Nato: an unhappy 75th birthday
Nato turned 75 last week, said Eliot Wilson in The Spectator, but the alliance was “in no mood for celebration”. For much of its lifetime, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been a great success, helping avoid a “face-to-face showdown” with the Soviet
Union, and ultimately winning the Cold War. Yet today, the organisation is facing new challenges and existential questions. There’s certainly no prospect of “a gentle retirement”, said The Times. As Vladimir Putin continues his barbaric war on Ukraine, just beyond Nato’s border, the alliance’s sphere of protection has expanded to encompass 32 nations, including Finland and Sweden, which joined in the wake of Russia’s invasion. But the spectre of a Donald Trump victory in November weighs heavily: he has repeatedly complained that European nations free-ride on US military power, and even threatened to “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to Nato members who don’t spend the required 2% of GDP on defence. Facing dissent from within and threats from without, at 75, Nato’s role looks both “more essential than ever”, and more uncertain.
Nato should be thanking Trump, said Con Coughlin in The Daily Telegraph. For decades, Europeans have indeed failed to “pay their fair share” of defence costs – complacently assuming that the US would pick up the tab. Trump has galvanised Europe into much-needed action. Ten years ago, just three members reached the required 2%; “that number is now expected to rise to 18”. Meanwhile, in an effort to “Trump-proof” aid to Ukraine, Nato is also discussing a five-year, €100bn package for Kyiv. Trump, one of the alliance’s biggest sceptics, has “achieved the remarkable feat of saving Nato from itself”.
Even so, “Nato needs less backslapping and more realism”, said Edward Lucas in The Times. Despite the “grand but empty statements” about future pots of money, the alliance is systematically failing to help its neighbour and ally Ukraine, where “retreat, even collapse” looks increasingly likely. Although Ukraine isn’t a Nato member, “our security will be gravely weakened if [it] falls”. Nato is “in a mess, and muddled about its future”. Its stockpiles are “skimpy”, and its equipment “outdated”. Its future size and scope remain unclear. Should it admit Ukraine? Will it open the door to non-North Atlantic countries such as Australia and Japan? The world is increasingly volatile. If Nato wants to remain the most successful military alliance in history, “it must do much more, and much faster”.