National

On President Trump's first day at the NATO Summit, he scolded Germany as "a captive of Russia," accused allies of being delinquent on defense payments and called on member countries to double their defense spending from 2% to 4% of GDP. But he then joined 28 allied leaders in signing a declaration that bolsters NATO deterrence and defense and starkly criticized Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea.

Why it matters: The first set of statements are deeply divisive and call Trump's commitment to NATO into question. Germany is hardly controlled by Moscow, allies don't owe the U.S. any money and even the U.S. doesn't spend 4% of GDP on defense. These are all statements designed to undermine NATO.

Nevertheless, NATO made important decisions that strengthen the alliance:

Agreement to deploy 30 battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 war ships in 30 days by 2020 to defend NATO territory

Reform of the integrated command structure to enable rapid reinforcement across the Atlantic and Europe to defenses in the East

Reaffirmation of the commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024

Strengthening of the counterterrorism training mission in Iraq

The bottom line: Allies will ignore the Trumpian bluster for now, even if they see it as deeply unfortunate and challenging, focusing instead on the important steps taken to strengthen NATO. 

What's next: The real test will come Monday, when President Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. If Trump stands up to the Russian leader and underscores differences over Ukraine, Syria and arms control, allies will be reassured. But if Trump agrees to  concessions — like halting the deployment of troops in the East, limiting missile defenses or ending NATO enlargement — allies will know that Trump's bluster is real.

Ivo Daalder is the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and a former U.S. ambassador to NATO.

NATO strengthened at summit, despite Trump's threats and gripes

The real test for the alliance will come next week, when Trump meets with Putin.

President Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May with other NATO leaders

President Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May standing among other NATO leaders at the alliance's 2018 summit in Brussels, Belgium. Photo: Jasper Juinen/Getty Images

World

NATO

Expert Voices

Politics

On President Trump&#x27;s first day at the NATO Summit, he scolded Germany as &quot;a captive of Russia,&quot; accused allies of being delinquent on defense payments and called on member countries to double their defense spending from 2% to 4% of GDP. But he then joined 28 allied leaders in signing a declaration that bolsters NATO deterrence and defense and starkly criticized Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea.Why it matters: The first set of statements are deeply divisive and call Trump&#x27;s commitment to NATO into question. Germany is hardly controlled by Moscow, allies don&#x27;t owe the U.S. any money and even the U.S. doesn&#x27;t spend 4% of GDP on defense. These are all statements designed to undermine NATO.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

The Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Review retains a commitment, first made by Obama in 2010, not to "use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations." Today, all 184 non-nuclear weapons states under the treaty meet that criterion.

Trump's reaffirmation of this pledge, known as a negative security assurance, is significant. It rules out U.S. nuclear retaliation against these countries, even if they were to use chemical, biological, cyber or other weapons against the U.S. or its allies.

Much of the commentary on Trump's NPR has focused on how new, low-yield nuclear weapons and a focus on non-nuclear strategic attacks might lower the threshold for nuclear use. These concerns are justified. But they apply to a very narrow set of circumstances involving countries that already possess nuclear weapons, which  have long been the focus of our deterrence strategies.

In U.S. strategy, the fundamental role of nuclear weapons is to deter their use by others. For all the shifts in the new NPR, this role remains unchanged.

Ivo Daalder is the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Trump's nuclear review retains key Obama commitment

Honoring the 190-nation Non-Proliferation Treaty remains paramount.

Expert voices

The Trump administration&#x27;s <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="Nuclear Posture Review" data-vars-click-url="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF" data-vars-content-id="0a57be7a-46e8-4fda-917a-23b1b56f683b" data-vars-headline="Trump&#x27;s nuclear review retains key Obama commitment" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF" target="_blank">Nuclear Posture Review</a> retains a commitment, first made by Obama in 2010, not to &quot;use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.&quot; Today, all 184 non-nuclear weapons states under the treaty meet that criterion.Trump&#x27;s reaffirmation of this pledge, known as a negative security assurance, is significant. It rules out U.S. nuclear retaliation against these countries, even if they were to use chemical, biological, cyber or other weapons against the U.S. or its allies.

A months-long effort by the U.S.' closest European allies to persuade President Trump to stick to the Iran deal has failed. This failure not only dooms the deal itself, but also shows that when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, allies no longer count.

Why it matters: The U.S.' greatest advantage in competing with China and Russia is that it has allies, whereas they merely have clients. That reality seems lost on Trump, who has ignored allies' views and interests since taking office.

Trump’s Iran decision is but the latest in a long list of decisions allies opposed:

In January 2017, he abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which included key allies such as Australia, Canada and Japan.

In June 2017, he announced withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

In December 2017, he ordered the U.S. embassy in Israel move to Jerusalem.

In March 2017, he imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which affected mainly allies. 

Each time, allied leaders tried to persuade Trump not to follow through on his decisions. Each time, they failed. It didn’t matter whether they sought to negotiate a compromise (as they tried on the Iran deal) or firmly stood their ground (as on Paris and Jerusalem). Nor did it matter if they flattered him (as President Macron and Prime Minister Abe did) or took a business-like approach to overcoming differences (as Chancellor Merkel did).

The bottom line: Recent U.S. presidents took allied concerns into account and valued unity. No more: Trump views other countries, allies or not, only in terms of what they can do for the U.S. That is the true meaning of America First.

Trump’s Iran decision shows allies no longer count

It's the latest example of "America First" policies in action.

President Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel chat at the G20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7, 2017

President Trump, French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel. Photo: John MacDougall/AFP via Getty Images.

Iran deal

Iran

A months-long effort by the U.S.&#x27; closest European allies to persuade President Trump to stick to the Iran deal <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="has failed" data-vars-click-url="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html?smid=tw-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur" data-vars-content-id="62750d43-035c-4678-ba1a-d3831a54e303" data-vars-headline="Trump’s Iran decision shows allies no longer count" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html?smid=tw-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur" target="_blank">has failed</a>. This failure not only dooms the deal itself, but also shows that when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, allies no longer count.Why it matters: The U.S.&#x27; greatest advantage in competing with China and Russia is that it has allies, whereas they merely have clients. That reality seems lost on Trump, who has ignored allies&#x27; views and interests since taking office.

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

Ivo Daalder

Stories

NATO strengthened at summit, despite Trump's threats and gripes

Trump’s Iran decision shows allies no longer count

Trump's nuclear review retains key Obama commitment