Change in Nato mindset brought on by Vladimir Putin as much as Donald Trump

 

Allies Move to Boost Defence Spending to Counter Russian Re-Armament Threat

A crisis in NATO has been averted for now, though the cost was steep. While Donald Trump may claim credit for rallying nearly all 32 allies behind a substantial increase in defence budgets, the reality is that Vladimir Putin played at least as big a role in reshaping the alliance’s mindset.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was the first wake-up call. But another uncomfortable reality looms: if a lasting ceasefire takes hold in Ukraine, European nations will likely need to deploy a peacekeeping force—and over time, Russia’s military strength will inevitably rebound.

Mark Rutte’s deferential but ultimately effective approach to handling Trump helped produce a relatively smooth summit in The Hague. Even so, NATO’s Secretary General had to admit that describing Trump as “daddy”—a father figure scolding Iran and Israel—was perhaps a matter of taste.

The diplomatic choreography wasn’t subtle. A late adjustment to the schedule saw Trump spending a night at King Willem-Alexander’s palace, complete with breakfast. Trump later remarked how well he’d slept. What seemed to impress him most, however, was listening to all 31 other leaders deliver brief, three-minute statements—something few would expect to hold his attention.

“I came here because it was something I’m supposed to be doing, but I left here a little bit different,” he said during a notably upbeat press conference.

Even Trump’s irritation over U.S. media reports—suggesting Iran’s nuclear sites might have survived recent attacks—did little to dampen his conciliatory tone toward NATO allies.

Still, after Trump’s re-election and particularly by February, genuine alarm spread across NATO capitals. That month, Trump held direct talks with Putin about Ukraine and clashed with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, his Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, delivered a speech widely interpreted as a warning that Europe might soon need to prepare to defend itself alone.

One factor driving the surge in defence spending was precisely this uncertainty about Trump’s commitment. NATO planners worry that if Russia secures a ceasefire, it could rebuild rapidly—within as little as three to seven years—posing a significant threat to the alliance’s eastern borders. The Kremlin could maintain a 600,000-strong army and, by allocating 6.5% of GDP to defence, replenish munitions and hardware.

On the eve of the summit, Rutte told The Guardian that the scale of the threat made NATO’s “capability gaps” impossible to ignore. Air defence in particular needed a fivefold expansion to shield European cities from the kind of bombardment Ukraine faces daily. That clarity of purpose made it easier to persuade other leaders to endorse higher spending.

The rearmament underway is significant. According to the Royal United Services Institute, NATO defence spending in Europe and Canada is projected to rise from $500 billion today to $1.1 trillion by 2035—effectively matching the Pentagon’s budget.

Signs of this shift are already visible, although questions remain about how wisely the money will be used. Britain, for example, plans to spend at least £1 billion restoring an air-launched tactical nuclear weapons capability to complement Trident. The goal is to deter a massive Russian ground offensive in Europe—a scenario not seriously contemplated since the 1980s, and still considered unlikely.

If there was a moment when the so-called post-Cold War peace dividend finally ended, it was the summit in The Hague.