LONDON (AP) 鈥� When suggested during the 2016 presidential campaign that he to defend other NATO countries if they were attacked, it triggered alarm throughout the trans-Atlantic alliance.
With Trump's 鈥淎merica First鈥� rhetoric drawing cheers from fervent supporters, the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is once again on the agenda. But this time, the alliance must evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century and say they are ready to shoulder more responsibility for their own defense.
A lot has changed in eight years.
First, Trump鈥檚 presidency , then Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine underscored the threat on its eastern border. Meanwhile, the U.S. has increasingly focused on China鈥檚 expansion in the Asia-Pacific, as well as Iran and North Korea.
鈥淐onfronted with powers such as Russia and China, and a United States whose pivot to Asia seems inevitable, no matter who wins the next election, we Europeans need to do more to ensure our own security,鈥� Josep Borrell, the European Union鈥檚 foreign policy chief, wrote last weekend in The Times of London.
After relying on U.S. leadership of NATO to protect them with overwhelming nuclear and conventional capability for the past 75 years, European nations must take on a larger role in funding and leading the 32-nation alliance because their interests are increasingly diverging from those of the United States.
鈥淲e are talking about a NATO which the United States is still part of, but which the United States is no longer the indispensable leader (of),鈥� said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank focused on defense and security. 鈥淚 mean, that is what JD Vance and Donald Trump are talking about. They鈥檙e talking about a NATO that is transformed and one in which the Europeans take the greatest share of the burden.鈥�
NATO grew out of secret talks among U.S. officials after World War II about how to supply military equipment to Western Europe and ensure a coordinated response to any attack by the Soviet Union. The 12 founding members signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949.
NATO's military structure is headed by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who is also the commander-in-chief of American forces in Europe. The U.S. is expected to spend almost twice as much on its military this year as all the other alliance members combined, according to NATO statistics.
Trump鈥檚 skepticism about NATO was underlined last week when he Vance has opposed U.S. support for Ukraine, has criticized European nations for slashing defense spending since the Cold War, and said it's time for 鈥淓urope to stand on its own feet.鈥�
Europe got another wakeup call on Sunday when President Joe Biden, whose strong support for NATO was cemented during standoffs with the Soviet Union in the 1970s, said he would not seek reelection. Vice President Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, has backed the administration鈥檚 position on NATO and aid to Ukraine, but she entered politics long after the Cold War and is better known for her work on domestic issues.
鈥淭he question is whether she will have that same strong trans-Atlantic view that鈥檚 kind of part of her blood in the way that Biden had it,鈥� said Armida van Rij, an expert on European security policy at the Chatham House think tank in London.
, a cornerstone of the alliance, is based on his belief that member states aren鈥檛 living up to their funding commitments, forcing U.S. taxpayers to subsidize Europe鈥檚 defense.
That argument has weakened since 2016.
Twenty-three of the alliance鈥檚 31 non-U.S. members will meet or exceed their on defense this year, up from just three 10 years ago, according to figures compiled by NATO. Overall, the non-U.S. members now spend 2.02% of gross domestic product on defense, compared with 3.4% by the U.S.
Besides that, the European Union has to boost its defense industry in response to the threat posed by France's President has urged European nations to seek more independence on airspace defense and relocate production to the continent rather than purchasing material off the shelf from American arms merchants.
The EU procurement and to increasingly produce them within the 27-state bloc in a multibillion-dollar pivot away from the United States.
The risks for Europe, as well as the United States, are evolving. It鈥檚 not just about Russian tanks on Europe鈥檚 borders. NATO, as a defensive alliance, must also consider the threats posed by Iran, China and North Korea and be prepared for cyber warfare and foreign interference in elections, as well as conventional military attacks, van Rij said.
That means European nations need to increase troop numbers, upgrade equipment such as tanks, fighter planes and transport aircraft, and improve their ability to counter technological threats, she said.
鈥淲e need to look at this not as Trump-proofing, but as future-proofing European security and the NATO alliance as a whole,鈥欌�� van Rij said. 鈥淏ecause yes, while there are concerns about U.S. engagements in Europe ... 鈥� and the JD Vance appointment as Trump鈥檚 running mate has only accelerated concerns 鈥� there is a bipartisan focus on China, which in the medium- to longer-term could mean that we see resources 小蓝视频 reallocated elsewhere.鈥欌��
One model may be NATO鈥檚 newest members, Finland and Sweden, which joined the
As historically non-aligned nations, they were forced to develop strategies to fight off any Russian incursion largely on their own, equipping their militaries with a full range of capabilities sometimes missing in NATO countries that are used to relying on the U.S. for commanders and battle plans. Both have military service, important weapons industries and large standing armies.
鈥淭he Finnish defense people would say 鈥� we planned up to now to fight Russia by ourselves, now NATO is definitely a bonus...,鈥欌�� Chalmers said. 鈥淣ATO countries have the opposite problem. They鈥檙e so used to thinking about fighting with others and particularly fighting with the Americans, they sometimes get out of the habit of thinking about fighting for themselves.鈥�
The risks of over-reliance on the U.S. were highlighted this year when the House of Representatives blocked $61 billion of military aid for Ukraine for months while conservative focus on domestic border security and the nation鈥檚 rising debt.
While the funding was eventually approved, the delay left Ukraine short of ammunition and hardware as Russia launched a brutal spring offensive.
A second Trump presidency would bring that mindset to the White House.
鈥淭oday 鈥� we peer apprehensively across the Atlantic at a worst case in which an erratic, ignorant, self-obsessed prospective U.S. president might cut us loose,鈥欌�� historian Max Hastings wrote in The Times. 鈥淭rump is right about one big thing: behind an American shield, since the 1950s Europeans have enjoyed an almost free ride. This is now over, and Vladimir Putin is licking his lips.鈥欌��
Danica Kirka, The Associated Press
