NATO leaders pose for a group photo during their summit in Brussels (European)

Paris -

After former US President and current candidate Donald Trump announced last February that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever it wants” to US allies in NATO who do not fulfill their military spending obligations, a number of NATO members confirmed an increase in Their spending.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg came out to confirm that 18 out of the 31 members of the military alliance will be able to meet their commitment to pay 2% of their gross domestic product for joint defense spending, calling on the allies to achieve “fair sharing” of burdens with the United States.

But the faint voices heard behind closed doors reflect the extent of the differences in opinions about the possibility of this happening on the ground, at a time when Europe faces the greatest security threat since World War II.

It seems that Trump's statements and the aggravation of the Ukrainian war made NATO countries wake up from their automatic security slumber and find themselves faced with sudden spending on defense that may make matters more complicated if coordination between allies is absent.

Ingram: Europe does not have a defense capability outside the framework of NATO (Al Jazeera)

An inescapable fact

Former NATO planner and former British military intelligence officer, Philip Ingram, believes that Europe does not have a defensive capability outside the alliance and is committed to using the alliance framework to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin’s methods that aim to strengthen differences and slow down decision-making, taking advantage of every opportunity to enjoy a hidden influence that reassures him of the situation. Effectiveness of cracks and aggravation of disputes.

Commenting on Trump's speech, Ingram told Al Jazeera Net that Trump's method fits the thinking of the businessman, who considers that his country invests much more money than the 2% in which the rest of the countries participate as part of the coalition's obligations, "especially since some countries do not pay this percentage in full."

He pointed out that the alliance's collective defense includes a large percentage of American taxpayers' money, "and for this reason, Trump spoke from a purely commercial perspective: I will not allow you to be part of the game if you do not pay. His approach can be considered aggressive, but its goal is to force European countries to... Commitment to the agreement you signed.

In turn, former general in the French army, François Chauvince, considered this increase “an inevitable fact that does not only aim to achieve victory over the opponent, but also to fill all the gaps that have arisen over the past years after Western countries refused to pay defense costs and relied on American power, and then on illusion.” "A war in Europe is impossible."

For the first time since NATO was created, European allies this year will spend $380 billion on defense, a six-fold increase over 2014 when only three NATO members met the spending target.

An imperative priority

In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, Shovansi posed a question: “Should priority be given to military spending or improving the conditions of citizens?” To answer this, he said that we must go back a little, “when we focused on social matters and spent little on armies and equipment, ignoring all threats.”

Based on his military experiences and the principle of “reversing priorities,” the French general believes that economic development cannot be promoted if there is no good security and defense, because this development may become threatened with disappearance if war breaks out, “and now we must pay the price for our old choices.”

With the ongoing Russian attack in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East, as well as China's attempts to destabilize Southeast Asia, former British officer Philip Ingram believes in the need to increase military spending because "the cost would likely be much heavier if these countries did not invest in defence."

From an economic point of view, Ingram justifies this by saying that “taxpayers’ money will be invested within the country to create manufacturing capabilities, new jobs and potential export areas,” adding, “We are not asking them to pay the same amount of money, but rather to pay the same percentage of GDP, and this means Small countries will pay a much lower amount than large countries, and this is fair.”

Chauncey: Putin's war opened the eyes of European countries and the United States to strengthen their defense (Al Jazeera)

Near my border

It is noteworthy that the countries that have increased their military spending since the start of the war in Ukraine are distinguished by their geographical location close to the Russian border or located within what Moscow considers its sphere of influence, including Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Poland and Lithuania.

The urgent desire to enhance security and protection from a country close to its borders is considered one of the main reasons that prompted it to take this step, in addition to the fact that they are relatively small countries that cannot guarantee their security alone in front of the Russian arsenal.

Ingram considers the main focus of Northern Europe to be reflected in the accession of two new members (Finland and Sweden) after remaining neutral for a long time. Since the north is a potential threat area close to Russia, NATO now has direct maritime borders in the north and can influence Russia's Baltic Fleet, he said.

The former British officer explained that the reason for this focus is due to two reasons: the first is geographical proximity to Russia and Russian influence, and the second is to bring in new members or ensure that the weaker members, who have relatively large minorities of Russians, are not threatened.

For his part, the former general in the French army, Chauvinse, believes that Putin's war opened the eyes of European countries and the United States to strengthen their defense, armies, naval and air forces, pointing out that this lesson was realized and understood very quickly, which prompted an increase in defense manufacturing capabilities.

This is explained by the fact that France had arsenals until the 1980s and 1990s, where state employees manufactured a large part of the weapons that were available at that time because there was no market to sell them. Today, when private companies carry out this process, this means that they will receive a fee for everything they produce, which means saving billions of dollars.

Source: Al Jazeera