Crisis averted at Nato summit: cause for relief?
The Nato member states agreed to boost their defence spending to five percent of GDP in the medium term at this week's summit in The Hague. US President Donald Trump's clear statement on the mutual defence commitment in Article 5 of the NATO treaty came as a big relief: "I stand by it; that's why I'm here," he stressed. Relatively little was said about Russia's war against Ukraine. Europe's press takes stock.
At least the capitain is back behind the wheel
Political scientist Linas Kojala reaches for metaphor in 15min:
“Nato is like a big ship that is steering an unsteady course through stormy waters. The US captain does not seem trustworthy, to say the least. Some on board would like to jump ship, but there are no other boats in sight. And even the captain is beginning to grasp that it's not such a bad idea to keep his hands on the wheel. So on we lurch, our eyes full of suspicion – yet somehow we move forwards.”
Smaller fish to fry now
This nail-biter has a happy ending, Berlingske comments with satisfaction:
“The Nato summit ended without major drama. Trump's signals [on Article 5] were a vital rebuttal for those who had evoked Nato's dissolution. ... Nonetheless, questions about Ukraine and America's willingness to support the war-torn country remain unanswered. ... But ultimately this is a smaller concern than the one we had before this Nato summit. All Europe should now be breathing a sigh of relief.”
The cost of catering to every whim
The other Nato members are not doing themselves any favours by catering to Trump's every whim:
“To appease the US president, they cut the agenda short, sidelined Ukraine, downplayed the threat from Russia, made empty promises and dodged urgent decisions. ... The intense focus on Trump’s mood and choice of words highlights the alliance’s vulnerability to the president’s caprice. Nato relies on the US to plug numerous holes. They include skimpy stockpiles of munitions and spare parts, air and missile defence, long-range firepower, and the vital 'enablers' such as intelligence and logistics. ... The best that can be said is that if allies find Trump’s approach confusing, Putin will too.”
National armies are not a European defence force
Ouest-France points to a fundamental issue:
“There is a danger that we are arming individual nations while pretending to arm Europe. This would mean that Europe's nations were armed but there was still no European army. And that would go against the entire post-war project. The danger is not unfounded and it needs addressing immediately. If numerous countries introduce compulsory military service (even Germany is considering it), are they doing so in order to convey a sense of collective European defence – or simply to defend their own flags? In 15 or 20 years' time, when the decisions made in The Hague this Wednesday have become reality, it will be too late to ask these questions.”
Southern Europe must show solidarity
Kauppalehti issues a demand:
“As a model pupil, Finland has promised to increase its defence spending to the level Trump was pushing for, although it is unclear where the money will come from. The situation for countries directly on the eastern border is different to that in Spain, far to the south, which is already rebelling against the increase in Nato spending. There is a lot to be done to ensure that the others don't just stand idly by while the countries on the Russian border take measures to boost their defence capabilities. During the Covid pandemic the countries of southern Europe received generous support. A similar level of solidarity is now required to respond to the Russian threat.”
Climate protection and security inseparable
De Standaard backs Spain's opposition to the five-percent target and says Belgium should follow its example in demanding more action on climate protection:
“Climate disaster lead to wars, and wars are climate disasters. After three years, the war in Ukraine has a carbon footprint larger than the annual emissions of a country the size of Spain, not to mention the immense environmental damage wrought. So if we want a Belgian interpretation of Nato's demands, it would perhaps not be so far-fetched to add climate protection measures to the five-percent norm.”