NATO's wounded animals

Weakened leaders gather for the alliance's 75th birthday party under a cloud of political chaos and anxiety over a potential Trump return

It was supposed to be a grand celebration, a moment for the Western world's leaders to come together and commemorate 75 years of NATO. Instead, the summit, starting tomorrow in Washington, has transformed into a gathering of beleaguered leaders—a pack of wounded animals each grappling with their own political crises and the ever-looming shadow of a potential Trump resurgence.

The anti-incumbent wave sweeping through the Western world has left many leaders reeling. In Paris, London, and Washington, political gambles have backfired spectacularly. The geopolitical weather system linking these three nuclear powers is churning up storms that no one seems ready to face.

French President Emmanuel Macron, in a move that surprised many, called for snap parliamentary elections in hopes of solidifying his centrist mandate. Some argue that Macron’s high-stakes gamble paid off. Voters, initially flirting with far-right Marine Le Pen, ultimately rejected her, with Le Pen’s National Rally finishing third. The high voter turnout, the highest since 1981, suggests Macron’s challenge to the electorate worked to an extent.

However, others view this as merely a shift in chaos rather than a victory. The far-left New Popular Front now holds the most seats, indicating a swap of one extreme for another. Macron, who hoped to strengthen his centrist position, now faces a divided parliament and the prospect of negotiating with a radical left, which could stymie his agenda just as effectively as the far right might have. Regardless, the results leave him politically weakened and Europe’s unity at risk.

Across the English Channel, Rishi Sunak's decision to call elections prematurely proved disastrous. Last week’s election, driven more by public mood than specific policies, saw the Conservative Party suffer its worst defeat since its founding in 1834. The public, frustrated by their long tenure and internal squabbles, ousted them from power. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party achieved a landslide victory, ending 14 years of Conservative rule. Starmer seized the moment to criticize Sunak’s liberal stance on immigration.

Labour, now purged of its hard-left elements, promises a centrist approach focused on economic stability and public service. This seismic shift in British politics is seen as a rejection of Conservative mismanagement and a cautious embrace of Starmer’s promise of competent governance. However, the mood remains skeptical, with the public wary of political promises and the potential for disappointment.

On this side of the Atlantic, President Biden might take a page from this skepticism. His early demand for a general election debate with Donald Trump was meant to showcase his vigor and leadership. Instead, it highlighted his vulnerabilities. Despite a week of preparation, Biden’s performance was a fiasco, drawing international scorn and igniting calls for him to step aside. From Berlin to Beijing, the world watched in disbelief as the debate descended into chaos, casting a shadow over American democracy itself.

NATO leaders now convene under this cloud of uncertainty. The specter of Donald Trump's return haunts the proceedings, as European allies fear a resurgence of his NATO skepticism. Trump’s refusal to confirm his commitment to NATO during the debate has sent diplomats scrambling to prepare for a future where U.S. support may wane. The potential for Trump to undermine transatlantic unity looms large, and European officials are already crafting contingency plans.

Trump has often complained that NATO allies "rip us off" by not meeting their spending commitments. He has even suggested inviting a Russian attack on NATO members who fail to meet the defense spending target. This provocative stance adds another layer of anxiety for European diplomats who are bracing for potential policy shifts if Trump regains the presidency. A proposed two-tier NATO system, in which countries not meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target would not enjoy the full security guarantees of the United States, could defy Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which obliges every member to assist any attacked ally. Trump’s advisors note flexibility in Article 5's language.

As the summit unfolds, NATO leaders will strive to project strength and resolve. But behind the scenes, the sense of vulnerability is palpable. The challenges they face are daunting: a resurgent Russia, a divided Europe, and the unpredictable future of American leadership. The celebrations have given way to a sober assessment of the alliance’s resilience and the need for solidarity in uncertain times.

NATO’s internal struggles are also coming to the fore. Germany and France are at odds over Ukraine’s path to NATO membership. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, weakened by a faltering economy, a fractious coalition and a surging far-right, aligns with the U.S. in cautioning against provoking Russia. Meanwhile, Macron, supported by the UK and Central European nations, advocates for paving the way for Ukraine's integration. These differing stances highlight the broader European divide, further complicating the alliance's efforts to present a united front.

As the NYT’s Farah Stockman points out, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the alliance’s first supreme allied commander Europe, envisioned a Europe capable of defending itself. Eisenhower’s goal was to get Europeans “back on their military feet” without relying on a permanent American military presence. Yet today, some 90,000 U.S. troops remain stationed across Europe, underscoring the continent's continued dependence on American military support.

Eisenhower's concerns echo in contemporary debates. The United States' disproportionate contribution to NATO’s budget and military presence is unsustainable, especially as American attention pivots towards the challenges posed by China. European leaders recognize this and are slowly increasing their defense spending, but progress is sluggish.

The NATO summit of 2024 may not be remembered for its grand speeches or declarations of unity. Instead, it will stand as a testament to the fragile state of Western leadership and the urgent need for a new strategy to navigate the turbulent geopolitical landscape. The wounded leaders of the alliance must now confront their own weaknesses and find a way to forge a path forward, lest they risk falling into the abyss of irrelevance.