Chiefs of Defence of NATO Members Meet
Dr. Devender Kumar
NATO's military authority recently met with The Chief of Defence from different NATO countries at its Headquarters in Brussels to discuss Trump's 2.0 and how to readjust to the global challenges in the likely uncertain US foreign policy under the Trump 2.0 Administration. In particular, the discussion focussed on Trumps demand for “payment from NATO” countries for protection, and no ‘pledges on defence’.
NATO has strengthened its position in Baltic and Eastern Europe which had antagonized Russia due to its actions in Ukraine and Georgia creating the possibility of conflict between Russia and NATO. Russia is emboldened and its defence cooperation under the 'Comprehensive Strategic Partnership' with military connotations with China, Iran, and North Korea to counter threats. For instance, North Korea has sent soldiers to Russia to fight against Ukraine which marks a token of support something NATO failed to do in the case of Ukraine.
Mark Rutte, Chief of NATO had warned in November last year by stating that Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea are “working together” and pose “threats” that “extend beyond Europe”. According to him, such cooperation is a bigger threat to the US than to NATO since Russia is supplying “latest technology” to these countries for their support to Moscow. NATO therefore during the recent meeting requested the countries to have a “wartime mindset” and urged them to “prepare for warfare and increase defence budget”.
There are seven reasons why NATO needs strengthen the grouping against the backdrop of receding deterrence.
First, the deterrence factor of NATO is receding due to the ongoing Ukraine-Russia War and its failure to stop the war. Nevertheless, the membership of NATO has increased to 32 with Sweden being the latest country to join. Despite being a security alliance NATO has drifted from its duty to provide a regional security umbrella to the European continent despite having a maximum number of members. Another factor for receding deterrence is the statements issued by leaders i.e. Admiral Rob Bauer, the Chair of the NATO Military Committee stated that being a member of the organization ‘does not give protection’ and support is “not charity”. He further highlighted that support for Ukraine results from the “political interests of the parties” therefore internal differences and disagreements are emerging on security matters among the NATO members.
Second, the raising defence expenditure is major issue for NATO. In the part, from President Eisenhower to Trump, all US presidents have requested Europe to “share the burden of collective defence”. The ‘Wales Summit Declaration made it mandatory for European countries to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on security, but according to a report from NATO 9 out of the 32 member states are yet to meet this target. Further, the US remains the primary contributor to the defence budget of NATO and in 2023 it contributed $916 billion.
Third, there is ambiguity regarding US support for NATO under Trump 2.0 as he embarked on reducing government spending. The ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ has been introduced and there will be major challenges for NATO in procuring funding from the US under Trump 2.0 presidency as his focus will be on domestic issues instead of increasing government spending. Trump wants to end the ongoing Ukraine-Russia War, and has demanded funds from member countries for protection making the ‘collective defence’.
Fourth, the NATO rivals have strengthened collaboration and a resistance club against West-led NATO via military cooperation under the ‘comprehensive strategic partnership’ has emerged. China signed this partnership with Russia in 2023 and emphasized on ‘global balance of power’, ‘mutual interest’, and ‘natural responsibility’ to protect the core interest. These countries are transferring sophisticated weapons and technology among themselves to deter NATO.
Fifth, the ‘America first’ approach and Trump’s unclear stand on ‘defence of Taiwan’ and protection of military partners has created a question mark on the effectiveness of NATO as a military alliance which has now expanded to include New Zealand, Australia, Republic of Korea and Japan.
Sixth, Axis-shift is being pursued by NATO members, recently Türkiye despite being a NATO member, tried for membership of ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization’ (SCO) and BRICS; it played a ‘balancing act’. Hence it is not only the anti-American Axis at play but also an ‘axis-shift’ being pursued by NATO members to move away from military nuances of the grouping to explore the economic possibilities. The collective decision mechanism for highlighting power as a bloc within NATO appears to be receding as members are pursuing membership of new grouping.
Seven, the ‘defend and deter’ mechanism of NATO appears to have failed in the Euro-Atlantic region. In the Ukraine and Russia War, the NATO has not come out strong militarily, but used diplomatic and economic manners against the adversary. It has become challenging when the rivals are opting for ‘military modernization’ and NATO calls for strengthening the grouping.
Trump's transactional foreign policy is less likely to fund military and environmental projects globally hence countries eyeing NATO membership must work to strengthen diplomacy and dialogue for global peace and security as NATO counts days as a symbol of collective power.
Dr. Devender Kumar is Assistant Professor at the Center of Excellence for Geopolitics and International Studies (CEGIS), REVA University.
