NATO in the 'post-Trump' era

The Trump era: There were good times and bad times.

Last December, NATO celebrated its 70th anniversary in a somber atmosphere. Instead of celebrating the alliance's longevity with a spirited summit in London, the heads of state and government of member countries gathered at a very modest, even quiet, "leaders' meeting."

Overview of the summit commemorating the 70th anniversary of NATO's founding. Photo: Reuters

After years of careful planning and preparation, yet still encountering setbacks, NATO has quietly downplayed the importance of meetings with current US President Donald Trump, as the leader often tends to "attack" high-level events with outbursts of anger, or use them as opportunities to attack allies, undermining efforts to demonstrate stability and solidarity.

Yet, after the US presidential elections last November,NATO Secretary General Jens StoltenbergDespite his reputation for cautious neutrality, Stoltenberg could barely conceal his enthusiasm when he extended an invitation to President-elect Joe Biden, whom he called a “strong supporter of NATO and transatlantic relations,” to visit Brussels for what Stoltenberg precisely called a “summit.” This event was scheduled to take place as soon as the new US administration could attend.

"Ultimately, NATO survived the Donald Trump era – though not without its flaws and imperfections."

Paul Taylor, Friends of Europe

Having a more predictable partner in Washington is of paramount importance, as NATO is currently in the process of raising awareness and improving its response to the serious challenges facing its 30 member governments. Paul Taylor, a senior fellow at the Friends of Europe group, commented: “It’s like riding a crazy roller coaster. Ultimately, NATO survived the Donald Trump era – though not without its flaws and imperfections.”

NATO allies, including Germany, have been repeatedly accused by the Trump administration of benefiting from the U.S. military. Photo: DPA

In reality, some of those changes have at least a positive edge, even if they leave some scars on the overall morale of the alliance. For example, while Trump hasn't yet accomplished what he often claims to have done to change the direction of things.decline in defense spendingIf the alliances' demands had to be reversed, the reality is that nations were quicker to push their defense budgets closer to NATO's target of 2% of GDP, in an effort to avoid Trump's constant public pronouncements on the subject. Or another case, as Taylor notes: "Trump also forced allies to discuss China. That was never on NATO's agenda. I don't know if that was going to happen eventually, but it clearly happened under his supervision and determination."

But it is difficult, if not impossible, to find any positive aspects to justify the uncoordinated and abrupt withdrawal of US troops under Trump from Afghanistan and Iraq, where NATO members were helping to train local forces to defend their own national security. Trump's unexpected announcements have caused confusion within NATO, as they were not consulted beforehand, and have also left governments with personnel on the ground more vulnerable without the support and backup from the United States.

What awaits Biden?

According to many experts, the "legacy" that Joe Biden inherited at NATO after succeeding Trump is quite a headache. Allies in the alliance are now hoping that Biden will strengthen collective efforts to address short-term and long-term security concerns. This is also a priority for Stoltenberg at the moment, because the fact is that NATO's "Strategic Concept" outlining threats and accompanying capabilities to respond to them has not been reviewed or revised since 2010.

The "legacy" that Joe Biden inherited at NATO after succeeding Trump is also quite a headache (In the photo: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (left) and Joe Biden, then US Vice President, during a meeting at the Munich Security Conference, Germany, February 7, 2015). Photo: AFP

That was the number one recommendation made by the “NATO Review Group,” the advisers appointed by Stoltenberg last year, co-chaired by former German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere and former US State Department official Wess Mitchell, to help improve cohesion and political renewal after French President Emmanuel Macron accused the alliance of suffering from “brain death.”

It is clear that the rise of China is the biggest and most far-reaching change in NATO's strategic environment, and something the alliance really needs to take into account.

Wess Mitchell, former US State Department official

In addition, the “challenge of China” is also a noteworthy point. A new report titled “NATO 2030: United for a New Era” concludes that a “persistently belligerent” Russia will continue to be the greatest military threat to the alliance over the next decade, but China will undoubtedly also quickly seize the opportunity to rise. Speaking at a Carnegie Europe meeting discussing the report, Mitchell emphasized: “From consultations with experts and our allies, it is clear thatthe rise of China"This is the biggest and most far-reaching change in NATO's strategic environment, and it's something the alliance really needs to take into account."

However, NATO currently faces a more pressing issue. With peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban dragging on at a snail's pace, Stoltenberg stated that NATO will decide by February of next year whether to continue its training, advisory, and support mission, or to terminate it after nearly two decades of investment.

NATO has committed to staying.AfghanistanUntil conditions on the ground ensure that local security can maintain stability. But even Trump's ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, didn't dare sugarcoat the current reality. She said: "I don't think the conditions are met. We want to see progress on the peace front with the Afghan government and the Taliban talking to each other about how the Afghan people can see lasting peace. And that's not what's happening right now." She also didn't criticize Trump for withdrawing troops, suggesting it was a matter for the Biden team: "That's one of the first things this new administration will have to address!"

Washington announced in October that it would withdraw most of its troops from Afghanistan. Photo: ZUMA

Returning to internal NATO, the issue that has caused the deepest divisions over the past four years will not disappear. Tensions over the infamous "2%" figure will certainly persist.

Thomas de Maiziere once stated at the Centre for European Policy Analysis that "the Biden administration will be a more difficult problem for us, even though its tone sounds more conciliatory and friendly."

Paul Taylor also agreed that one shouldn't expect everything to go perfectly smoothly, despite the warming of relations under Biden. But along with that, allied nations should be optimistic that difficult negotiations don't necessarily mean the outbreak of war. He stated: “It will be based on shared realities. And it will certainly be based on the same fundamental assumption that we are in alliance together, stronger when united, and that America is stronger with allies than alone, and that allies are stronger with America.”