Needed: A New European Diplomat to Mend Transatlantic Alliance with Trump-Era Experience

Over three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been navigating through various existential crises.

Once again, it finds itself in precarious waters.

The question that arises is the relevance of a military alliance, rooted in the context of the Cold War, now that the Cold War has ended? To maintain its vitality, NATO sought different avenues. It partook in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, welcomed a dozen former Soviet Union nations into its ranks, involved itself in Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11, and reoriented itself to handle emerging threats in the realm of cyber and digital warfare.

This recent crisis, however, is unique. As they convened in Washington this week for extensive 75th anniversary celebrations, members of NATO expressed a heightened sense of clarity and urgency about their mission. The importance of collectively defending the Western bastion of democracies against an aggressively postured Russia and its staunch ally Beijing, the lead of the emerging "resistance" axis, is more evident than ever.

Nevertheless, coping with political realities proves to be challenging. Former President Donald Trump and his cohort draw up strategies to shake the alliance's foundation, as Michael Hirsh outlines. Simultaneously, pro-Russian and NATO-skeptic European factions are gaining political momentum, prompting the alliance and various governments to adapt to new leadership dynamics in Washington.

The bigger hurdles, of course, encompass more than who takes the reins in the White House or any other nation. Going forward, irrespective of the administration in power, the U.S. is likely to have reached the maximum it can offer Ukraine, looking forward to a more proactive Europe utilizing its beefed-up defense budget. With America refocusing on the Middle East and China, NATO's role needs to align with that narrative or risk losing relevance in Washington's eyes.

It has been reiterated time and again that NATO is the most successful military alliance in history - a valid point. The challenge lies in preserving this status.

The outgoing secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, has been grappling with this question for years. When asked about his most remarkable achievement, he reflects: "That I have been able to keep this alliance together."

Despite the direct complexities, Stoltenberg articulates a strong argument for NATO. "NATO makes the U.S. safer, stronger, and actually creates a market for U.S. equipment," he asserts. As a Norwegian with a financial background, he has learned to master the language of figures and leverage arguments that resonate in the world of policy-making and Bernoulli. Defense contracts valued at $140 billion signed by the U.S with European nations due to increased spending are among the economic benefits highlighted.

However, the ultimate test for NATO lies in the conflict involving Ukraine. Emerging views among political fringe groups within the alliance suggest they're inclined towards negotiation with Putin and cessation of support for Kyiv. Stoltenberg counters this thinking with an interesting perspective linking Ukraine's significance to the alliance's broader struggle around China's growing influence.

The broad concept of a "global" NATO was first discussed post 9/11. In light of China's rise, the recent formation of the AUKUS grouping, involving the U.S., Britain, and Australia in the Pacific, reiterates the necessity of extending the Western allegiance into the Pacific, reinforcing the ideology that "Security is not regional, it's global."

However, the alliance's future is likely to be determined in closer quarters. The fact that procedures could've moved at a faster pace is an understatement. Continued advancements in Russia's expansion coupled with NATO's uneven progress and lean influence compared to its size, present a stark reminder that the path towards the alliance's future is paved with formidable challenges.

In spite of the hurdles, NATO continues to assert itself and take decisive steps to respond to new security realities both regionally and globally. The narrative of NATO serving America's interests for generations still resonates and can certainly continue in this new age. However, the argument for its sustained relevance and effectiveness will have to be made – in the U.S, Europe, and beyond – backed up by actions, funding commitments and tangible impacts.

Stoltenberg, the outgoing leader of NATO, holds a significant track record despite the challenges he faced. Coming from Norway, a nation known for existential discourse sans hyperbole or hysteria, his journey was far from smooth. Initially chosen by Germany's Angela Merkel in early 2014 to mend fraying relations with Vladimir Putin, his tenure soon took an unexpected turn with the annexation of Crimea and the initiation of a proxy war in Ukraine.

The subsequent annexation of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 demanded NATO mobilize for warfare in Europe, uniting the forces. Stoltenberg has learned valuable political lessons during his time with NATO, many of which were courtesy of Donald Trump. Client politics, arguing his funding critiques, and utilizing them to shift NATO's financial landscape are parts of Stoltenberg's playbook, earning him the nickname of "Trump Whisperer" among NATO staff.

The expansion of Russian production amplifies the urgency for NATO to build its defense capacities. European nations, including Poland and Denmark, are gradually raising their defense budget. Military supply contracts have been signed, but it will take years to produce tangible results. Europe, and even the U.S, have significant ground to cover to adopt a genuine war footing.

The present state of the world shows an increased necessitation of the 2 percent GDP target spending on defense by NATO countries. It should serve as a minimum, not a loftiness to achieve. Europe, having majorly been provided for its defense needs, must contribute more in this century.

"NATO is stronger than ever militarily," comments Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Danish Prime Minister and NATO's secretary-general from 2009 to 2014. "But it lacks courage and strategic vision."

As Poland and other NATO members embrace systemic and financial changes to meet new global security realities, the flexibility and seriousness of commitment from all members will determine the alliance's future success. The vision of NATO following America’s lead needs to be reevaluated now, considering the shifts in the global scenario.

American critics should not confuse NATO's purpose with that of something more akin to the United Nations. For the new era, the case for NATO continuing to serve America's interest needs to be made empathically and decisively. It must be articulated not only in Europe, but also in the U.S., and it must be reinforced with curative actions and strategic budget allocations. The alliance, formed in the image of America, has the potential to continue serving its purpose - but the real test of time would be the commitment and continued actions by its members.

Camille Lefevre for TROIB News