Intemperate message on Nato is hard to argue with

‘While, technically, Britain meets the Nato requirement, the Treasury has indulged in a great deal of creative accounting’

The language used by Donald Trump at the Nato summit might not be to everyone’s taste, but it is hard to argue with his central message: Europe needs to spend more on its defence.

It has been a bugbear of successive US administrations that too many European members of the Nato alliance fail miserably to pay their fair share towards the cost of defending themselves.

Former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama regularly chastised their European partners for not meeting the recommended Nato target of two per cent of GDP, although this was addressed to some extent during the Nato summit that David Cameron chaired in Wales in 2014, when it was agreed that this should be achieved by 2024. Mr Trump’s arrival at the White House, though, means Washington wants action now, particularly with regard to Germany which, while enjoying the Continent’s biggest budget surplus, is well below the desired Nato threshold in terms of defence spending.

This helps to explain the intemperate language Mr Trump used prior to Nato’s annual summit in Brussels yesterday, when he accused the Germans of being “totally controlled by Russia” because of the country’s economic dependence on imports of Russian natural gas.

Mr Trump’s demand that Germany end its investment in the 800-mile long Nord Stream 2 pipeline beneath the Baltic Sea is indicative of what the White House regards as German double standards in its dealings with Russia.

The criticism might seem harsh given the prominent role Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has played in diplomatic efforts to challenge Russia’s illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea.

But the terseness of Mr Trump’s comments reflect his deep frustration with the ongoing failure of European states to meet their Nato financial obligations at a time when the global threat environment is getting worse, not better. America’s defence spending currently stands at 3.5 per cent, and it is estimated that the US contributes around two thirds of Nato’s total defence spend.

The US reckons that 20 of the alliance’s 29 member states are failing to meet the Nato spending requirement, and the president wrote sharply worded letters to the leaders of several Nato countries – including Canada and Germany – prior to the summit. Nor can Britain be absolved from Washington’s ire, even though the Government continues to insist that it meets the two per cent threshold.

While, technically, Britain meets the Nato requirement, the Treasury has indulged in a great deal of creative accounting to achieve this figure. For example, the capital cost of replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent, which was once borne by the Treasury, is now included in the Mod’s budget, as are service pensions. The result is that a black hole of around £2billion a year has appeared in the defence budget.

Mr Trump’s warning to Nato therefore needs to be taken seriously, even if his language is uncomfortable to European ears. Not since the end of the Cold War has the threat to world peace been so challenging, and America and its allies need to ensure they have the ability to defend themselves against any eventuality.