NATO in crisis and implications for India

The most powerful security grouping in the world is struggling. Recently, the Secretary General Mark Rutte said that membership for Ukraine in the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) is off the table, a position that is completely opposite to what the Europeans have been willing to state so far. That was after a meeting with US President Donald Trump, who has long been insisting that it was the threatened expansion of NATO to Russia’s very borders that started the debilitating war.

Be that as it may, the point is that it is not just about Ukraine. The rest of NATO is getting its collective arms twisted in more ways than one, jeopardising the ‘Trans-Atlantic’ amity that underpins it. This churning has implications for everyone, including India, for whom it means that a bulwark against unpleasant folks in the neighbourhood may have been eroded.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

The Ukraine war is to end

The general caving in to the US steamroller was most apparent in the recent presser between the NATO chief and Trump, which had the former in a more than conciliatory mode, praising the US president for all his actions even in the last term, as well as his wisdom in pushing for an end to the Ukraine war.

That’s quite a turnaround, since cries of backing Ukraine’s sovereignty and punishing Russia have been the dominant tone of dialogue in European circles. But it seems there is a quiet shift in thinking.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

The recent London Conference, while strong on emotions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy being feted and praised, was short on actuals, with the final statement stressing the need for US involvement for security guarantees.

In other words, Europe has rather belatedly realised that fighting a nuclear power needs a nuclear guarantee of sufficient proportions. France’s 290-odd nuclear weapons are hardly any replacement to that of the US, with more than 5,000, which is about the size of the Russian arsenal. Besides, at no time has Paris agreed to provide a guarantee to Europe. The UK has even less, besides being tied by the leg to the US, after a 1958 agreement whereby the US designs, manufactures and maintains its arsenal. So that’s pretty much that where Ukraine is concerned, and it’s hardly likely to get all its territory back. That’s not something anyone is even considering for an eventual peace.

It’s all about the money

The presser also had the NATO chief adding that Europe has now allocated $800 billion in ‘extra’ defence spending, just days after Trump was heard talking of ‘calibrating’ US involvement in NATO and not defending those who paid less than the 2 per cent mandated by the organisation.

That set the proverbial cat among the pigeons. Germany announced a $536 billion spending bill that required a constitutional change to increase defence and infrastructure spending. The UK is set to increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP as well as a fiscal stimulus for the defence sector. France’s President Emmanuel Macron is pressing for an increase from 2.1 to 3 per cent of GDP as well, despite a large fiscal deficit.

Denmark has opted for an ‘acceleration fund’ for defence, as have Belgium and much of East Europe. In short, Trump has been able to settle the decades-long arguments on European spending on defence. After all, this pressure began from the time of George W Bush who repeatedly expressed his frustration at Europe’s reluctance to step up but without much effect. Now it seems another win for the ebullient US president.

The Greenland project

All that is, however, tame in light of what Trump now wants NATO to do. During that same presser, he said that NATO may have to be part of his push to annex Greenland for the sake of ‘international security’ in the Arctic. The NATO chief countered courageously that he didn’t see a role for the organisation but concurred on the dangers and the need for more icebreaker ships.

Trump replied that the US was ordering 48, none of which would be available to Canada, a NATO member, unless Toronto paid for it. He also completely discounted Denmark, whose territory Greenland happens to be, as too far away to be of any consequence. While he counted up Russian ships operating in the Arctic, not a word was said about China, which has ramped up icebreaker production and is now importing oil via the Arctic route.

Meanwhile polar ice is melting at record rates, a fact that Europe’s strong environmental policies recognise as a disaster, but Trump simply shrugs away. The US President intends to drill for minerals and station more troops in one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the planet, and there seems little anyone can do about it. Europe could, perhaps.

That NATO’s European members would assist Trump in wrenching away a territory that belongs to one of its own, is unimaginable. While Washington could ‘transition’ Greenland towards merger, the point is that the strain on the Alliance is severe.

A weakened NATO is not good for India in a neighbourhood where some have expansionist ambitions. Any rift is likely to encourage more tentative probing. But here’s the basic fact. While Europe will look to India for defence sales and greater cooperation, China remains Europe’s third-largest trading partner, even as it struggles with the loss of Russian resources and rising public debt.

Increased defence spending is not going to help. The US is certainly China’s top trading partner, and Trump calls the Chinese president his friend. But no US administration will allow the Chinese to surge ahead. That’s set in concrete. Between the two, India can bet on the US in Asia. Europe will always remain an ‘also-ran’ despite its progressive credentials. When it comes to regional bullies, it’s the hammer that counts. And no one can say Trump doesn’t wield a heavy one.

The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. She tweets @kartha_tara. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.