The NATO Summit’s European Implications

In the context of mountains, a summit is indicative of the top of the climb. Unfortunately, in the context of NATO summits, they seem to have only been indicative of creating more mountains to climb. Although we covered the domestic side of the NATO Summit, its European implications are bleak.

Last week, the NATO Summit, led primarily by President Trump fostered an agreement to recalibrate defense spending. The members of NATO agreed to radically hike up defense spending, with the President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, noting, “back to the defense expenditure rates of the Cold War.” But why? To ward off Russia’s encroachment. To quantify the increase, the (nonbinding) target set by NATO was formerly 2%, which only 8 NATO members have not yet met. After the summit, it has been raised to an ambition of reaching 3.5% by 2035. 

However, countries will be able to factor in weapons and ammo supplied to Ukraine when calculating that figure, making it marginally easier to achieve. But the spending woes don’t end there, as allies are also encouraged to allocate 1.5% of their GDP to strengthening infrastructure. On paper, money spent on solidifying networks or preparing societies for conflicts in the future can be helpful. Unsurprisingly, some countries had doubts about this idea, with Spain formally refusing and Slovakia having reservations. This new plan alienates countries that can’t sufficiently spend on defense, like Belgium, France and Italy. Many of these nations have fiscal woes and issues that will significantly impede increased military spending. Interestingly enough, President Trump also seemed to have reversed his previous stance in his first term about potentially pulling out of NATO, or not being eager to defend other nations, now reaffirming his commitment to Article 5 as a result of the defense spending hike. So what are the practical implications of such a dramatic shift in NATO’s policies? Three potential consequences are present:

1. A European dedication to self-reliance gives the Trump administration sufficient justification to quickly pull out of Europe, as no defined transitional period was created. Resultantly, Europe could be left defenseless in the short term, as its defense spending only materializes into actual weapons in the long term.

2. European nations are facing a fiscal crisis across the board, with many of them struggling to keep public services afloat. Increasing spending to 3.5% of GDP may be impossible, meaning NATO nations are making a commitment they simply can’t achieve. 

3. Since NATO’s collective European military is fractured among the borders of each European nation, defense is fragmented and not coordinated. Even if countries can spend enough to meet the 3.5% figure, Europe still will lack the unified military power to credibly deter Russia, or they’ll lack the coordination to sustain a “European” war waged against Russia. 

A defense alliance is only as strong as its weakest link. But the recent NATO summit developments threaten to snap the chain in half, unless NATO nations can withstand the pressure.

Extemp Analysis by: Ty Tan

At the NATO Summit, European decisions to increase spending have some interesting implications.

Question: Did Europe make a mistake pledging more military spending through NATO?

AGD: Go for something funny, as humor in a Europe speech always goes well.

Background: For the background, a few key things need to be covered.

1. What did European nations commit to do at the NATO summit?

2. Setting up the possibility of increasing military spending to be a mistake

It's a simple background that doesn’t need as much.

Answer: I would answer yes for a more nuanced perspective, as answering no is an easier way out.

For my 3 points, I would do:

Yes, because Europe is killing their credibility

1. Being unable to meet spending pledges

2. The Fractured NATO Security Framework

3. Increasing Trump’s Justification to Leave

Analysis + Concluding Thoughts

The 3 points of analysis above are what I would use as points. The European reliance on the US is attempting to be addressed, but the NATO alliance increasing spending isn’t the way to do it. If you say yes, be sure to keep your points distinct and offer a lot of nuance, noting how although increasing spending is good, the way by which Europe is doing it is not.

Read more here:

• Andriy Yermak and Alyona Getmanchuk, The Hill

• NATO

• Kim Barker, The New York Times

• Gideon Rachman, Financial Times