In this blog post, we look at the changing international security environment and the possibility of European self-defense, focusing on the NATO summit.
The international situation has been tense for some time due to the war between Israel and Iran. Fortunately, just before it escalated into an all-out war, the two countries agreed to a dramatic ceasefire following strong remarks by President Trump. Immediately after that, another piece of international news caught the world’s attention. It was the NATO summit held in The Hague, Netherlands.
Major foreign media outlets focused on this summit, but it seems that it did not receive much attention in South Korea. This article will focus on the main agenda of the NATO summit and its impact on the international situation.
On June 24, 2024, the NATO summit was held in The Hague, attended not only by member states but also by Ukrainian President Zelensky. Various issues were discussed, but the most notable announcement was the decision to increase each member country’s defense spending to 5% of its gross domestic product (GDP). Although some countries, such as Slovakia and Spain, requested exemptions, overall, the goal set is very ambitious.
In fact, this direction had already been agreed upon to a certain extent prior to the summit. In particular, President Trump, who had returned to the White House, had been continuously demanding that member countries increase their defense spending, urging them to raise it from the existing level of 2% to 5%. The increase was formalized in an atmosphere that seemed as if the red carpet had been rolled out in anticipation of his visit.
The 5% increase in defense spending will be allocated 3.5% to the military sector (weapons production, troop replenishment, etc.) and 1.5% to indirect sectors such as infrastructure and cyber security. Each country must submit an annual plan to achieve this goal, and a comprehensive review will be conducted in 2029. Interestingly, this point in time is after President Trump’s term in office. Is this a mere coincidence, or is it the result of political calculations?
President Trump’s attendance was uncertain from the beginning of the meeting. In fact, until the beginning of the year, it was highly likely that he would not attend, but he ultimately decided to attend. This must have been very important for the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. If President Trump had not attended, it could have been interpreted as a sign that the US was seriously considering withdrawing from NATO.
In this regard, President Trump had already strongly criticized NATO member countries for their low defense spending during his first term in 2018. At that time, only three countries—the US, the UK, and Greece—spent more than 2% of their GDP on defense, with the US accounting for 72% of NATO’s total defense budget.
The complaint that “the US is carrying the burden alone” is not mere political rhetoric, but a sentiment that has been building up within the US for a long time. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also urged European countries to increase their defense spending during the Bush and Obama administrations. In other words, President Trump has simply expressed this dissatisfaction more strongly. The outbreak of the war in Ukraine has made European countries keenly aware of the reality of the security crisis. In particular, the fact that the US defense strategy is gradually shifting from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region has served as a major warning to Europe. This change is likely to continue regardless of the administration. Ultimately, it is only a matter of time before the US reduces its role in Europe, leaving Europe with no choice but to take responsibility for its own security. However, the reality is not so simple. Europe’s military capabilities remain inadequate, and its dependence on US strategic assets remains unchanged.
Europe still lacks the capabilities to independently develop satellites, precision strike weapons, and stealth technology. Furthermore, Russia continues to refine its military capabilities through actual combat, while NATO suffers from slow decision-making and procurement structures.
Europe needs leadership and a focal point to develop independent military capabilities. However, it is unclear which country could replace the US if it were to withdraw.
The UK is constrained by its distance from continental Europe, France by limited trust, and Germany by its lack of nuclear weapons. There are also significant differences in the perception of crisis between Eastern and Western Europe. For example, Spain does not feel threatened by Russia due to its geographical distance, but Poland has already allocated more than 4% of its GDP to defense and is taking on the role of a security actor. In this context, the presence of the US remains essential.
The German defense minister warned of the possibility of a Russian re-invasion in 2029, and NATO has stated that it must be prepared to respond by 2028. German media even commented that “Ukraine is buying us time until we are ready.” However, experts agree that it will take at least another decade for Europe to establish its own defense system.
Meanwhile, the term “Daddy” became a hot topic at this meeting. When it became known that Secretary General Rutte had jokingly said, “In times like these, Daddy has to be tough,” during a conversation with President Trump, criticism arose that NATO was being overly obsequious to Trump. However, Secretary General Rutte responded with a pragmatic stance, saying, “The important thing is to get things done.”
He served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands for 14 years, from 2010 to 2024. The Netherlands has a political structure in which it is difficult for a single party to win a majority, so the Prime Minister’s negotiation and coordination skills are extremely important. As his nickname “Teflon Mark” suggests, Rutte is a person who has remained steadfast even in crisis situations and has flexibly overcome challenges. Many believe that his appointment as NATO Secretary General was a very appropriate choice, both in terms of timing and ability.
So, will the agreed 5% increase in defense spending actually be implemented? Some interpret this agreement, which has little legal force, as a kind of “bait” to induce President Trump to attend the meeting. However, countries such as Poland, the three Baltic states, and Germany are already actively expanding their defense budgets, and this meeting has further heightened awareness of security issues.
This is why many experts consider this NATO summit to be the most historic meeting since the end of the Cold War. The international order is currently in the midst of a transition. The US is focusing on the Indo-Pacific region to contain China, and Iran’s position in the Middle East is rapidly weakening. Against this backdrop, NATO’s increase in defense spending goes beyond a simple promise and can be seen as a symbolic measure of the changing global security landscape.
And amid this trend, it is highly likely that Korea will also be asked by the US to increase its defense spending. Now is the time to coolly analyze the international security environment and seriously consider strategies and preparations to respond to it.
