NATO's surrender to populism
The summit in The Hague yielded positive results for Eastern Europe, but at the cost of any practical solutions for long-term European security
Europe, and especially its eastern states, breathed a sigh of relief following the NATO summit in The Hague this past week — Trump appeared to be back on their side, and was forcing the rest of the continent to follow in his footsteps. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, European leaders opted to place all their bets on the US rather than look toward a new defense model, relying on flattery tailored directly to Trump’s sensibilities to do so. This praise was sometimes genuine, but more often forced, at in some instances downright embarrassing — but most importantly, it worked. The summit ended with a (nearly) universal pledge to raise defense spending targets across the board to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 (the widely reported 5% number is not entirely accurate as it includes spending on military logistics and broadly defined security infrastructure), and saw Trump verbally commit to upholding Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty.
All this is good news for Eastern European NATO states — and the region’s leaders have recognized it as such. But underneath these short-term gains, what the summit proved is that the NATO of the liberal post-Cold War era is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and what is replacing it is an alliance that realizes it is at the mercy of populism, sovereigntism, and a new European ecosystem predicated on national self-interest. The net effect of this shift in the short-term is that NATO has adopted changes that are very much in its best interest, and especially so for its eastern frontline states — but looking longer term, it is clear that the alliance has merely kicked the can of practicalities further down road, refused to find alternatives to US hegemony, and traded ironclad support for Ukraine for entrenchment behind the new Iron Curtain in hopes that “daddy” will do what the AFU might not be able to.
Ukraine’s sidelining has been a longtime coming, and although Zelensky was able to secure his much desired meeting with Trump, who even hinted he was “going to see” if he could send additional Patriot air defense systems to Kyiv, Ukraine itself was not the focus of the summit as it had been in past years, something that was reflected in the meeting’s final statement. Overnight, Ukraine’s security, much like NATO’s, has suddenly become dependent on personalistic rather than institutional relationships. Having been left out of many discussions at the summit, Zelensky’s choice to wear a black suit to the few gatherings in The Hague that he was invited to underscored this point — selling Ukraine’s plight as an essential one for NATO’s security now took a backseat to appealing to the tastes of the alliance’s capricious overlord. The language of sovereigntism has itself bled over into the alliance’s statements on Ukraine — commitments to supporting Ukrainian defense are no longer an alliance-wide determination, but those of the “sovereign” allies that comprise it.
Of course, not everyone was happy with the summit’s outcome. Much to Trump’s chagrin, Spain refused to abide by the new spending targets, and Slovakia’s recent flirtation with neutrality made it a clear outsider at the summit despite its frontline position along NATO’s eastern flank. Yet even officials in Orbán’s Hungary, which had long been NATO’s pro-Russian spoiler, lauded the new spending goals as “significant development opportunities for our country.” Of course, Hungary’s position is a reflection of the fact that the new commitments were the result of pressure from Trump — but if Orbán’s satisfaction with NATO’s new direction doesn’t underscore the power that the global populist Right has exerted upon the alliance, nothing can.
Although this is still far from the NATO that Orbán and other European populists would like to see, it is a bellwether for where Europe is headed — bereft of any new ideas, its liberals prefer to ride the prevailing Rightist currents in hopes Trump and his successors will be grateful enough to guarantee the continent’s security for another 4 years. Adapting to a changing transatlantic landscape is an inevitable necessity for Europe — but only by doing so with plans in mind for long-term European self sufficiency will the continent steel itself for the dark days that lie ahead. As it stands, despite its successes, this summit was little more than an exercise in strategic procrastination.