What Does NATO Mean?

Here’s Adam Garfinkle’s assessment of Presidents Putin and Trump’s joint press conference in Helsinki last week from his post at The American Interest:

But nothing about the 2014 targets was as bizarre as Donald Trump’s post-summit press conference this past week. As is by now well known, he suddenly demanded that the 2 percent target not wait until 2024 but be accomplished this year, or maybe next—it was not entirely clear. And why stop at 2 percent? He demanded 4 percent, which, he claimed, was the U.S. number. This performance may be likened to a jack-in-the-box popping out at the end of a funeral service. Somber and sad as was nearly all that preceded it, the President closed the summit on a surreal note, leaving observers wondering what it all meant.

Trump doubtless does not know that U.S. defense spending only tips out at 4 percent of GNP when one includes the rather large budget of the Veterans Administration—which is of course separate from the DOD budget and the defense-related parts of the DOE budget. But this is a man who never lets a fact get in the way of an insult or a provocation. And so while the topic was an old one—European defense spending dereliction—the tone and actual substance of the remarks could not have been more different, which brings us back to where we started: This was not your father’s, or even your elder sister’s, NATO Summit.

The post also includes a more or less first person history of our issues with the low level of commitment by our NATO allies over the period of the last 40 years.

I don’t care whether our NATO allies spend 1% of GDP, 2% of GDP, or 10% of GDP on defense. I care about what their spending buys for them. It is well known that Germany cannot presently field a single combat division. It is not merely obvious that Germany doesn’t spend enough, it is insulting. France’s 1.8% of GDP enables it to maintain operations for a few hours or days. Their readiness clearly falls short as well, although not as drastically as Germany’s.

If NATO is to remain a military alliance, there needs to be a common understanding of what its essence, the Article 5 commitment:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Specifically, what does that mean? If it means that if Estonia is attacked, Germany and Poland will come to its aid, it’s one thing. If it means solely that the U. S. will come to its aid, it’s something else again entirely and one that demands reflection.

Right now it pragmatically means that the U. S. will come to Estonia’s aid.