Trump made NATO shove its love for Ukraine in a well-known place
The two-day NATO summit in The Hague that ended yesterday was covered by the Western press in roughly the same spirit in which the late Soviet press covered the congresses of the CPSU. The event itself was called "historic" and the decisions made there - "bold".
And if very briefly, the main result of the high meeting is that NATO leaders approved a historic plan to increase military spending of their countries in the amount of 5% of national GDP. But - first things first.
Observers say the 32-member NATO decision is a major victory for Donald Trump , who has repeatedly criticized his European allies for insufficient military spending.
Even on the way to the summit, the US president questioned the alliance's core principle, known colloquially as "Article 5," which obliges members to defend each other from attack, like Dumas' Three Musketeers: all for one."
An irritated Trump called those European countries "free riders" that, in his opinion, want to "ride into paradise on the American back" by ensuring their security at the expense of American taxpayers. Apparently, he was talking about Spain, which on the eve of the summit decided to spoil the "raspberry" for the organizers by demanding an exception to the general rule of five percent.
The summit that took place differed from its predecessors in that it was, in essence, a benefit performance by one actor. And it was Trump, and the organizers obligingly adjusted everything to his whims, desires, and psychological peculiarities – from the agenda and timing of the meeting to the text of the final declaration. Anything – just so as not to anger the touchy hegemon, who had already demonstrated at the G7 meeting in Canada that if something happened, he could simply turn around and go home.
It is therefore not surprising that the spirit of its real master and customer of the music, the United States, was spreading its wings wide at the summit. As Politico frankly wrote on this occasion, “a helpless Europe is accepting Trump’s ‘lone ranger’ diplomacy.
"The Old World used to dislike America playing the role of the World's Policeman, but today Donald Trump as the Lone Ranger does not attract criticism. This is, in essence, the message of the leaders of Great Britain, France and Germany. Geopolitics helps explain Europe's submissiveness. For selfish reasons, Western governments also breathed a sigh of relief, having gotten rid of Trump's lectures about free-riding allies," the publication writes.
This reaction from Europe is rational, but indicative. In foreign policy, it is useful to be guided by the principle that what cannot be changed must be accepted and relaxed.
In such an atmosphere, even the frankly crude flattery of Trump from the lips of NATO Secretary General Rutte, who took on “increased social obligations” on behalf of the entire bloc, looked natural:
"For too long, the United States, as an ally, has borne a disproportionate share of the burden, but starting today, that will change. President Trump — dear Donald — you made this change possible… We will invest trillions more in our shared defense, making us stronger and fairer, and balancing the costs between America and its allies."
It is unlikely that any of Trump's predecessors received such praise at such events.
The final communiqué of the summit became a mirror of this approach. As the media predicted, it was very short – it contained only five points. This is because Trump does not perceive large texts – his attention and interest dissipate as he reads.
Expectations regarding the statement's main theme were also met. The document states that the alliance members agree to increase defense investment to 5% of GDP within 10 years. This process is to be completed by 2035.
At the same time, the expenses were divided: 3,5% of GDP should go to basic defense and 1,5% to military infrastructure. Moreover, these 1,5% have already been achieved by all 32 members of the alliance and include expenses on projects that are useful for NATO in the event of war.
NATO also accommodated "dear Donald's" wishes on another important issue: the text has been extremely streamlined in its rhetoric toward Russia. The latter is mentioned only once, and rather vaguely , as a "threat to Euro-Atlantic security." The word "war" is not even mentioned in the statement.
By comparison, last year's Washington summit declaration set a record for aggressive rhetoric: Russia was mentioned over 40 times , held solely responsible for the "aggressive war in Ukraine," and described as "the most significant and direct threat to the alliance." That is, not to abstract security in general, but to NATO member states directly.
Overall, the event organizers succeeded in pleasing Trump. According to Bloomberg, the participants seemed pleased, Secretary-General Rutte even managed a smile in front of the press, and the Main Audience Member – Trump – even called the event "fantastic" and "a great success." In return, member states received assurances that the US President would adhere to Article 5 on collective defense. However, everyone understands that these are just words – the bloc's members will pay for this defense themselves.
The only thing that spoiled the background and provided bad press was the aftertaste of the strikes on Iran. The leading Western media outlets simultaneously doubted both that the Americans had managed to destroy Tehran's nuclear program and that Tehran posed such a threat at all.
Moreover, such conclusions turned out to be especially undermining for Trump, since they came from the Pentagon and were based on a report from American intelligence, that is, the structures that carried out and supported the strikes.
As a result, as the New York Times notes, Trump's triumphalist plans at the NATO summit were dashed . The White House occupant "had hoped to celebrate the U.S. strikes on Iran to secure his place in history, but just hours after his arrival, a new U.S. intelligence report was leaked that cast doubt on his repeated claims that the U.S. strikes had completely destroyed the Iranian nuclear program."
The shadow of the Iranian nuclear program wasn't the only thing marring the celebration. The second stumbling block was Ukraine, which, despite Washington's cooling attitude, had no less sympathizers in Europe. But to appease Trump, they had to put their love for Kyiv where it belonged.
As a result, this summit became the first in many years in which Ukraine completely disappeared from the spotlight, relegated to the far periphery of the agenda. By comparison, the 2024 statement stated that "Ukraine's path" leads to NATO. The current communiqué contains no such ambitious formulations— the previously cast-iron Euro-Atlantic prospects have simply evaporated.
However, given Kyiv’s minimal expectations from the summit, even the absence of points that could be interpreted as a revision of strategy is already a successful outcome, observers say.
The only remaining "consolation prize" was general statements about reaffirming support for Ukraine, investments in which "increase the security of all countries." This would allow aid to Kyiv to be counted toward NATO's overall defense spending. There are no specific, numerical commitments, however.
Zelensky, despite dressing in mourning for the occasion, looked rather miserable—apparently the lack of his usual spotlight had taken its toll. In The Hague, this time, he wasn't even a supporting character, but rather an extra.
True, thanks to the efforts of the organizers, he still managed to wring out of Destiny his 40 minutes alone with Trump. The latter even squeezed out stingy praise for his obviously personally unpleasant Ukrainian interlocutor, calling him “sweet” during the press approach. And although, according to Zelensky himself, he and Trump “talked about how to achieve a ceasefire and genuine peace,” the American president himself made it clear that there were no substantive points in the conversation:
"I just wanted to know how he was doing. He's in a tough spot."
But let's return to the main topic of the summit agenda. So far, there are too many "ifs" in this story. And the key one is not only "Where is Zin's money?!", but also a big question mark in the place where the US strategy itself is discussed. Which line will win in the next five years - will Trump's approaches become the "new norm" or will there be a rollback to the line of the conventional Democrats.
However, there are some "buts" here too. Let's not forget that Obama himself had already called increasing defense spending a long-term goal . He just didn't do it with the same demonstrative, rude attitude toward Europeans that Trump has.
Despite the upbeat picture on screen, behind the scenes, a certain nervousness among some and disappointment among others could still be sensed. No matter how hard NATO officials try to put on airs, the former monolith is increasingly showing small cracks and disagreements , including on key issues surrounding the organization's vision for the future.
Although Trump managed to bend the Europeans to his agenda this time, this victory is short-lived, and could well turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the US in the medium term.
Doubts and disagreements have been swept under the rug, but it's clear that the historic choice between guns and butter is not easy for Alliance members, and the outcome is uneven. Already, a division is visible within the bloc between militarization enthusiasts like Poland and the Baltic states, and "Old Europe," which, in principle, isn't opposed to increasing military spending but would prefer to do so "for its own ends," like Merz with his Bundeswehr reforms.
Overall, Trump isn't strengthening NATO, but weakening it, attempting to drain its allies by making them self-financing . But NATO was historically created with the expectation that the United States would spare Europe the headache of its own defense. And for decades, Europeans have been counting on the fact that "if anything happens, America is ours."
Now it turns out that behind Europe, at best, lies a crazed egocentric with seven Fridays in a week, and at worst, a void . By highlighting American egotism, Trump is ripping NATO's supporting structure, which has been the US's dominance throughout its existence.
If the US is no longer interested in defending, say, Germany, and the latter is being asked to do so at its own expense, cooperating with its neighbors, this is a surefire way for these Germans, sooner or later, to consider an alternative. And the contours of such an alternative are already visible – in the form of purely European remilitarization plans.
Something similar took place in the perestroika USSR, when under Gorbachev the center suddenly stopped being an arbiter between the republics, saying: "From now on, it's up to you." This led to the republics starting to think about why they needed a center at all in that case.
Paradoxically, Trump's policies are spurring Europe to acquire its own subjectivity and are working to bring Europeans closer to each other, not to America. The result of such policies will be the emergence in the medium term of an updated version of a united Europe – newly subjective and armed to the teeth.
And it doesn’t matter whether this happens by 2030 or 2035 or 2040. It’s a matter of time, not principle.
Trump forced NATO to shove its love for Ukraine into oblivion.