The most recent North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit held in Ankara, Türkiye, on July 7-8, was a new episode of disagreements between its 32 member countries - Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States, Greece, Türkiye, Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland and Sweden - , or, to be more precise, between 31 members and the United States, the leader of the institution.
Donald Trump since his first tenure accused the Europeans - and Canada - of not assuming their responsibilities within the military alliance. He has pushed since then for a more prominent military expenditure, with the expectation it would reach five percent of each countries’ GDP. Currently they spend, on average 2.76 percent of their GDP. NATO members have nevertheless increased their military budgets, partly because Trump says so, and partly due to the war between Russia and Ukraine, now on its fourth year. Every NATO Summit since 2022 - after the Russian invasion of Ukraine - has condemned Moscow and agreed on supporting Kyiv both militarily and economically. Members have also invited Volodymir Zelensky to every NATO Summit since.
But Donald Trump has been ambiguous about Ukraine. His “special relationship” with Russia’s Vladimir Putin has led to questionable support for Zelensky, who, at times, is heavily criticized by Trump and at times is negotiating access to rare earths for the benefit of Washington whereas Trump offers Patriot missiles to Kyiv. To European and Canadian NATO members the present and future of Ukraine and the military strength of Russia are the most important concerns for Transatlantic security. But the leader of the alliance has other priorities. No wonder the Europeans now question how much the US nuclear umbrella protects them against Russia, the PR China - that is modernizing its nuclear capabilities - or both.
Then comes the Middle East. Trump started his participation at the Ankara Summit by deploring the lack of support of its NATO allies in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz crisis. Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General, expressed ironically that Iran is not a NATO member and that collaboration with the US on various fronts is very much on the agenda. Yet he did not compromise further. Some clashes between Trump and European leaders have occurred, for example with the president of Spain, Pedro Sánchez; the prime minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni; both have rejected direct military involvement and logistical support for US operations in Iran, stating the conflict with Theran is “not their war.” France, and the UK have avoided direct military engagement and rejected Trump's calls to deploy warships or assist with operations in the Strait of Hormuz. And in general, European countries reject Trump’s call for help to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Canada maintains a stance of diplomatic de-escalation while balancing support for US and Israeli security goals against concerns over international law. Prime minister Mark Carney has actively ruled out direct Canadian military participation in the conflict, urging both sides to protect civilians and pursue a negotiated end to the violence. Clearly this is not what Donald Trump wants. He intends the Europeans and Canada to contribute to a very expensive military adventure in Iran that according to some sources may have reached 113 billion US dollar - the US Department of Defense says the cost runs between 29 and 42 billion US dollars. The Europeans and Canada wonder if this money would not be best served in supporting Ukraine against Russia. It is known that despite the US being the largest source of military support for Ukraine with 195 billion US dollars in total spending so far, around 85 percent of that amount is spent domestically - that is, in the US - to manufacture weapons and equipment at defense facilities across the country. So, who is helping who?
The Ankara Summit comes at a time when the present and future of the alliance is very uncertain, even more than after the end of the Cold War. Back in 2019 France’s Emmanuel Macron declared that NATO was experiencing “brain death” and these accusations were heavily criticized by some members, but that was the feeling. Thanks to Russia, since 2022 NATO seems to be back, but structural problems are leading to what experts consider lacking relevance in world affairs. Europe has its own problems, starting with the consequences of BREXIT, the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, and the resources required to fulfill the commitments of economic integration. The more Donald Trump insists on more military expenditure by the Europeans, the more they need to reduce funds for non-military activities, including those related to economic integration. But they also understand that in the middle and long terms, Russia will remain a cause of concern, and they need to improve their military capabilities. The more Russia intends to position itself as a European major power, the more the European Union fears losing the room to maneuver in the region, not to say the world. So, at this point, Europe is trap between Russia, the PR China - until now a key ally of Moscow - and the United States.
So, with the political consternation between the US under Donald Trump and Europe and Canada, is there a crisis? Trump’s insistence on taking control of Greenland - a territory managed by a NATO member, Denmark - either by purchase or invasion has led European countries and Canada to wonder if their security would be best served with the United States out of the picture and, probably, a new military alliance.
These facts should be considered as contributors to a very stressful US-NATO relationship:
First, Trump has announced reductions in military capabilities and troop deployments in Europe. President Trump's administration is pushing Europe to take over its conventional defense, leaving European members scrambling to fill the dangerous security vacuum. No wonder Europeans are seriously debating to go on without Washington. It is not clear whether they can do it. But the seed is growing.
Second, Trump has frequently criticized NATO's spending imbalances, labeled the alliance a "paper tiger," and suggested a US withdrawal, eroding trust in American security guarantees, including as already mentioned, the nuclear umbrella. The diminished US conventional presence threatens the deterrence model that has protected Europe for decades.
Third, the alliance is currently navigating a structural transformation. While European nations are attempting to increase their own military production and defense spending, replacing the capabilities historically provided by the US remains a formidable challenge. To start with, the Rome Treaty, where the foundations of European integration lay, exempts European military companies from integrating with each other. This has to do with the characteristic nationalism of European countries that do not trust each other, and this is a sequel of previous wars that confronted them. Mergers and acquisitions of military companies would require sharing strategic information and some defense and security “secrets” and they do not seem ready to do so. Would you imagine Germany sharing strategic, military and intelligence information with Türkiye? Or France with Britain? This provides the US until now with a clear advantage over the Europeans. In fact, of the ten most important military companies in the world six are American - Lockheed Martin, RTX Corporation, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, L3Harris Technologies, and Boeing - against four European - BAE System (United Kingdom), Airbus SE (Netherlands/Europe), Rheinmettal (Germany) and Thales Group (France). Of the four European companies on the list, only one, Airbus SE, is the result of a European effort. The other three are owned by one nation each.
Yet the NATO Summit in Türkiye brought some agreements. Allies announced 50 billion US dollars in new weapons acquisitions and an additional 31 billion US dollars in fuel storage and pipeline investments across the eastern flank. US President Donald Trump stated his intention to lift sanctions on Türkiye, explore reincorporating Ankara into the F-35 fighter jet program, and dismissed past concerns over Türkiye's Russian S-400 missile system. The summit highlighted a surge in military expenditure, with five allied nations (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Greece) projected to spend over 3.5 percent of their GDP on defense. It is not what Donald Trump expected but is something. Leaders addressed international tensions, reiterating ongoing support for Ukraine and discussing recent escalations in the Middle East following resumed US strikes on Iran. Besides that, NATO members, or let’s say the US and the rest of NATO members, agree that they disagree.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
