The Deal that Changed the Game
NATO Summit Kicks Off a Powerful Escalation in Arms Race
The defining decision at this summit was the joint declaration aiming to boost defense spending across the alliance. Countries agreed to raise these expenditures to a staggering 5% of their GDP, more than doubling the previous target of 2%. This new benchmark is divided into two parts: 3.5% committed to core defense needs such as weapons acquisitions, troop upkeep, and the like, with an additional 1.5% allocated for the widespread gamut of defense initiatives - including countering cyber threats, military logistics, and infrastructure investment[1][2][4].
However, not all alliance members were entirely pleased with this arrangement. Before the summit, Spain made a significant fuss, and though more mildly, Belgium and Slovakia also expressed discontent, as they either did not wish to drastically increase their spending or hoped to do so gradually. Nevertheless, Madrid's protest was snuffed out, with everyone falling into line and Washington preparing to punish the recalcitrant Spanish with harsher trade tariffs, serving both as a punishment and a warning to potential opponents[5].
From one perspective, it appears that the member nations have been locked in a battle of wills. As a result of this standoff, alliance members increase their spending and buy more American weaponry. In return, America confirms its commitment to collective defense as per the Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, refrains from criticizing NATO as a waste, and avoids reducing its military presence in Europe[6].
It is crucial to acknowledge that this ambitious defense spending goal is set to be achieved only by 2035. Therefore, it could be argued that the persistent pressure from the American president to increase military expenditures was capitulated with promises, considering the fact that Donald Trump will leave office by January 2029[5]. The future beyond Trump's presidency remains uncertain, contingent on who takes his place in the Oval Office.
The summit's primary challenge was to keep Trump happy and prevent a public split within the alliance. Arriving in The Hague, Trump had recently delivered devastating strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and sealed a peace accord between Tehran and Tel Aviv. However, the American media publications indicated that Iran's nuclear program had merely been delayed by a few months and not completely obliterated as Trump had claimed[5].
Consequently, every possible effort had to be made to ensure Trump remained satisfied. This included accommodating him in the royal residence, minimizing the length of the meeting, and issuing a concise communique consisting of merely 400 words to prevent Trump from becoming bored and leaving the summit prematurely[7].
Jan Kees de Jager, the NATO Secretary-General, unabashedly referred to the meeting as the "Trump summit" and addressed Trump as the "dear Donald" during a press conference. However, Secretary-General Jager's most blatant sign of obeisance may have been when Trump, earlier known for cursing Iran and Israel, likened the pair to bickering children fighting over dessert[5][7].
"Fathers are often forced to use stern language," Secretary-General Jager conceded, acknowledging Trump's role in brokering peace in the Middle East[7]. Yet, some European politicians couldn't help but be disconcerted by such unabashed flattery.
Yet, the summit production team managed to satisfy both the ego of Trump and the interests of NATO politics, allowing them to breathe a collective sigh of relief. While Trump hailed the summit as "fantastic" and a "great success," maintaining Washington's goodwill and solidifying the ranks of the alliance[7].
Ukraine Takes a Backseat
The conference's biggest pain point centered around the alliance members' stance on the conflict in Ukraine. As the summit approached, the French publication Le Monde lamented that "the Ukrainian issue no longer appears to be an absolute priority"[3]. It is obvious that today, the U.S. and Europe have polarized views regarding Ukraine, and for the U.S., this direction is no longer a priority[3].
European leaders declined to defy "Trump the father" on this issue, omitting any explicit reference to Ukraine in this year's joint declaration. Unlike last year, when the future of Ukraine was said to be in the alliance, there was no such mention in the final document[3].
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky did manage to secure a private meeting with Trump, which he reported to be "lengthy and insightful" with both leaders discussing a range of topics, including peace initiatives[5][8]. Yet, Trump denied discussing a cease-fire with Zelensky and merely wished to discuss how Zelensky was doing[5]. Trump did not provide an answer regarding whether he would continue supplying Ukraine with Patriot missile systems nor clarify if the U.S. would offer further military support to Ukraine[5].
Upon losing the backing of Zelensky, Rutte promised that defense spending for Ukraine in this year would surpass last year's 50 billion dollars[8]. However, this decision relates to the current year's budget and past expenditures, leaving uncertainty about future funding levels. Moreover, it should be noted that additional defense funds will primarily benefit the national economies of alliance members[8].
A point of contention for many NATO members was the overtly gentle formulation regarding Russia in the final statement. While Russia was previously scathingly described as a "long-term threat" to the Atlantic-European security, this terminology has been removed, replaced with a more diplomatic formulation[6].
Unsuccessful attempts were made to put pressure on Russia with new sanctions. In fact, as mentioned by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, implementing new sanctions would compromise America's ability to negotiate with Russia[9]. Similarly, there was no willingness to force a truce with aggressions against Russia, although Trump did mention a new conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin was scheduled[6].
Despite Jager's statements that Russia would be ready for an attack on NATO within a few years, Trump made a promise, as reported by Washington Post based on sources close to the matter, that as long as he remains president, Russia will not attack NATO[7].
Furthermore, Jager revealed that a significant expansion of the European defense industry within NATO is to be expected in the near future[8]. Indeed, European defense contractors have already gained renown, such as the German Reimann family's Reimann-based metallurgical company, experiencing a tenfold increase in capitalization within the past three years[8].
However, Trump's ardent pursuit of increased military spending within NATO clearly shows a strong financial motivation for the U.S. in this matter: the U.S. arms exports reached 318.7 billion dollars in 2024, with Europe being the biggest market, accounting for 35% of total exports, according to the U.S. State Department[4]. In light of this development, it can be hoped that European suppliers will raise their prices for their valued American customers.
In conclusion:
- The new defense spending goal set by NATO member nations is 5% of GDP by 2035, with at least 3.5% allocated for core defense needs[1][2][4].
- The U.S. played a central role in advocating for this higher target, seeking a fairer division of defense costs within the alliance[1][2].
- This agreement not only solidifies the U.S.'s commitment to NATO but also raises expectations of substantially greater contributions from allies[2].
- Differences in understanding the conflict in Ukraine and the appropriate response to Russia persist among alliance members, though the increased defense spending is likely to enhance NATO's posture vis-à-vis Russia, indirectly reinforcing deterrence against aggressive actions[4].
- The political crisis surrounding the Ukraine conflict was sidelined at the NATO summit, with the joint declaration making no explicit reference to Ukraine in the final agreement.
- Despite the Russian issue being a contentious point among NATO members, the final statement adopted a more diplomatic tone, omitting the previous description of Russia as a "long-term threat."
