The recent NATO summit in Washington concluded with a mix of progress and disappointment, particularly concerning the developments in the war in Ukraine and Kyiv’s membership aspirations. While no specific timetable was established for Ukraine’s accession, NATO reaffirmed its “irreversible” path towards membership. Although this step does not guarantee immediate joining, it offers a potential fast track for Kyiv once conditions are fulfilled. In addition to the emphasis on Ukraine, the summit also saw NATO’s reaffirmation of its commitment to collective defence and bolstering deterrence against emerging threats.
The summit held special significance not only because it marked NATO’s 75th anniversary but also due to the context in which it took place. It happened as the alliance faced unprecedented challenges since the end of the Cold War, not just because of the Russian military operation in Ukraine and the rise of China but also due to internal challenges from the West itself. The nation that serves as the backbone and formidable force of this alliance, the United States, is now the focal point of global attention, particularly NATO’s attention. European allies are anxiously anticipating the developments in Washington this year, especially with the potential return of former President Donald Trump to the White House, carrying the legacy of his previous four years in office regarding defence commitments, political stances, and even trade and economic relations. During his first presidency, Trump’s approach to the alliance was unprecedented, characterised by a deal-making style that sowed doubts about the US commitment to Article 5, the cornerstone of NATO’s collective defence principle. Despite steps taken by the Trump administration to bolster NATO’s deterrence capabilities, such as deploying additional troops to Eastern Europe and supporting initiatives to enhance NATO’s readiness, his sharp criticisms highlighted underlying tensions within the alliance.
European concerns are now greater than during Trump’s first term, as the challenges facing Europe are described as existential. Europeans fear that Trump may exert more pressure regarding burden sharing. He has made his stance on Article 5 clear, indicating that he would not defend members unless they met Washington’s specified spending levels. Despite European commitments to significantly increase defence spending, such as Germany doubling its defence budget, there is growing concern about Trump’s possible demands that they bear even higher costs, both for defence and reconstruction. Europeans also fear his plan to end the war, which might involve painful territorial concessions, a prospect they have consistently opposed.
* The writer is an assistant researcher at TRENDS Research & Advisory
REEM EBRAHIM ALHOSANI*
ALETIHAD
