Donald Trump’s second term as American president started quite sensationally. He set his sights on Ukraine’s minerals to end the Russia-Ukraine war with a colonialist mentality and tried to annex Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal to American territory. Trump’s serious attempts to make Canada the 51st state of the U.S., without caring about its membership in NATO, are worrying not only this country but all NATO members. For this reason, his second term seems to be a very critical period for the future of NATO.
Crisis of trust
The most important issue facing NATO is the crisis of trust among member countries. Trump’s statements questioning NATO and damaging relations with member countries during his first term in office greatly damaged the alliance’s collective defense principle and spirit of solidarity. He increased the dose of his “authentic” statements by saying that Canada should join the U.S. In this way, he not only set his sights on the territory of another NATO member but also acted contrary to the principle of the U.N. Charter of “not threatening international peace and security.”
Trump has taken steps that have also worried his partners on the other side of the trans-Atlantic alliance. For example, he has said that the American army will reduce its military presence in Europe by one-fifth and withdraw approximately 20,000 American soldiers. Furthermore, he started a global trade war under the slogan “America First” and included many NATO allies in this trade war. The most concrete reflection of this policy is the imposition of high tariffs and import restrictions on European countries to protect American industry.
Germany has begun joint efforts with its eternal rival neighbor, France, to rid itself of its dependence on NATO and therefore the U.S. Similarly, the European Commission published a strategy document before the European summit held in Brussels. In the document, it was emphasized that urgent steps should be taken to strengthen Europe’s defense. Likewise, in the declaration published after the summit, it was stated that the necessary work should be accelerated in the next five years so that Europe can defend itself. In this regard, the EU plans to spend 800 billion euros ($8.61 billion) for the defense sector by 2030. The European part of the trans-Atlantic alliance has lost its trust in the U.S. and sees joint European strategies as a necessity, not a choice. Despite these realities, Trump has no intention of taking any constructive steps to resolve the crisis of trust among the member countries. On the contrary, he is consciously trying to deepen this crisis.
Will the U.S. leave NATO?
Trump’s statement after taking office that “I may seriously consider leaving NATO” has also raised significant questions. It should be noted here that it would not be a logical decision for the U.S. to leave NATO because such a step would destroy the fundamental pillar that holds the architecture of the alliance together. Furthermore, it could pave the way for European countries to move away from the American orbit and turn to other options, which would create new opportunities for Russia and China. Therefore, Trump’s statement should be read as a populist assessment by a narcissistic leader who enjoys saying extraordinary things rather than a realpolitik assessment.
The theory that Trump will deliberately weaken the U.S.’ leadership role within NATO is also far from rational because NATO is not only a security alliance but also a strategic instrument for the stability of American hegemony. Therefore, the U.S. does not have the “luxury” of reducing its effectiveness within the alliance. Furthermore, when Trump’s narcissistic personality traits are considered, it seems more logical to predict that the U.S. will strengthen its role within NATO rather than weaken it. Indeed, Trump’s taking the initiative to end the Russia-Ukraine war on his own after taking office and bypassing Ukraine and sitting at the negotiating table directly with Russia on behalf of the West shows that the U.S. wants to consolidate its global leadership. This situation coincides with Trump’s tendency to maintain the U.S.’ dominant position within the trans-Atlantic security architecture and monopolize the alliance’s decision-making processes.
2% or 5%
Another important topic that will remain on NATO’s agenda until the end of Trump’s term will be the defense spending of member countries. As is known, Trump insisted that NATO members allocate at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense spending during his first term. While some member countries were forced to comply with this insistence and increased their defense spending, others fell well short of 2%.
Although Trump began the new term with a call to “make 2% or 5%,” current data shows that this call is not very applicable to member countries. According to data published by Statista, the average defense spending of NATO countries remained at 2.71% last year. While the defense spending of the U.S. remained at 3.38%, Poland was the country closest to the 5% requirement with spending of 4.12%. The spending of some countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal and Canada could not exceed 1.6%. As can be understood from this, there is no country, including the U.S., that can currently meet the 5% requirement.
NATO countries are divided into two poles regarding the increase in defense spending. On the one hand, countries that feel the Russian threat most, such as the Baltic countries and Poland, are constantly trying to increase their defense spending, independent of any proportional conditions. Similarly, a limited number of member countries like Türkiye that are trying to strengthen their strategic autonomy are making extensive investments in the defense industry in line with their own needs, independent of the demands of the U.S. On the other hand, countries such as Germany and France, which are trying to keep their budget deficits under control and do not want to allocate a larger share to defense spending and neglect other sectors, insist on 2%. In short, the feasibility of Trump’s 5% target is quite an enigma. However, considering his stubborn personality, it is expected that he will continue to impose on this issue and force all member countries to 5% under the name of “more security.”
Not a wider NATO
The possibility of NATO expanding during Trump’s term is quite low. As is known, the alliance has reached 32 countries with the addition of Finland and Sweden. The applications of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine are being handled with caution by the U.S. Trump believes that NATO is not ready for a new expansion because that would put more burdens on the U.S., at least until a balance is achieved in terms of burden sharing within the alliance.
According to Trump, the Russia-Ukraine war, which has unnecessarily occupied the global political agenda, began due to Kyiv’s insistence on NATO membership. In a statement one month ago, he openly stated that Ukraine would not be accepted into NATO within the framework of security guarantees to be given to Russia. For this reason, Ukraine’s NATO membership has not seemed possible for a long time. In fact, considering that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a debate that pushed the boundaries with Trump, it can be said that NATO membership has now become a dream for Kyiv.
Trump also does not have a positive view of Georgia, which he considers Russia’s backyard, joining NATO. He thinks that Georgia’s integration into NATO during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war could further provoke Moscow and escalate tensions in the region. The Tbilisi administration has also effectively shelved this issue due to Russia’s invasion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008.
Bosnia-Herzegovina faces obstacles on the path to NATO membership stemming from internal dynamics rather than external factors. It has had difficulty in decision-making processes due to ethnic divisions, and it has not been able to reach an agreement within itself on NATO membership because of its complex political structure. All in all, NATO is not expected to expand soon.