https://arab.news/yw9tk
What a difference an election makes. EU leaders who were criticizing Donald Trump on NATO are now finally committing the necessary budgets. This shows that the European stance on the transatlantic alliance was, in fact, an indirect interference in the US elections. Indeed, they were looking to generate headlines for the US media to discredit Trump as an international leader, rather than addressing Europe’s defense needs.
The reality of Trump’s NATO position lies in a short video filmed during a NATO summit in Brussels in 2018. Trump criticized Germany for its dependence on Russian energy through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, describing it as being “captive to Russia” — all while the US held the largest part of Europe’s defense costs. It is worth noting that these are not the declarations of a US president ready to yield to Russia, as relayed by European leaders and American media in the run-up to the elections.
During this clip, Trump also criticized NATO members, particularly Germany, for failing to reach the defense spending benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product, proposing that they not only meet the target but exceed it to make up for lost years. He argued that the US was unfairly carrying the financial burden of NATO, and called for fairer participation among members.
It is amusing that these words were considered reckless at the time, and some European leaders even reacted with disdain and mockery. In fact, Trump’s remarks foresaw the crisis in Ukraine. When reviewing his comments, there are none that could be considered anti-NATO. In fact, there was only a demand for more commitment from Europe to its defense. Today, a record 23 of 32 NATO members are set to meet the 2 percent target, a situation that would not have happened without Trump’s push.
This was confirmed this week as NATO countries acknowledged the need to exceed the current 2 percent defense spending benchmark, as outlined by Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Moreover, a new target is expected next year after discussions with the incoming US administration. Media reports have highlighted that the president-elect may push allies to raise spending to 5 percent of GDP.
As declared by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, European leaders emphasized collective efforts to enhance defense capabilities, while balancing national considerations within a European framework. Nevertheless, pressure to increase spending has grown amid the war in Ukraine and recent developments on the battlefield. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, echoed by European leaders, including Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo and his Swedish counterpart Ulf Kristersson, are now highlighting the importance of Europe taking greater responsibility for its security.
Today, a record 23 of 32 NATO members are set to meet the 2 percent target, a situation that would not have happened without Trump’s push.
Khaled Abou Zahr
In that regard, proposals for more defense cooperation and funding are anticipated next year. There is a need for a broader European defense integration. Yet, looking at the fragmentation of the market, this needs to be done within the transatlantic alliance and not as a substitute for it. Many are seeking to advocate a new defense pact in Europe under the broad title of sovereignty. Analysts call for a more coordinated European defense but, realistically and unfortunately, none of the European military leaders would be willing to sacrifice national industry for a mutual European defense — not the UK, France, Italy, or Germany. As we know from history, this kind of mutual approach happens only after a crisis. As a reminder, it was the case on the financial level after the banking collapse of 2008.
Mitsotakis also advocated smarter, more flexible allocation of defense funds at both national and EU levels. This is the right approach. There is definitely a need to be more rational in order to show real commitment to a collaborative, not to say unified, defense project. This could be in the form of joint procurement of military equipment to reduce costs, a push for greater standardization, and improved interoperability. There are already great and encouraging initiatives led by the European Defense Fund in that direction.
Consolidation of redundant military facilities, including training centers and maintenance bases, should also be considered. This would avoid aggravating national sensitivities, and allow greater efficiency and improved funding for better developments, especially as deep tech is growing in importance.
In that sense, we should also pay attention to recent news from the US about Palantir and Anduril, two of the country’s largest defense technology companies, joining forces with tech groups to bid for Pentagon contracts. The objective is to improve cutting-edge defense and weapons capabilities, while creating a real challenge to legacy programs and defense firms. This is another sign that Europe could address evolving challenges in a more competent manner, while engaging with new firms.
Indeed, Europe should give greater focus to cybersecurity, including shared digital defense infrastructure and research into emerging threats. A greater alignment between EU and NATO priorities could enhance strategic investments, ensuring a more effective use of resources. There is also a need to gain the support of EU citizens, as this strengthens the legitimacy of increased defense spending. Those living in EU countries need to understand the necessity of such investments in safeguarding Europe’s stability.
- Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.