Trump urges NATO to boost defense spending amid war tensions

During a Tuesday press conference at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, Donald Trump devoted considerable time to discussing the war in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Alliance. He reiterated his earlier statement from his first presidency that alliance countries should allocate 5% of GDP to defense instead of 2%. When asked if he would push for raising defense spending to this level, Trump answered affirmatively.

Trump stated that NATO members should dedicate 5% of their GDP to defense, arguing that 2% is inadequate. He suggested that nations with standard military forces should allocate 4%, while those in high-risk areas should aim for 5%, asserting that all members are capable of meeting these spending levels.

According to his suggestion, the United States wouldn't protect countries failing to meet these requirements. During Donald Trump's first term, defense spending in NATO was a central point of contention. The Republican threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the military alliance if partner countries failed to invest at least 2% of GDP in defense.

"Trump did not succeed very well then, although some countries, including Poland, began to take the issue seriously. Now, Trump’s pressure on European allies may yield much better results due to the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia. It's Putin who forces Europe to make such decisions," Gen. Stanisław Koziej.

In his opinion, NATO will not follow Trump's recommendations at the upcoming summit. "But since Americans have long expected European allies to contribute more to defense, aiming towards 5% is more realistic," Gen. Koziej believes.

In a similar tone, Marcus Faber, chair of the defense committee in the Bundestag from the liberal FDP, spoke on Wednesday. He believes that 5% is too much, but in his opinion, 32 NATO countries will need to agree on a new collective minimum exceeding the 2% goal. Former defense committee chair and MEP Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann commented more harshly on Trump's statement. "We shouldn't go crazy over every statement from Trump. We're not at a market," said the FDP politician in an interview with RND.

In his view, risks lie in dividing European allies into better and worse categories.

"At first glance, dividing into Eastern Europe, which Trump would support, and Western Europe, which he wouldn’t, might seem appealing to us. A divided Europe is a weaker Europe. With such division, we would rely on just one source of support for our security, solely the U.S. We can't afford that," the former military official says.

The controversies surrounding Trump's words don't end there. As he emphasized, he would like to meet with Vladimir Putin as soon as possible, and he expressed frustration that he could not do this before the start of his second presidency.

He added that he hopes to bring an end to the war "long before half a year elapses," rendering his campaign declaration that he would do it within 24 hours of being sworn in outdated.

Gen. Koziej said those words were an introduction to how Trump's presidency would look. "He wanted to signal that he would be tough, relentless, and unpredictable. It was meant to show allies and opponents that they would have to take him into account unconditionally," evaluates Gen. Koziej.

As he emphasizes, ending the war within a day was unrealistic. "It was treated as a metaphor for the determination to end the conflict quickly. Now, Trump is beginning to evaluate realistically the prospects for any possibility of talks or negotiations. This shows his evolution from a candidate in the elections and campaign winner to a real President of the United States," comments the former head of the National Security Bureau.

In his view, if Trump proves to be a strong and tough leader in the attempt to end the war, he will impose this on both Ukraine and Russia.