NATO is not perfect, but it must play a critical role so long as Russia is a threat
President Donald Trump is showing some love toward NATO following the organization’s condemnation of the sarin gas attacks in Syria. While Trump called NATO “obsolete” on the campaign trail and suggested that the United States wasn’t 100% committed to defending members of the alliance who failed to meet their obligations, the president has praised the organization in recent days. Good. NATO is one of the most valuable, prominent, and powerful military alliances in the world, though member countries do need to increase spending.
NATO successfully defended Western Europe from the Soviet threat during the Cold War, brought about an end to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and has played a vital role in numerous other incidents. That doesn’t mean the organization is perfect—far from it—and the United States is right to ask more from its European allies. Still, it’s in America’s and Europe’s best interests for NATO to remain strong and committed to mutual defense. This is especially true in the face of rising Russian aggression.
President Trump also specifically noted NATO’s role in fighting terrorism. With Europe close to the Middle East, where instability and radicalization have produced a breeding ground for terrorists, NATO will be vital for countering terrorist threats. Europe has already been hit by a wave of terrorist attacks over the past few years. Open borders, including both legal and illegal migration, digital communication, and other factors make international coordination a must. For France, Belgium, Britain, the United States, Canada, and others, sharing information is vital, and organizations like NATO help foster collaboration.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t legitimate criticisms of NATO. Military defense is expensive, and it is a burden for countries. That’s why it is vital for NATO allies to meet the stipulated defense spending goals. So long as Russia remains a threat—and it will remain a threat under Vladimir Putin—NATO must be a muscular, flexible, and well-prepared military alliance.
Trump continues to make clear, however, that NATO members must meet their spending obligations. The old saying goes that a team is only as strong as its weakest player. That saying might not quite be true, but a lack of preparation by any NATO member will threaten the stability and strength of the entire alliance. Weak NATO members will create “chinks in the armor” that can be exploited by Russia, terrorists, and other parties. Any attack on a weak member would compromise other members of the alliance and force a response.
In both 2006 and 2014, NATO members committed to spending 2% of their GDP on national defense—a perfectly reasonable and restrained goal. As of 2016, however, only Greece, Estonia, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States actually met that goal. This is unacceptable, especially with Russia becoming increasingly belligerent in Europe and other theaters.
However, spending has been increasing among NATO members, though many countries are still spending below 2%. If the United States is to be expected to uphold its obligations to its NATO allies, then these allies must also meet their own obligations. This isn’t just about staying true to your words. If Russia were to launch an attack, however unlikely, it would most likely target weaker members first. The same is true of any would-be attacker.
