President Donald Trump prefaced his arrival to the annual summit meeting of the NATO military alliance in The Hague by telling reporters Tuesday morning, “NATO was broke, and I said, ‘You’re going to have to pay.’”
Experts say the Sunday agreement may be more of a political play than a promise, as European countries aim to appease Trump and reinforce the alliance amid geopolitical turmoil.
“Five percent would be just crazy for Europeans,” Liana Fix, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow for Europe, told Fortune. Though Fix says 3.5% of GDP is a realistic estimate for many member countries’ needs.
“Most European countries have not spent 5% (of GDP) in the Cold War,” Fix said. “That is obviously something which is not only difficult to communicate to European constituencies, but also something which can still lead to a contentious discussion with Donald Trump if he realizes 1.5% is actually not the kind of real defense spending that he demanded from the Europeans.”
Fix expects the leaders to detail more of what could fall under the additional 1.5% of GDP and define the “division between 3.5% and 1.5%” during the NATO summit, which she’s attending.
The agreement likely will not be upheld by all member countries, experts say.
“(The agreement) is not a one size fits all kind of thing,” Jan Techau, Europe Director at Eurasia Group, told Fortune. “In theory, it must be, because that’s the idea of the whole thing: an equal commitment by all. But in reality, that has never been the case.”
“Frankly (the NATO agreement is) a classical compromise, clearly crafted by the Secretary General Mark Rutte,” Bruegel Senior Fellow Jacob Funk Kirkegaard told Fortune. “He’s obviously a former long-standing European Head of State who understands how to play this game extremely well.”
Fix said NATO leaders hope Trump remains in a good mood throughout his visit.
“The idea for this summit is really to give Donald Trump a victory lap, to tell him, ‘You got us to this point. We are doing it.’ And to just avoid any contentious issue on the agenda,” Fix said.
“The ripple effects for the U.S. economy is probably going to be negative,” Kirkegaard said of the NATO agreement, “The traditional significant U.S. arms exports to Europe will drop quite significantly as a result of this as Europe build(s) on its own military industrial capacity.”
Countries set on meeting the new target
“(Germany) want(s) to become the poster child of how Europe can increase its capabilities,” Techau of Eurasia Group, told Fortune.
Fix of CFR said the country is in a “really good position” to realize the plan, as it has low debt and can increase defense spending through loans and taking on more debt.
Techau said countries closer to Russia like Poland, the Baltic states, and some of the Scandinavian countries are more committed to reach the target spending goal—Kirkegaard says this trend is unsurprising “given the acute military threat that Russia poses to Europe.”
Countries unlikely to reach the target
“The fiscal challenges are probably most acute in the UK, France, and also in Italy, Spain,” Kirkegaard said.
Kirkegaard said he “absolutely subscribe(s)” to European intelligence estimates that say if the Ukraine-Russia war ended tomorrow, Russia would begin preparing for a broader war against “one or more NATO members.”
“For Europe unable to defend itself against Russia today without either Ukraine or the United States, that’s a very unpleasant situation to be in,” he said.
