Writing about NATO in the hours immediately following the attack on former President Trump takes on an aspect that is at least different from what one might have thought yesterday.
Proper condolences to the family of the spectator killed by the attacker are awaited and some considerations on the origin of the attack are classified as pure idiocy (two centimeters of difference in the trajectory of the bullet were enough and we would have been talking about the death of the former president) we must think about the aftermath and how US public opinion will respond. Trump today would enjoy an unbridgeable advantage according to many non-partisan analysts.
Most of the declarations following the NATO summit (75 years of the Alliance were celebrated in Washington) concern, rightly, Ukraine, for which the allies will once again commit themselves to continuing to fight Moscow without prejudice to the position that “NATO is not at war with Russia”.
However, the condemnation of Russian aggression remains absolute for the 32 current member countries but Trump's position on the future appears different from Washington's current position. Behind the final declarations and good intentions the obvious remains unsolved lack of strategic direction (difficult with 32 countries), the lack of leadership (Biden does not seem able to ensure it and Trump has always highlighted this deficiency) and theEurope's inability to meet its defense needs in a clear and deterrent way. A photograph of the old continent today shows that France does not have a government, Great Britain has just entered the period following a historic change of majority, Germany has just announced a cut to the defense budget and Italy, for now, is not economically committed enough to defense according to Washington and, above all, according to the Republican leader.
What is clear for all to see right now is that Americans will be faced with an electoral choice in November. Choice between a President Biden who appears increasingly cognitively compromised, who is simply no longer capable of leading the free world (including managing the most important briefcase with the nuclear codes on earth) and Trump who, with his attitudes and past, leaves the free world itself at least perplexed, but who miraculously survived the attack and who will now be able to exploit the media resonance in his favor and confirm his image as a "strong man".
In February 2014 Russia conquered Crimea and did not stop there. If the Allies truly believe in NATO, they will once again have to make a very considerable effort to convince America, too busy, overspent and stressed, to continue guaranteeing the security of Europe. This is the real question of this summit and what awaits the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in his role as mediator (without ever forgetting that he is a "spokesman" and not the "head of government" of the Alliance). will have to use all its powers of persuasion and diplomacy, because the only way in which the Americans can guarantee the future of Europe's defense is for Europeans to shoulder the growing burden of their own tasks which, translated into simple words, means that everyone (including Italy) reaches at least the objective of 2% of GDP for defense. The Europeans will have to provide this objective as a minimum political and strength requirement to be credible and better involve the government in Washington. Today, Hungarian President Orban's visit to Trump at Mar-a-Lago appears less "risky" in this context.
Apart from the supporting decisions of an economic nature and statements on a planned entry of Ukraine into the Alliance (the Ukrainians expect a formal invitation soon), the Kremlin, for its part, considers NATO's intention on the deployment in Germany of long-range missiles as "a dangerous escalation." Some similar weapons supplied to Kiev are already being used to strike Russia, but plans to deploy longer-range missiles could worsen the situation, according to Moscow. This is not to mention the reaction to Kiev's supposed membership of the Alliance! Trump has never ruled out the idea of opposing Ukraine's entry into NATO... we'll see.
Trump had made it clear that, if he were elected to the White House, his idea for putting an end to the war in Ukraine would include negotiating with Putin to stop the potential extension of NATO to Ukraine, but also to Moldova and Georgia, and agree on which territories Kiev should cede to Moscow in exchange for peace. A hypothesis that would nullify Kiev's promise to join the Alliance.
Trump would then have in mind a two-speed NATO, or rather, a series A and series B NATO, in which the dividing line would be defense spending at 2% of GDP: who will not reach this threshold "would not enjoy the defensive generosity and security guarantees offered by the United States".
Then there is People's China. The final document of the Summit accuses, without the possibility of denial, Beijing of having allowed and favored the continuation of the war in Ukraine through its "unlimited" partnership and support for the Russian defense industry. The open-ended partnership was announced in February 2022 after a meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, days before Russia launched a full-fledged invasion of Ukraine. Xi declared that there are "no limits" to the friendship between the two countries and that there are no "forbidden" areas of cooperation.
The NATO statement explicitly calls on PRC to “cease all material and political support for Russia's aggressive war effort”, including the supply of dual-use materials that can be used in weapons.
“People's China cannot allow the largest European war in recent history without having a negative impact on its interests and reputation”, we read in the statement and this is also valid as a warning for Beijing's aggressive attitude in the Indo Pacific, especially towards the democratic Republic of China (Taiwan).
Taiwan is very dear to Trump, so much so that he was the first to congratulate the election of the former Taiwanese president and has never hidden this strategic direction from Beijing.
Italy and President Meloni have had indisputable success in the Summit context. In addition to confirming the supply of a further modern anti-aircraft system to Kiev and confirming the intention to shortly reach the aforementioned (much supported by the Trump administration) defense spending commitment equal to 2% of GDP, the Italy has obtained a commitment to the creation of a “special representative for the southern neighbourhood”. A role in which Italy places great interest: "The creation of a special NATO envoy for the southern flank is an important decision. It was an Italian battle and we believe it is right that an Italian is chosen for the role", he said. said Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, adding: “Our prime minister today presented the request to Mark Rutte” and revealing that it is already working on the objectives to be achieved south of the Mediterranean.
Instability, effects of climate change, the presence of Russia and People's China in the Sahel area and Northern Africa, the activities of terrorist groups or human traffickers are among the main issues to be addressed, on which Italy claims activity, commitment and knowledge mainly in the vast area in which NATO intends to strengthen itself: the Balkans, central-northern Africa, the Middle East.
In conclusion, the one in Washington was an important summit, much more incisive than the previous one in Vilnius, with the 32 Allies much more cohesive and determined on the strategic vision.
There is still a long way to go and we should change gear and speed, above all in a united and supportive manner with a renewed European commitment and involve the "miracle worker" and probably again President Trump.
Ultimately we are talking about what Italian geopolitical doctrine identifies as "Enlarged Mediterranean” and that developments are increasingly leading to redefining “Indo-Mediterranean”. Not a little…
Photo: US Air Force
