Unrealistic Spending Goals, Internal Divisions, and a Shifting Global Landscape

Experts suggest that the newly announced defense spending target from the NATO Hague summit is more of a political maneuver to appease the U.S. administration than a realistic commitment. They warn that NATO's strategy of exaggerating international tensions to justify increased military spending reflects a Cold War mentality.

Under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, NATO members agreed to aim for a 5 percent GDP defense spending target. Experts consider this target unrealistic and potentially destabilizing to global peace. One expert from Fudan University stated that the proposed target "smacks of extortion against Europe."

The lack of consensus among member states is evident. Some European countries, not feeling a significant security threat and already facing debt and budget constraints, would struggle to meet such a high spending target. Devoting so much to defense would create new problems. Funding such a large increase would be extremely challenging, potentially straining national budgets or increasing national debt.

The surge in spending could backfire, potentially escalating security pressure on Russia and triggering a new NATO-Russia security dilemma, further threatening European and global stability. Trump's skepticism towards NATO, including his reluctance to fully endorse Article 5, signals a continued effort to dilute U.S. security guarantees to Europe.

Trump's stance has evolved dangerously for Europe. He is openly questioning the definition of Article 5, effectively asserting that the U.S. alone can reinterpret this principle. Europe has no say in this unilateral rewrite.

The absence of "Indo-Pacific partners" from the summit, citing various reasons, is interpreted as a tacit pushback against NATO's Asia-Pacific expansion. This reflects increasing distrust or dissatisfaction with the U.S. under the Trump administration, primarily due to its economic and security pressure on allies.

Despite regional reluctance, NATO's statement still touted the "interconnected Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security." The organization, struggling with internal divisions, is resorting to manufacturing external threats to create unity. This "obsolete Cold War play-book" is not conducive to world peace and ultimately endangers everyone.

China's Foreign Ministry has noted that NATO, despite calling itself a regional organization, keeps reaching beyond its geographic scope and into the Asia-Pacific. Countries in the Asia-Pacific are wary of this.