Spending is the talk of the NATO summit, but there’s a bigger problem

Open this photo in gallery:

What alliance? What allies?

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump met in Kananaskis, Alta., with G7 leaders, including five NATO allies, and agreed to a statement calling for a de-escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran. But on his way home aboard Air Force One, he sounded threatening.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron had understood at the summit on June 16 that Mr. Trump was leaving to work toward a ceasefire, but the next day Mr. Macron said the U.S. President had obviously changed his mind. Maybe not: The New York Times cited an aide who said the President appeared to be close to deciding to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before he went to the summit.

At any rate, apart from a late heads-up to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, there’s no sign Mr. Trump bothered to consult key NATO allies about the strikes, or inform them, as previous administrations have often done, and ask them to prepare statements of support. Mr. Trump doesn’t care.

“He clearly does not see the benefit to the U.S. of allies,” said Kerry Buck, former Canadian ambassador to NATO and now a senior fellow with the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

More than that: Mr. Trump’s administration has raised doubts about whether the United States remains committed to the defence of NATO allies. And that’s the backbone of the alliance’s deterrence.

Zelensky still to make decision on attending NATO summit, seeks meeting with Trump

An adversary makes a risk calculation about the alliance’s will, Ms. Buck said. Russia has tested limits by cutting underseas cables or perpetrating assassinations in NATO countries. Allies have to worry it could eventually go further.

“I think NATO really is on a knife-edge in a couple of ways,” Ms. Buck said.

When NATO leaders meet for a summit in The Hague on Tuesday, there will be lots of efforts to pretend that’s not true – that everybody is hanging together. The alliance’s members are expected to commit to massively increase defence spending, to the equivalent of 3.5 per cent of their country’s gross domestic product. But there are more basic questions about NATO.

Andrew Coyne: Twenty years late, Canada hits the old NATO target, just in time to fall short of the new one

Mr. Trump is soft on Russia and argued last week that President Vladimir Putin should be allowed back in the G7, while European nations viewed Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine as a security shock.

In February, Mr. Trump’s Defence Secretary travelled to Europe to send a message that they had to carry the weight of their own defence, having circulated an advance statement that said the U.S. would no longer be the sole guarantor of European security. A few days later, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance upbraided Europeans and complained that German politicians sought to isolate the far-right Alternative for Germany. It had an impact on European countries.

“After that, they changed their behaviour,” Carleton University professor Stephen Saideman, the director of the Canadian Defence and Security Network, said in an interview from The Hague.

In March, the European Union unveiled a plan to make exceptions to its budget rules and provide €150-billion in loan financing to members for defence upgrades.

Mr. Saideman said European NATO members are committing to defence-spending increases in part to appease Mr. Trump, to try to keep the U.S. in the NATO club – but it’s more because they can’t rely on the U.S. and have to contemplate a future without it. “NATO’s existence is very much in doubt,” Mr. Saideman said.

U.S. air strikes on Iran did not break international law, NATO’s Rutte says

That’s part of why Prime Minister Mark Carney was in Brussels on Monday, signing a Security and Defence Partnership agreement with the EU. It’s a step toward opening two-way trade in defence equipment. It’s an effort to diversify security partnerships.

Ms. Buck noted Canada was long concerned that joint European defence plans would change the dynamics within NATO, with the U.S. and a European bloc. Now Canada must worry that being left out of Europe’s joint defence plans could leave it more dependent on the U.S.

That’s the kind of possibility NATO members must consider now that they have a less cohesive alliance. Think of how unsettling it is for Denmark, a stalwart ally, to hear Mr. Trump refuse to rule out using force to take Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory.

At their summit, NATO leaders will commit to spend more. European countries are rearming. Canada is thinking about defence again. In another time, that would be seen as a revitalization of the alliance. Now, it’s about figuring out what to do if it falls apart.