The leaders of the 32 NATO member states adopted, at the Hague Summit, a common statement by which the firm commitment to collective defense is reaffirmed. The main “winner” of the meeting is the US, explains foreign policy analyst George Rîpă.
Nicușor Dan shook hands with Donald Trump PHOTO Presidential Administration
At the NATO Summit in The Hague, NATO members agreed to invest 5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of their states for defense and security by 2035. Thus, allies will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP for NATO defense expenses, to finance the essential defense requirements and to meet NATO. Another 1.5% of GDP will go to protect the critical infrastructure, defense of networks, ensure civil and resilience, stimulate innovation and strengthen the industrial defense base.
However, the only state that will have an exception is Spain. According to Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, his state will not allocate a budget of more than 2.1% for defense. The exempted state was described as “a big problem” by US Secretary Marco Rubio, and President Donald Trump threatened to put Spain “Payment” in another way: “We negotiate with Spain a commercial agreement. We will make them pay twice as much ”.
The main result
An analyst George Rîpă points out that the Member States have not respected their duties in recent years, and the main beneficiary of the last summit is the US and President Donald Trump, who has previously insisted on increasing defense expenses.
“The NATO summit is a success for the Alliance, but first of all for the US administration. First, the Trump administration manages to impose in a document assumed by all the alliance Member States, the increase to 5% of the GDP for defense. We remember that this is the wish of President Trump from the first term, to strengthen the strength and the importance of the state and the importance of the state and Public assumed that they want to replace, at a global level, the liberal system based on democracy and the reign of the law – we are obviously referring to states such as Russia, China, Iran.
The reference to Article 3 of the Washington Treaty is fundamental, it is clearly stipulated that each signatory part will maintain and develop not only a collective capacity but also an individual one. This is the point in the treaty that NATO Member States have not respected in recent years, but to which I return with the urges of the American administration ”, explains foreign policy analyst George Rîpă for “Adevărul”.
What the European allies have obtained
Also, after the heated debates and tensions of the last months, “The identification of Russia as a enemy and support for Ukraine, elements that appear in the final statement, represent a very good news for the states on the eastern flank ”, George Rîpă points out.
However, the final document of the statement describes Russia as “A long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security.” However, a direct conviction of the invasion in Ukraine is not mentioned, a change to previous summits. However, Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenski announces that he has discussed with US President Donald Trump about a ceasefire and a real peace in Ukraine, stating that meeting with the white house was
“Long and substantial.”
Controversies on complying with article 5
Before attending the Summit, US President Donald Trump refused to say if he will commit to NATO Article 5. “There are many definitions of article 5. You know that, right? But I was committed to being a friend, you know, I became friends with many of these leaders and I committed to help them, “ Donald Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Tuesday, on his way to the NATO Summit in The Hague, and his answer sparked controversy.
Analyst George Rîpă emphasizes that “The famous article in the Washington Treaty stipulates that in the event of an aggression on a signatory, the others will help them with what they consider it appropriate (Such AS IT IT DEEHS, including the use of armed force). The article therefore provides for the use of military force, but it is not mandatory! Article 5 was thus built precisely so that the American army could not be drawn into a war without the consent of the US President and Congress. So yes, as the American leader says, there are several ways to interpret art. 5. It is important that those who comment to read it too.
Those who jumped as burning following the statement of President Trump two days ago, namely “there are several ways to interpret Article 5″, have not read, unfortunately art. 5. Donald Trump, as opposed to his critics, read it. ”
Nicușor Dan “was naturally integrated among the other Euro-Atlantic leaders”
Regarding Romania, the analyst George Rîpă is of the opinion that our state could have requested “The increase of a permanent alloy presence on the territory of Romania. But in this file the former presidential administration should have worked.”
“I think the only objective was a political one, and here I think we have an obvious winner, in the person of President Nicușor Dan who integrated naturally among the other Euro-Atlantic leaders. Offered confidence ”, the foreign policy analyst also explains.
The head of state shook hands with Donald Trump, during which they had a short discussion. On the occasion of the Hague summit, President Nicușor Dan had bilateral discussions with the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Keir Starmer, and with the President of the Czech Republic, Petr Paul.
The Minister of Defense, Ionuț Mosteanu, announced the signing of an agreement with the Netherlands, after which Romania will receive a donation of 18 F-16 fighter jets. The transfer of the aircraft comes in the context of the operationalization of the International Center for the Training of F-16 pilots, located on the territory of Romania. The center was initially created for the training of Ukrainian pilots, but has expanded its mission and will prepare pilots from all countries operating F-16 aircraft.
