Connect with us

Diplomacy

A brief history of US grievances against NATO

Published

on

US President Donald Trump’s outbursts against NATO allies, claiming “we spend all the money,” left a defining mark, particularly during his second presidential term.

At the 2025 summit in The Hague, member states pledged to allocate 5% of their annual GDP to defense by 2035. This marked a monumental leap from the 2% commitment made at the 2014 Wales summit.

This 5% commitment encompasses two primary categories of defense investment. The first is “core defense requirements”: allies agreed to dedicate at least 3.5% of their GDP to meeting baseline defense needs and fulfilling NATO Capability Targets, based on the agreed definition of NATO defense expenditure.

The second is “defense and security-related expenditure”: under this heading, member states will allocate up to 1.5% of their GDP to broader defense and security-related investments, such as protecting critical infrastructure, defending networks, ensuring civil preparedness and resilience, and strengthening innovation and the defense industrial base.

According to NATO’s own figures, European allies and Canada increased their defense spending by over $90 billion in 2025, representing an approximate 20% increase compared to 2024.

Official NATO reporting also indicates that European nations and Canada have steadily increased their collective defense investments over the past decade: rising from 1.4% of their total GDP in 2014 to 2.3% in 2025, culminating in a total investment of over $571 billion in defense spending this year.

According to NATO statistics, the United States consistently spends upwards of 3.5% to 4% of its GDP on defense. In absolute terms, of course, no single NATO power can match the expenditure of the American military.

Yet the issue of “burden-sharing,” which became highly visible during the Trump era, is not new. Setting aside the debates during the detente periods of the Cold War, American defense spending and public debt began to swell significantly in the late 1990s, spinning out of control in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Coupled with the rise of China and the US declaration of a military pivot to Asia, this ignited an open debate on how the “security architecture” of the Euro-Atlantic axis would transform.

Bush’s call

Attending the 2008 NATO summit in Romania, then-US President George W. Bush laid out a lengthy list of threats, primarily featuring Iraq and Afghanistan but also spanning Iran and Northeast Asia, before outlining the measures required to shield Europe from “missile threats.”

Bush stated:

“To build a strong NATO Alliance, a strong European defense capability is also essential. Therefore, at this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and EU operations. America believes that if Europeans invest in their own defense, we will be stronger and more capable when we act together.”

Recently, an article written on behalf of the George W. Bush Presidential Center for the Ankara summit revisited the issue of “burden-sharing.” Authored by Elizabeth Kennedy Trudeau, a former State Department official, the piece references past debates, noting: “Today, it is abundantly clear that the endless debate over burden-sharing is no longer a theoretical issue, and that is also how the public perceives it.”

According to Trudeau, “Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine,” “instability in the Middle East,” “China’s growing ambitions,” and emerging threat domains such as cyber threats, disinformation, and vulnerable supply chains have radically altered the geopolitical landscape. Consequently, NATO must adapt to this new reality.

Pointing out that European allies have increased their defense spending, the author welcomes the Continent’s steps toward assuming greater responsibility for “collective defense,” asserting: “This is not because the United States is pulling away from NATO; rather, a stronger Europe makes this powerful alliance even stronger.”

A sharp rebuke from Obama’s Defense Secretary Gates

However, the most scathing critique directed at the Old Continent from the US came during the presidency of Barack Obama.

In a university address, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued that Europeans’ reluctance to employ military force was “limiting NATO’s ability to conduct effective military operations.”

At the time, redrafting the NATO alliance’s core strategic concept was on the agenda. In his speech, Gates called for sweeping reforms within the organization. He remarked that NATO’s success in preventing conflicts from erupting in post-WWII Europe had inadvertently fostered a new set of concerns:

“The demilitarization of Europe—where large swaths of the public and political class are opposed to military force and the risks that go with it—has gone from being a blessing in the 20th century to an obstacle to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.”

Gates warned that unless NATO members maintained robust militaries and made the necessary budgetary commitments to modernize their forces, Europe would remain vulnerable to threats.

The Secretary stated, “Real or perceived weakness does not merely invite miscalculation and aggression; on a more fundamental level, the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to act and fight together to confront common threats.”

Defining NATO as “a military alliance with real-world, life-and-death obligations,” Gates noted that the ongoing effort to “rethink and reshape” the alliance’s strategic mission came at a critical juncture.

“Currently, the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems. NATO’s budget crisis is but one example, and it is a symptom of deeper issues within NATO regarding how threat perception, requirement determination, prioritization, and resource allocation are handled.”

In a speech in Brussels the following year, Gates also criticized Germany for not participating in the NATO airstrikes aimed at toppling Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He warned that patience was wearing thin in the US Congress toward Europeans who were reluctant to stand “on their own feet”:

“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the broader American body politic—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

It is worth recalling that an NBC report at the time remarked, “This assessment could prompt Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the US, upon which they have relied for much of their security over the past six decades.”

Moreover, the controversy erupted immediately after the withdrawal of an American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction in US troop levels on the continent.

During the Q&A session following his address, Gates also remarked that his generation’s “emotional and historical attachment” to NATO was “fading over time.”

Without naming them, Gates delivered a sharp critique of “countries apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to shoulder the growing security burden left by cuts in European defense budgets.”

Warnings from Hillary Clinton

A similar theme was voiced by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton observed, “NATO is turning into a two-tiered alliance, where the proportion of member states willing and able to pay for and bear the burden of collective defense is steadily shrinking.”

Intriguingly, this assessment closely mirrored remarks by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at an annual national conference in Norway, where he noted that “the United States accounts for two-thirds of NATO’s defense spending.”

In her 2010 “Future of NATO” speech, Clinton stated:

“You will also hear this from Secretary Gates: despite historical and entirely understandable reasons why European countries have not yet committed to a level of per capita defense spending—not to the level we would like to see you reach, which is our level, but higher than where most of you are now—we believe this is a subject that must be discussed honestly. Because many of the infrastructure challenges we will face in the confrontation of these new threats—such as energy security or cybersecurity—will require member states to invest more so that we can network through NATO. It will be less about NATO doing the job than about member states coordinating and collaborating with their investments.”

Divergence in Europe

The impact of the 5% spending floor set at the Hague summit varies significantly across European states.

Reuters points out that two distinct groups have emerged since the decision: the first comprises Germany and mostly Nordic and Eastern European countries, which possess the fiscal flexibility to scale up spending; the second consists of several major actors struggling to achieve the same.

Guntram Wolff, a researcher at the economic think tank Bruegel, notes of Europe’s three largest economies after Germany: “The UK, for instance, cannot manage this. Neither can France, nor Italy.”

According to a draft budget obtained by Reuters ahead of Monday’s cabinet meeting, Germany will leverage a rule change exempting defense items from strict borrowing limits, doubling its spending to over 200 billion euros ($228.38 billion) between now and 2030.

Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia—countries where the perception of the Russian threat is most acute—have already made significant strides toward meeting the new targets. Warsaw, in particular, allocated 4.3% of its GDP to defense last year.

On the other hand, this initiative faces steep political and financial hurdles. Last week, Britain announced a plan for £15 billion in additional defense spending, to be partially funded by cuts in other areas.

However, it has emerged that a third of this sum remains unfunded, presenting an early budgetary headache for the presumptive new prime minister, Andy Burnham.

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is expected to announce at the summit that Rome will increase its core and non-core defense spending to 2.8% of GDP in 2026, despite carrying one of Europe’s heaviest debt burdens.

However, because rising military expenditures are unpopular with many voters ahead of next year’s general election, most of the increase will be covered by domestic security spending, such as policing duties.

France, through detailed plans unveiled in April, aims to increase its defense spending from the current level of around 2% to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade, all while trying to bring its overall budget deficit into alignment with Eurozone rules. With presidential elections on the horizon, how the Macron administration will generate this surplus remains a matter of curiosity.

The Spanish government, meanwhile, is not expected to waver in its commitment to cap defense spending at no more than 2.1% of GDP. Its plan is to redirect new resources largely toward technologies with civilian applications.

Furthermore, some countries appear to inspire little confidence at NATO headquarters: NATO officials have questioned claims by the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Albania that they have met the old alliance target of 2% of GDP, requesting that these nations revise and resubmit their spending figures.

Diplomacy

Ukraine faces demographic collapse as fertility rates slide

Published

on

British magazine The Economist reported that mobilization, conflict casualties, and pervasive uncertainty have left Ukraine confronting the threat of demographic collapse.

According to data cited by the magazine, Ukraine’s fertility rate has declined from 1.2 children per woman in 2020 to between 0.8 and 0.9.

This rate marks a lower level than that of any major nation except South Korea.

In the first half of 2026, the number of deaths in Ukraine surpassed the number of newborn babies threefold.

The report noted that ever since independence was gained in 1991, the number of births in the country has lagged behind the number of deaths every year.

The Economist emphasized that the demographic collapse driven by the ongoing fighting constitutes an “existential threat.”

The magazine identified mass refugee migration as the principal driver of the population loss.

More than 5 million Ukrainians reside abroad, predominantly in Europe.

The proportion of those wishing to return among those who left the country is also steadily shrinking.

According to data from the Centre for Economic Strategy (CES), the share of those seeking to return dropped from 74% in 2022 to 43%.

The fact that the majority of refugees consist of Ukrainian children and women under the age of 44 further aggravates the demographic picture.

The Kyiv government decided to exempt men under the age of 25 from mobilization to alleviate the demographic decline.

The magazine reported, however, that many young people have fled the country, while those who remain do not plan to start families.

Projections cited in the report indicate that even if hostilities cease in the coming years, Ukraine can, at best, expect merely a deceleration of depopulation.

Olga Duhnich, an expert at the Ukraine-based think tank Frontier Institute, stated that the generation born in the 1990s and 2000s is the least populous in Ukraine’s modern history, meaning the country cannot expect a post-conflict baby boom.

The United Nations (UN) projects that Ukraine’s population will decline by 0.7% to 0.9% each year over the next two decades.

Under this projection, Ukraine’s population will fall to approximately 25 million by 2040.

If hostilities drag on, people are expected to abandon plans to have children, deepening the crisis even further.

Beyond exempting men under 25 from mobilization, the Kyiv government is rolling out various support packages to boost birth rates.

Under legislation enacted in the country, parents who have children receive a direct payment of 50,000 hryvnias (around $1,100).

Parents are also paid 7,000 hryvnias each month during the first year.

Other state programmes subsidize childcare costs, while Ukrainian soldiers are granted free freezing of egg and sperm cells.

Ukrainian Minister of Social Policy Denis Ulyutin said in May to the Livyi Bereh media outlet that roughly 22 to 25 million people lived in government-controlled territories.

Ulyutin characterized the prevailing picture by saying: “This is a catastrophe.”

Ella Libanova, Director of the Institute for Demography and Quality of Life Research, estimated the population at 29 million during the same period.

Libanova attributed the steep fall from a population of 30 million in 2025 to high death rates and the demographic crisis.

In a statement in October, Libanova announced that Ukraine’s population had slipped to 28.5 million.

Institute Director Libanova said: “The population is already at 28.5 million; we lost half a million people. We lost them, but thankfully this was still caused by migration rather than casualties.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Armenian opposition urged to form joint front against constitution

Published

on

Narek Karapetyan, a lawmaker and head of the Strong Armenia faction in the Armenian parliament, has urged opposition parties to unite around four core principles set out in a joint declaration.

The key points of the declaration include resisting territorial concessions and blocking the adoption of a new constitution, which the opposition has termed the “Aliyev constitution”.

According to a report by Aysor.am, Narek Karapetyan stated that the opposition meeting was originally planned to be led by his uncle, businessman and Strong Armenia movement leader Samvel Karapetyan.

“We initiated the meeting, but the authorities took preemptive steps to prevent Samvel Karapetyan from launching the national unification process,” Narek Karapetyan said.

Noting that, despite these events, opposition representatives convened and signed a joint declaration based on four agreed articles, Narek Karapetyan invited other opposition forces and members of the public to join the alliance.

“We will not allow them to implement the Aliyev constitution in Armenia. We must unite,” Karapetyan said.

Ahead of these developments, Armenian National Security Service personnel detained Strong Armenia Party leader Samvel Karapetyan following a search of his home.

The party’s press secretary, Agavni Sukiasyan, announced that on the morning of the same day, the Investigative Committee of Armenia searched the homes of both Samvel Karapetyan and Narek Karapetyan.

In a report citing the Investigative Committee, Armenpress stated that Samvel Karapetyan was detained as part of a case involving allegations of causing large-scale financial damage to the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) company, embezzling entrusted property, and money laundering.

According to committee figures, the total damage inflicted on the company exceeds $179 million.

Narek Karapetyan’s home was also searched at the end of July as part of a criminal case.

On 22 July, Armenia’s Central Electoral Commission approved the Prosecutor General’s request to strip Narek Karapetyan of his parliamentary immunity, and Karapetyan was charged with large-scale money laundering.

According to information reported by Sputnik Armenia, the investigation is linked to charges brought against Strong Armenia supporter Aleksan Aleksanyan.

Investigative authorities allege that Aleksanyan received approximately $4.4 million and €230,000 from the Karapetyan-owned Tashir Foundation under the guise of gifts and loans.

Several criminal cases had previously been opened against Samvel Karapetyan.

In 2025, Karapetyan was charged with publicly calling for the violent seizure of power after backing the Armenian Apostolic Church, which had been criticized by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

In January, legal proceedings were also launched against Karapetyan on charges of large-scale tax evasion and money laundering.

Separately, in early July 2025, the Armenian parliament approved a bill enabling the nationalization of the Electric Networks of Armenia company.

In March, Armenia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the nationalization process in question complied with the law.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Putin approves standard-gauge rail link on China border

Published

on

According to analysts, the use of the same standard track gauge as China on the new railway line demonstrates Moscow’s ‘pragmatic’ approach toward strengthening ties with Beijing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed into law an agreement providing for the construction of a second standard-gauge railway line at a key border crossing with China. Moscow aims with this move to accelerate its eastward pivot and bolster relations with Beijing ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit.

According to a document published on Monday on Russia’s official legal information portal, Putin signed the law ratifying the railway agreement reached with Beijing during his visit to China in May.

The two sides agreed to jointly construct a new line along the cross-border railway connecting Zabaykalsk in southeastern Russia with the city of Manzhouli in northern China.

The defining feature of the new line is that it will use the 1,435-millimetre standard gauge, the most widely used track gauge globally and the one adopted by China, rather than the 1,520-millimetre broad gauge predominantly employed across Russia’s national rail network.

Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Li Lifan, a specialist in Russian and Central Asian affairs at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said the second standard-gauge line will help ease freight transit capacity constraints at the border crossing. This will reduce waiting times for cargo trains and enhance the speed and reliability of transport services along the eastern corridor.

Freight trains running from China to Russia currently rely on a single 1,435-millimetre gauge track at the Manzhouli-Zabaykalsk border crossing. This transit point handles more than 60% of rail freight trade between China and Russia, as well as a significant share of Europe-bound cargo traffic.

Because trains travelling in opposite directions must take turns using the same track to cross the border, bottlenecks occur periodically.

Zoey Wang, a director covering corporate, infrastructure, and project finance ratings at international credit rating agency Fitch Ratings, said the project is expected to provide more stable transport conditions for two-way shipments of commodities, machinery and electrical goods, consumer products, and cross-border e-commerce cargo.

According to Wang, the project will make corporate shipping schedules more predictable and help reduce costs arising from delays, cargo detention, and supply chain disruptions.

According to Russian media reports, Moscow expects the second line to increase annual transport capacity at the Zabaykalsk border crossing to 39 million tonnes by 2030, an increase of 11 million tonnes over current levels.

With Western sanctions curtailing its access to European markets, Russia has increasingly redirected its trade toward Asia in recent years.

However, experts caution that putting the new line into operation does not necessarily ensure a substantial increase in trade volume. In the view of analysts, the true significance of the decision lies in the strategic calculations underpinning it.

According to Li, despite Russia’s stated target, inadequacies in the country’s domestic railway infrastructure will constrain actual growth. This is because cargo will still need to be transhipped onto 1,520-millimetre gauge rolling stock to move further into Russia.

“This decision does not indicate a shift in the country’s railway gauge system. Rather, it represents a pragmatic choice made at a time when Russia’s pivot to the East is entering its implementation phase,” Li said.

In Li’s assessment, Moscow concluded that the benefits of easing bottlenecks along the trade corridor with China outweighed the costs of preserving existing procedural barriers at the border.

Li also noted that the timing of Putin’s signing was a deliberate choice. The decision came ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit to be held later this month in Shenzhen.

According to Li, Moscow wants to “demonstrate that it can deliver on its commitments to Beijing and set an example that could be replicated elsewhere.”

Zhao Long, director of the Institute of International Strategic and Security Studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, offered the following assessment:

“Although Russia has long adhered to the broad-gauge standard, the depth that strategic trust and coordination between China and Russia have reached today leaves no real reason to resist laying standard-gauge railways on specific connecting sections, particularly across critical border segments.”

Zhao continued:

“This situation also reflects the growing influence and gravitational pull of China’s economic, trade, and transport connectivity networks, not only over Russia, but across the entire Eurasian continent.”

Wang also said the project demonstrates that China’s railway technical standards and associated services are finding increasingly broad application internationally.

However, Wang cautioned that increasing border crossing capacity does not automatically guarantee a corresponding rise in trade volume.

According to Wang, the actual impact of the project will depend on a range of factors, including freight rates, inter-customs coordination, European demand, regulatory policies, and operating conditions along the corridor.

According to Russian media reports, construction on the Russian section of the second line is already under way and is expected to be completed by the end of 2026. The section on the Chinese side is scheduled for completion in early 2027.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey