NATO Summit in The Hague: A show of unity amid strategic differences

As former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder notes in a column for POLITICO, the summit was a test of the alliance's resilience in the face of growing pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not hesitate to call the meeting a "Trump summit." Indeed, the key issue on the agenda was the allies' endeavour to meet the US president's demands in exchange for maintaining his support for the alliance. The main achievement of the meeting was an agreement to raise defence spending by NATO countries to 5% of GDP by 2035.

For the European participants and Canada, this is a step that means recognising the impossibility of continuing to rely on Washington's security guarantees. U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth bluntly stated in February: "The hard strategic reality does not allow the United States of America to maintain its priority on European security".

Nevertheless, as Daalder emphasises, this formal success hides deep contradictions. First of all, in the assessment of the Russian threat.

Whereas in last year's communiqué NATO explicitly referred to Russia as "the most significant and immediate threat to Allied security," in the current text it appears as "a long-term threat. This is not just an editorial change: the reduction in harshness has to do with Washington's position.

Trump, unlike most allies, does not consider Russian President Vladimir Putin a direct adversary. He gave an evasive answer to a related question. This is a cause for concern in Brussels, as a unified threat perception is the basis of any political-military coalition.

These divergences were also evident in relation to Ukraine. Trump calls the war a "purely European situation" and has abandoned his previous rhetoric about the need to end the conflict. Meanwhile, for most European countries, Ukraine's security remains a key part of stability in the region. Despite the US refusal to actively promote Ukraine's accession to NATO, the alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte and other leaders have said that Kiev's course remains "irreversible."

European countries are particularly alarmed by Trump's statement on Article 5 of NATO's charter, which guarantees collective defence.

"There are many definitions of Article 5," he told reporters, adding, "I'm determined to be a friend."

Meanwhile, the text of the treaty states unequivocally, "An armed attack against one or more members in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all." The principle of collective defence has been invoked only once - after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when all allies sent forces to Afghanistan.

Against the backdrop of strategic uncertainty, the alliance has decided not only to increase spending but also to redistribute military commitments. Each country will have to develop specific components of the armed forces needed to respond quickly to external threats.

Thus, Europe and Canada will assume an increasing share of responsibility in the coming years, reducing dependence on the United States. This will change the balance within NATO, shifting it towards European capitals.

As Daalder emphasises, Trump is no longer talking about burden-sharing, but demanding a complete burden-shifting. He made an exception for the US to the general 5 per cent spending rule. "We've supported NATO long enough as it is. We shouldn't, but the rest of the world should," he said.

NATO has maintained formal integrity and avoided an immediate crisis. But strategic differences over Russia, Ukraine and the alliance's key principles - particularly Article 5 - create an atmosphere of uncertainty.

As Daalder notes, the current dynamic is leading to a redistribution of not only financial but also political responsibility within NATO. And if the U.S. continues to distance itself from key commitments, the alliance will have to find new footholds - without traditional U.S. leadership.