[ad_1]
Republican presidential candidate and former US president Donald Trump speaks during his campaign campaign at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, USA, August 12, 2023. Reuters/Evelyn Hochstein
JNS.org – When former President Donald Trump speaks, his head tends to explode, often for good reason. His recent comments about NATO, saying he won’t protect European countries that don’t pay their share in the alliance, set off alarms not just at home but across the Atlantic. But in Trump’s case, it is possible to despise the messenger and recognize that his message has some value.
At a recent rally in South Carolina, Trump caused confusion by talking about conversations he had with foreign leaders while president. Trump says he will not only “not protect” NATO members who are behind on payments or don’t meet defense spending requirements, but will encourage Russia to “do whatever they want.” He claimed to have informed the person.
In response, European Council President Charles Michel said that President Trump’s comments “serve only President Putin’s interests.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines our overall security, including that of the United States.”
These are legitimate concerns and illustrate the real consequences that could occur if President Trump’s words become U.S. policy.
But at the same time, Michel himself acknowledged that Trump’s comments emphasized the importance of European investment in the continent’s “strategic autonomy” and “initial efforts” to strengthen defense capabilities. Ta. European countries have already started that process and should do so.
According to the 2023 NATO report, Russian and Chinese defense spending has increased by 277% and 566%, respectively, since 2000, while European investment has remained flat. Despite signing the 2014 Defense Investment Pledge after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, of the top five European NATO allies only Poland and the UK kept their commitments to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence. There were only two countries. According to 2023 estimates, they spent 3.9% and 2.07%, respectively. Only 11 of the 31 NATO members are expected to be able to meet their defense obligations in 2024.
However, there is some movement on this issue. Germany is on track to meet its goal of spending 2% of its GDP on defense in 2024, and the EU has pledged $54 billion to Ukraine, relieving some of the US aid burden.
The existing NATO-based global security architecture can be understood as a triangle with the United States at the apex and the NATO-Israel alliance forming a narrow base. Such triangles are very unstable. Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s ongoing power struggle, and Iran’s malign actions are proof of this.
The United States, Europe, Israel, and all Western countries would prefer a militarily stronger Europe. After decades of neglect, European countries need to strengthen their military capabilities and reassess their strategic partnerships in key areas such as defence, energy, security, and supply chains for essential goods and technology.
Understanding this, European countries have forged deeper and broader relationships with Israel. Germany is currently Israel’s largest defense trading partner and has acquired the Arrow missile defense system.
Central and Eastern European countries, led by Poland, fear Russian aggression and are aligned with Israel due to shared strategic interests. European countries are considering friendly trade in essential goods with Israel and other Abraham Accord countries. Saudi Arabia is not expected to be far behind.
What does this mean for the Western Alliance and the United States?
Assuming that the United States maintains its position as the world’s greatest military power, it will remain at the top of the global security triangle. But if Europe and Israel align their strategic interests and invest commensurately in their respective defense and security capabilities, the triangle will widen and become more stable and able to better withstand and confront global instability. A triode is formed.
Furthermore, strategically and militarily strengthening Europe and Israel would ease the burden on the United States.
Mr. Trump is often his own worst enemy, relying on excessive and overbearing rhetoric as a means of persuasion. But in this case, as far-fetched as many would think, his words contained an important caveat.
In other words, there may come a day when Europe can no longer depend on the United States for its protection. As a result, European leaders need to protect their countries’ national interests.
[ad_2]
Source link
