- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
Editor's Note: Samantha Vinograd is a national security analyst at CNN. She is a senior advisor to the Biden Institute of the University of Delaware, not affiliated with the Biden campaign. Vinograd worked on the National Security Council of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013 and in the Treasury Department during the government of President George W. Bush. Follow her on @sam_vinograd. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
(CNN) - With the investigation of political judgment that gravitates over his head, President Trump may have received the possibility of leaving the city in a good way. While preparing to attend the NATO Summit in London, a few days after a terrorist attack immobilized the city, Trump must be ready to discuss several issues he has historically avoided - including the importance of international alliances and problems posed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump was not willing to participate in some of these conversations, the European allies were perhaps skeptical about what he had to say, particularly while he was still inventing conspiracy theories of Ukrainian electoral interference that benefit Russia, and while they continue to go out to the Light details about their priorities towards Ukraine.
While the allies were preparing to question Trump about his next steps in places like Afghanistan, his key question was probably whether Trump really cares about NATO's agenda in the least. He has been a famous NATO skeptic.
I anticipated the end: internal disputes occurred
Crisis management is one of NATO's main operational capabilities, but internal crises are brewing among members while they consult on how to handle external threats such as Russia, China and terrorism. And Trump, who has been critical of the Alliance in the past, will remain unpredictable at NATO meetings.
This year, however, Trump was not alone. French President Emmanuel Macron says that NATO is experiencing "a brain death" because of the unpredictability of the United States and Turkish military activities, including the country's offensive in northern Syria. The French authorities have also criticized Turkey's refusal to support a NATO defense plan for the Balkan Peninsula and Poland. In response, two weeks ago, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Macron should check if he has "brain death."
Macron refuses to back down. Erdogan's insults were likely to resume at the summit, particularly if the Allies continued to criticize him for his purchase of Russian air defense systems, which are incompatible with NATO systems and could present new security risks, and for his offensive in Syria.
Diatribes between allies - instead of being against external actors - spoiled the message of unity that is so critical of the infinite number of external threats. Trump, Erdogan and Macron should remember that every time they insult each other and express their disagreements openly, that makes external enemies like Putin feel stronger because they give the signal of a weakened alliance.
Harassment has its benefits: increased defense spending
Despite the huge return on investment - after all, NATO defended us after September 11 and fought with us in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria - Trump has scolded NATO members for not spending more of their own money in the area of defense and even hinted that he might be considering a response that includes the adjustment of our military presence in the world, by removing US troops from Germany.
And he's still not convinced of NATO's value - he supposedly even talked about the possibility of leaving the Alliance. Trump has also misrepresented the way the United States financially supports NATO, saying other members owe the United States money. Now, the Trump administration is supposedly cutting its direct contribution to NATO financing from 26% to 22% of NATO's budget and expects other countries to compensate for the deficit.
But bullying tactics could be paying off. A couple of weeks ago, UN Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the real increase in NATO spending for 2019 is 4.6%, and European and Canadian allies will have invested more than an additional US $ 100,000 million. since 2016. According to Stoltenberg, in 2019, nine NATO members will comply with Trump's proposed delineation of spending 2% of GDP on defense. This will be music for Trump's ears.
But, Stoltenberg said, the allies should no longer invest in defense to please Trump, "they should invest in defense because we face new threats and new challenges" including China, a more resolute Russia, cyber threats and others.
Spend wisely
While Trump focuses narrowly on defense financing, he has not articulated the purpose of that funding - nor against whom NATO members are defending themselves. Macron says that the common enemy of the members is terrorism, and whether it is to counter Al Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups, NATO has consistently focused on the fight against terrorism.
Before the terrorist attack in London two weeks ago - and the ongoing threats of terrorist networks - counterterrorism should remain a priority. Of course, the allies will be able to question the commitment of the United States towards this mission, given Trump's unilateral decision to remove US forces from Syria that support operations against terrorist groups.
While Macron refused to designate China as an enemy of NATO, China is also supposedly on the summit's agenda. Addressing the country's growing influence in cyberspace and in key areas such as the Arctic and Balkan countries should be a shared goal among members. It is likely that the use of Chinese 5G technology members is a prominent issue due to US concerns that Chinese 5G equipment can be used to spy.
While the allies united around common concerns such as counterterrorism and China, there was still another obvious problem: Russian aggression. Other allies have spoken in public about the destabilizing activities of Russia - from electoral interference to the Russian invasion of Crimea and its disinformation campaigns - even when they engage in dialogue with Russia on issues such as Ukraine.
And yet NATO supported the decision of the United States to exit the Treaty on Nuclear Forces of Intermediate Rank - an agreement that forced the United States and the Soviet Union (then Russia) to eliminate all nuclear and conventional remote control and ballistic missile launching overland with ranges of between 500 to 5,500 km - considering that Russia is developing and testing a missile system that has violated the agreement.
To date, Trump has not used his time with NATO allies to clearly recognize Russian threats. And with his stubborn focus on conspiracy theory related to the alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election - despite the lack of evidence from the intelligence community - Trump is likely to redouble his indifference to the problems Putin represents. He has asked for more dialogue with Russia and says he should be allowed to re-enter Russia to what used to be the G8.
Other leaders such as Macron want a dialogue with Russia, and Stoltenberg has advised the Alliance to have a face-to-face dialogue with Russia.
But they have not articulated the range of threats that Russia represents. While Russia continues its disinformation campaigns in the United States and abroad while trying to improve its military capabilities and deploy more physical assets throughout Europe and the Middle East, Trump's silence about Russia will continue to say a lot, in Putin special.
Emmanuel Macron
