance member, she said Europe must strengthen its capabilities and create a new defensive security framework that complements but does not compete with NATO.
Moreover, the Baltic republics, major supporters of Ukraine in facing Russian aggression, which has now entered its second year, are among the few countries, along with Poland, that spend more than 2% of their GDP on defense and are geographically more exposed to Russian pressure. Recent news from Tallinn, Estonia’s capital, reports that Moscow plans to double the number of troops stationed along its border with the Baltic countries and Finland.
Who is Trump’s Target Market?
The race for the White House is unlikely to be determined by major international policy issues, but the Middle East crisis and the war in Ukraine, which fall under the scope of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the USA, are likely to occupy significant space.
For example, U.S. President Joe Biden personally experiences the consequences of Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7 and the escalating tensions, and subsequently, his administration is also affected by the repercussions of this war. Meanwhile, Trump is achieving one success after another among his party members and in the Republican primaries, never missing an opportunity to criticize the Democrats.
Most Republicans have downplayed Trump’s statements about NATO or defended them, cautiously avoiding criticizing this wealthy businessman. Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida considered a hawk in U.S. defense and foreign policy, said, ‘When he was president, I was here, and he did not weaken or destroy NATO.’
Senator Mike Rounds from South Dakota, a staunch supporter of NATO and advocate for sending military aid to Ukraine, said, ‘I think I’ll look at actions, not words.’ Therefore, Trump’s dominance over the party on foreign policy issues seems very strong, and in the coming months, there may be more controversial statements and declarations that become the focus of attention and debate, with the aim of gaining more support.
Trump’s recent statements about NATO have well-known reasons but add new ones, such as overtly encouraging Moscow to pressure its European allies and the implicit link between their defense spending and U.S. support, which should also concern Washington’s other allies outside Europe.
Years ago, such statements would have been considered election slogans, but today’s strategic conditions and Trump’s more radical and determined outlook make these words concerning. For Europeans, the reasons for investing and committing more to defense matters have already existed, even beyond Trump’s exit, but perhaps his statements strengthen their motivation to create a joint EU defense system.
Operational strengthening of NATO’s European pillar and the continuous and sustained use of the EU’s own legal and financial resources are not zero-sum alternatives but should work hand in hand to create medium- and long-term synergies to defend Europe and Europeans.