Dem
47
GOP
53
Leaders of the 32 countries in NATO will meet in The Hague Tuesday and Wednesday to address the challenges facing the organization. The biggest challenge is preventing Donald Trump from destroying an entity that has kept the peace in Europe for three-quarters of a century. It was formed in 1949 to make it more difficult for Russia to invade any member country, knowing that the other members would come to its rescue. Trump has no interest in rescuing any other countries and has no problem with Russia conquering any countries Vladimir Putin chooses to conquer.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who was prime minister of the Netherlands for an unprecedented 14 years, knows a thing or two about politics, including American politics. In particular, he knows that while Trump cares nothing at all about other countries (and almost nothing about the United States), he cares very much about getting wins. So Rutte has quietly lobbied all the members to arrange a big win for Trump so he can come home and brag about it and dream of getting the Nobel Peace Prize.
What Trump wants is for other members to pay their fair share, however that might be understood, of the costs of preparing to defend each other. He has a legitimate point there. After World War II, no European country was in any shape to have a large defense budget, so the U.S. shouldered most of the cost. Of course, the U.S. had a huge strategic interest in doing so. There was a real risk that Russia might conquer all of Europe and a whole series of presidents, from Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Jack Kennedy onward, wanted to prevent an increase in Russian power at all costs. Now European economies can tolerate much larger defense budgets and what Trump wants is that they do that. What Rutte is doing behind the scenes is to get all the non-US members to pledge to spend 3.5% of their GDP on direct military expenditures and another 1.5% on indirect military expenditures, like infrastructure that is useful to the military (e.g., upgraded airports and harbors). A sticking point is when this goal needs to be achieved. Among other things, Rutte's plan calls for a 400% increase in air and missile defense, thousands more tanks, millions more artillery shells, and much more. Rutte's goal is to present this plan to Trump and tell him that it was achieved on account of Trump's military and political brilliance. It could work. Baseless flattery is more important with Trump than a dozen F-35 fighter jets.
What Trump doesn't realize, but all the European leaders do, is that if Europe rearms itself in a major way, the E.U. will have much more sway in NATO and the U.S. won't be able to call the shots so easily. In the long run, it may make Europe into a major world military power, independent of the U.S. That is not necessarily in the best interests of the U.S.
But there is more. Ramping up defense spending without imposing new taxes will require cutting social spending. That will be very unpopular. One way to soothe the pain will be to spend all or most of the new defense budget in Europe, which will create good-paying jobs. Many working-class Europeans would be quite happy to have a good unionized job in a defense plant building jet fighters or tanks. German Leopard tanks are top-notch. BAE, a British company, is good at shipbuilding, submarine construction, and electronic warfare. Major parts for the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet are made in the U.K., Germany, Italy, and Spain. Giving fat contracts to these and other defense companies means many fewer contracts for Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and other U.S. defense contractors. That will cost jobs in the U.S. Trump is probably not even aware of this and, in any event, the effects will not be felt until well after the midterm elections. (V)