Meanwhile, Russia continues to bombard Ukraine’s civilian populations, further unnerving NATO’s European members, even as Trump wants to focus on the war in Iran.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
If Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s 12-minute lecture to fellow NATO defense ministers last month is a preview, this isn’t going to be about champagne toasts. Hegseth called the alliance a “paper tiger” and bemoaned the way its nations ran their internal affairs.
“Instead of tanks and fighters and air defenses, the focus has been on gender equity and climate change and defense austerity,” Hegseth said.
And though he praised those nations that have upped their contributions to the alliance in recent years, in compliance with Trump’s demands Hegseth also berated some of our allies for their failure to support the administration’s war on Iran. When the United States asked to use European bases or ports in the conduct of that war, “too many of our allies said no, or tried to drown us in arcane legal debates, or criticized us publicly for doing what they aren’t prepared or able to do themselves. It was shameful,” he said.
Spain did indeed close its airspace to American jets headed into the Iran war zone. Britain allowed the use of its bases for only “a limited defensive purpose.”
Italy’s refusal to allow American bombers to take off from there exacerbated Trump’s ongoing feud with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
Hegseth left no doubt that there would be payback and in that speech announced a six-month Pentagon review “that will examine America’s force posture and basing in Europe.”
It is against that fraught backdrop that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte visited the White House days after Hegseth’s speech in an attempt to calm those troubled waters ahead of the summit with a collection of charts touting the “Trump Trillion” that the president’s bullying of his NATO allies has managed to secure in increased European defense spending. (Of course, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine had more than a little to do with Europe’s newfound focus on defense as well.)
But Trump was his usual petulant self with Rutte, insisting he was only attending the NATO summit “out of respect to President Erdogan,” who is hosting the meeting in Ankara. Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s autocratic leadership, and his continuing crackdown on opponents, may make him a problematic NATO member, but he’s apparently a Trump kinda guy.
As for his European allies, Trump told Rutte, “We don’t need their money, we don’t need anything. We have the most powerful military in the world by far, but I just want loyalty.
“Give us a little nudge, give us a little kiss,” he added, obviously still smarting from NATO’s near-total rejection of any role in the Iran war. “We don’t want much. And they say, ‘No, we can’t do it.’”
The real threat to the alliance isn’t what happens in Ankara over the next several days and whether Trump has another of his meltdowns, but the results of that Pentagon review and what it will mean for the future security of Europe.
Even Alice Rufo, director general for international relations and strategy at the French defense ministry, indicated that the European ministers’ request for an orderly reduction of US military forces in Europe is a modest one.
“We would like the US shift to take place in an orderly, coordinated, and efficient manner to avoid creating dilemmas for Europeans,” she told Politico.
European leaders have already put up with months of fits and starts over the stationing of US troops, depending on presidential whim. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s criticism of the war in Iran brought an immediate order from Trump for the withdrawal of some 5,000 US troops from Germany. The deployment of 5,000 US troops to Poland was halted, then days later the order was reversed by the president, who announced it on Truth Social, framing it as recognition of the election of his endorsed candidate Karol Nawrocki as president.
The erratic nature of US troop deployments is making long-term planning by European leaders that much more difficult.
But the real hit to the NATO alliance — already telegraphed by the Pentagon to NATO officials — is a cut in the weaponry the United States had previously committed to in the event of a war or crisis: the fighter jets, strategic bombers, destroyers, submarines, tanker aircraft, and armed drones. The number of fighter jets is expected to be cut by a third, strategic bombers by half, and submarines cut entirely, Der Spiegel reported, citing remarks by US official Alexander Velez-Green during a closed-door meeting in May with NATO officials.
That is already a fait accompli — and one the alliance will have to deal with — even as it wrestles with US demands on everyday, non-emergency burden sharing.
NATO was forged in a post-war era as “a shield against aggression,” as President Harry Truman said. Its members’ pledge “to safeguard the freedom and security” and ensure “the collective defense of all Allies, against all threats, from all directions” still has meaning even in an increasingly complex world. That must not be allowed to fall victim to presidential petulance.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.