The upshot of the Nato summit?
At this week's summit in The Hague, the Nato member states agreed to boost their defence spending to the five percent of GDP demanded by Donald Trump in the medium term. In return, the US president reaffirmed the US's commitment to mutual defence as stipulated in Article 5 of the Nato treaty. The war in Ukraine was only a side issue this time round. Commentators are at odds over how much the alliance's newfound unity is worth.
Protection against Moscow - and Washington
Le Quotidien welcomes the announced upgrade:
“Is this good news? Yes. Joining forces with your allies to secure your own defence means securing your future and your independence on a planet where the temptation to push through annexations by force is growing, where you can use force to impose your own rules and the thunder of cannons to advance diplomatic positions. And we're not just talking about Moscow here; our American ally also seems to have a certain appetite for this kind of politics. The Europeans have said yes to stronger protection for their continent, but they won't forget the dictates from Washington and the expansionist ambitions of Donald Trump, who still has his eye on Greenland, anytime soon.”
A strategic approach is lacking
Nato is putting on a show of unity merely to satisfy Trump's craving for recognition, criticises Trends-Tendances:
“Everyone knows that the five-percent target is just a fantasy. But we're all playing along because we don't want to be hit by Trump's tweets. Is this Nato's strategic approach now? What does this performance say about us? That we would rather pretend to obey than think for ourselves. That we're aiming for a figure that was plucked out of thin air instead of developing a genuine European strategic vision. ... And meanwhile, the real question remains unanswered: are we defending Europe here, or just the ego of whoever shouts the loudest?”
Translate words into action
Hospodářské noviny offers a preliminary assessment:
“The next Nato summit is set to take place in Tirana in Albania in 2027, so we have two years to catch our breath. If this is not accompanied by a truly effective build-up of joint forces that constitute a strong deterrent, we will end up with a Potemkin village. Every potential adversary - Russia, China or any other state - will quickly recognise this and use it to their advantage. The summit in The Hague has thus given the Europeans a reprieve and another chance to get serious about their own security.”
Europe forgetting itself
Corriere della Sera is dismayed:
“These are dark days for the European Union, which is feeling the bitterness of being on the world's periphery. Unable to display even a hint of dignity in the face of Trump's imperial rudeness. Eager to please him. ... And now forced to arm more than it would like. ... It is to be feared that such a politically weak EU will resign itself to the international dominance of force. It will not defend the rule of law on which it is founded, a prerequisite for a long and historic period of European peace and the very core of its identity. It is not upholding the civilised nature of much of its legislation in the face of the arbitrariness of those who bring the weight of their economic and, not least, military might to bear.”
Ukraine deliberately stayed in the background
Kyiv was forced to exercise restraint at the Nato summit, notes Dzerkalo Tyshnya:
“In view of Trump's personality and his attitude towards Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine, this time Kyiv refrained from exerting any pressure on its partners to include the Nato accession perspective in the final document. That would have been counterproductive and only widened the rift between Ukraine and the US. Formally speaking, Bankova [the Ukrainian presidential office] agreed with the plan announced by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte: the decisions of previous summits on Ukraine's irreversible path towards Nato still apply.”
By no means clear where the money will come from
De Telegraaf sees problems with the implementation of the five percent target:
“Especially if the international tensions ease and other governments with different priorities come to power, it could be tempting to be less fanatic when it comes to pursuing the growth plans. ... Trump may have forced the European Nato countries to spend more on defence, but that doesn't mean the money is already available. What is more: where this money is supposed to come from has yet to be discussed. The political parties in the Netherlands are currently busy putting up hurdles as they scramble to explain which areas should not be subject to cutbacks to raise the extra billions.”
Good that we're a member
Helsingin Sanomat points out that for Finland, means more than just US military protection:
“National defence can't be built on the assumption that the Trump-led United States will stand by Europe or Finland. Nevertheless, Trump has undoubtedly done frontline states like Finland a favour. The Hague has committed to a massive increase in defence spending. ... Trump's relationship with Nato is unpredictable, but amid the turmoil it's worth remembering that the alliance is far more valuable for Finland than US military power alone. Via Nato, Finland has become far more closely connected with European countries than ever before.”
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.”