On July 11-12, 2018, a NATO summit was held in Brussels. Many participants waited for it with apprehension as contradictions between the US and its European allies had become very acute. Oleg Barabanov, Programme director of the Valdai Discussion Club, spoke in an interview with valdaiclub.com on the agenda and results of the summit, as well as the consequences of the decisions made for the upcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
The atmosphere of the current NATO summit was quite tense, as disagreements between Trump’s administration and most of the US allies in Europe had become quite serious. The issue of the 2% of GDP, which each country should allocate for defense, is only part of the problem, because the US president is dissatisfied with NATO’s activity as a whole. Even in his pre-election speeches he said that this organization is useless, and now he tried to get a response from the European allies about the sense of its existence. It is no coincidence that this topic was touched upon at a special lunch with NATO Secretary General Jens Stolterberg. Trump’s doubts are great and not about the financial issues only.
Another question that emerged at the summit is quite unexpectedly the anti-Russia counter-attack, initiated by Trump. On the eve of the meeting with Putin, many accused him of going to a deal with Russia, sacrificing the allies’ interests. In the most radical interpretations, he was still accused of being an agent of Russian influence who became president as a result of Russian interference. However, Trump pointed out that the European countries themselves (first of all, Germany) are buying gas from Russia, trading with the “enemy” and facilitating the pumping of a huge amount of financial resources. Generally speaking, the US president linked two issues – the common destiny of NATO and the problems of the North Stream-2 project, i.e. energy ties between Russia and the EU. In terms of negotiating tactics, this decision was very unusual, and in this sense Trump pulled the match to his side of the field.
As there was no talk about improving relations with Russia, the current NATO declaration was kept in extremely critical terms against Moscow. In comparison with previous summits of NATO and other Western organizations, there is no progress. As for relations between the US and the EU, the logic of confrontation seems to be continued – to some extent, the quarrels are acquiring a systemic and qualitative nature, as the trade war continues. Trump’s key question about financial investments in defense also remained unanswered. Therefore, the dynamics of US-European relations will continue to deteriorate.
As for Trump, in addition to the very fact of his meeting with Putin, it is extremely important how to present it in the West and avoid new accusations that he is a pro-Russian politician. It is not accidental that after the first meeting, held a year ago, the anti-Russia rhetoric in the United States sharply toughened. The large-scale sanctions law was adopted and the campaign was intensified on accusing Russia of interference in the American elections. According to this logic, Trump is not interested at all in a rerun of that situation: for him it is important to come to the meeting with Putin as a “hawk” and to leave with a visible result, with a victory. That is why he heats up the situation and does not put a sign of equality between pressure on Europeans and rapprochement with Russia. Therefore, to a certain extent, the high expectations from the Putin-Trump summit, which we can observe in the Russian media, is wishful thinking.
As for Ukraine and Georgia, the alliance developed a coordinated position that can be described as “everything but membership”. It is clear that in this geopolitical situation, admission of Ukraine and Georgia as full-fledged NATO members will be a very serious challenge for Russia, which will not remain unanswered. European security will deteriorate qualitatively, and the situation may become critical from the military point of view. NATO officials understand this, and no one is ready for direct confrontation with Russia, so there are still no immediate chances for full membership of Ukraine and Georgia.
Nevertheless, NATO does not want to push these countries away, so Brussels developed an individual cooperation plan, which can make these countries some kind of “informal NATO members” in the near future: partnership with them will be much closer than with all other states.
