US divergence sows discord at NATO summit

NATO leaders left Turkiye on Wednesday after reaffirming their commitment to collective defense, but uncertainty now hangs over the alliance following US President Donald Trump's disruptive remarks.

Divisions over defense spending and the security commitments of the United States have raised questions about the cohesion of the alliance and even whether leaders would convene another summit next year.

Although the 32-member bloc sought to project unity through its "ironclad commitment" to the collective defense principle, the summit highlighted increasingly divergent priorities between Washington and its European allies.

Trump's repeated criticism of NATO, renewed demands for Europe to shoulder more of the budgetary burden, and public rebukes of individual allies reinforced concern that the trans-Atlantic relationship is becoming more transactional than strategic.

Speaking in Ankara before joining alliance leaders, Trump made clear that his frustrations with NATO had not eased.

"Despite the fact that I'm very upset with NATO, that we pay far, far too much, billions and billions of dollars too much — because it's unfair — we protect them, but they're not there for us," he said.

Trump also renewed his call for US control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark, while criticizing Spain over defense spending and its position on the Iran war, even threatening to cut off all trade with Madrid.

The remarks contrasted sharply with efforts by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European leaders to present a united front, underscoring growing disagreements over burden-sharing, strategic priorities and the future balance of responsibilities within the alliance.

Domestic pressures

Tom Harper, a lecturer in international relations at the University of East London, said the dispute over defense spending has become increasingly tied to domestic political and economic pressures.

European governments face mounting political risks if higher military spending comes at the cost of public services, Harper said.

"If increased defense spending coincides with cuts to social services and education, this will likely impose domestic costs on European governments, which they may be unwilling to pay, especially should they be facing election campaigns," he said.

"You could say it's an example of the age-old debate over guns or butter."

Harper also argued that the economic benefits of increased military spending could flow disproportionately to the US.

"It is quite likely that American companies would be the primary beneficiaries of increased spending, which is one of the reasons why Washington has been keen for NATO members to increase their defense expenditure," he said.

Matthew Arnold, a policy analyst and visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, questioned whether NATO members could realistically sustain significantly higher defense spending.

"The fiscal concerns are serious," he said, warning that sustained increases in military expenditure could worsen debt burdens and social tensions, while much of the increased procurement would initially benefit large defense contractors, many of them based in the US.

Challenge to cohesion

Lawrence Loh, director of the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the National University of Singapore Business School, said NATO now faces a broader challenge to its cohesion.

"The NATO summit comes at a critical time when the alliance faces an emerging legitimacy crisis," Loh said. "With pressure from Trump, NATO risks bowing to this strongman's demands for increased defense spending," he said. "It is evolving into a transaction grouping of countries that weigh their respective interests with just one member — the US."

The alliance is simultaneously grappling with economic slowdown, political fragmentation and social integration challenges across Europe, while also facing criticism over its limited effectiveness in responding to conflicts in the Middle East, he added.

"All in all, NATO is now caught between a rock — the US — and a hard place, which is all the region-based anguishes in Europe," he said.

Several analysts believe Trump's approach could ultimately accelerate Europe's pursuit of greater strategic autonomy.

Angel Saz-Carranza, director of the EsadeGeo Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics in Spain, said NATO will likely evolve over the next decade.

"Reliance on the US will diminish as European Union capabilities increase, which will gradually rebalance the trans-Atlantic relationship," he said.

Pedro Brinca, an associate professor of macroeconomics at Nova School of Business and Economics in Portugal, also expects the alliance to become increasingly European in character.

However, he cautioned that Europe's ability to shoulder greater responsibility will depend not only on spending more but also on spending more efficiently. Fragmented national procurement would deliver less security than coordinated European investment, he added.

Although NATO leaders departed Ankara reiterating their commitment to collective defense, the summit illustrated that the alliance's greatest challenge may no longer be external threats alone, but maintaining political trust among its own members.

The final declaration said the leaders "look forward to our next meeting", but without committing to a date.

wangmingjie@mail.chinadailyuk.com