Стр. 6 - V

Author : D. Danilov
Head of the Department of European Security, Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Professor, Moscow State Institute (University) of International Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Science (Economics)
THE MAY 25, 2017 MEETING of NATO heads of state and
government was from the start seen as a key political event, being
a venue of U.S. President Donald Trump's first European visit.
During this meeting, the new conditions for the transatlantic treaty,
both within the alliance itself and in the broader context of Amer-
ican-European relations, had to be determined. The Trump-NATO
topic was a hot issue even during the new president's electoral cam-
paign, once he had declared the alliance to be a useless and outdated
organization. NATO members had wanted to meet with the new
U.S. president earlier, but this turned out to be unrealistic in light
of their uncoordinated positions and the need for preliminary po-
litical and diplomatic consensus.
DONALD TRUMP, the 45th U.S. president, was extremely critical in identifying points of con-
tention in transatlantic relations, having virtually accused the Europeans of parasitism at the ex-
pense of the United States by demanding "fair compensation" for American guarantees of
security.
Trump not only put the question "Why does America need Europe?" back on the agenda; he
posed it to the Europeans in the form of an ultimatum.
Considering the fairly tense situation in American-European relations and the vague expectations
of Trump's visit, NATO preferred not to advertise the obvious importance of the upcoming
meeting. On the contrary, its informal character and thus lack of plans to make any kind of de-
cisions were emphasized. The summit's agenda was in any case predetermined by Washington's
position and reflected two central tenets of the American administration with respect to NATO.
It is not only the extravagant manner of Trump's "diplomatic" behavior that is at issue here.
The signals he sends must be taken seriously even when they are spontaneous, and he constantly
confirms this. In his speech during the ceremony, Trump continued to lecture his European
partners and remind them of their debt to the "taxpayers of the United States."
NATO was caught in Trump's trap from the beginning. The question of how NATO could do
more to satisfy Washington had no clear answers or realistic options. The possibility of the al-
liance having a combat role after its greatest operation ever in Afghanistan was virtually elimi-
nated. However, the Trump administration's political motives outweighed these practical
arguments, and variants of the organization's contribution had to be developed in short order.
This contribution was agreed upon at the May meeting in Brussels. So far, it seems fairly hollow,
from the viewpoint of added value. It is no accident that, when speaking of decisions taken,
Электронное приложение к журналу «Международная жизнь»
NATO: An Informal Summit or a New Format?