Sophia Besch
The Europe Program in Washington explores the political and security developments within Europe, transatlantic relations, and Europe’s global role. Working in coordination with Carnegie Europe in Brussels, the program brings together U.S. and European policymakers and experts on strategic issues facing Europe.Learn More
The NATO summit at The Hague this week delivered what some feared it might not: a headline agreement that kept the alliance intact. The “five for-five” deal—5 percent of GDP spent on defense in exchange for a reaffirmation of NATO’s Article 5—was tailored to appeal to U.S. President Donald Trump and to demonstrate to the American public that European allies are finally shouldering more of the burden. The agreement provided political cover for those in Washington who still believe in NATO. It also avoided an open crisis with a president openly skeptical of the alliance he is once again meant to lead.
Yet in securing that outcome, allies paid a political and strategic price. The alliance emerged alive but diminished. Secretary General Mark Rutte’s performance at the summit typified the mood. His sycophantic praise of Trump betrayed not just diplomatic pragmatism, but a loss of institutional self-respect. With the theatrics concluded, allies must now reckon with what was actually agreed—and how little the new targets say about NATO’s ability to confront the threats it faces.
The 5 percent target is made up of two components: 3.5 percent for defense and 1.5 percent for dual-use infrastructure, civil preparedness, and efforts to strengthen the alliance’s defense industrial base. The 1.5 percent category is particularly susceptible to creative accounting, with allies potentially tempted to reclassify civilian infrastructure projects as security spending. The goal is not without merit—NATO does require better mobility, resilience, and logistics—but the door is wide open to manipulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment