I believe that what was realistically achievable was accomplished at the NATO summit in The Hague. We can feel proud and satisfied, because the decision to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP was undoubtedly influenced by the stance of Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, who, together with U.S. President Donald Trump, had long been raising this issue in international forums — said Tomasz Szatkowski, former Polish ambassador to NATO, in an interview with Niezależna.pl.
The NATO summit in The Hague is behind us. During the summit, the leaders of member states agreed to raise the defense spending target from the current 2% to 5% of GDP. How do you assess this decision? Is it an adequate response to the threats the North Atlantic Alliance faces today?
It’s hard to imagine that more could have been achieved on this matter. I see this move as a major success. President Donald Trump played an important role here, but we must remember that Poland’s President Andrzej Duda has also long prioritized this issue, both within NATO and in direct talks with the U.S. leader. It is a good and important step that the member states reached an agreement on increasing defense spending. Of course, the decision itself is one thing. What matters even more now is implementing this resolution.
The new, higher defense spending threshold is to be reached by NATO countries by 2035. Isn’t that date too distant, given expert forecasts that point to the risk of a major conflict breaking out within just a few years?
Here, I’m skeptical — I believe the target date is indeed too far off. All the more so because the new threshold is in fact 3.5%, while the remaining 1.5% consists of items that until now were not counted as defense spending, such as indirect costs related to infrastructure or civil defense. Personally, I would have advocated for a closer deadline.
Speaking of skepticism, some experts point to the case of the 2014 NATO summit in Newport, where member states pledged to spend at least 2% of GDP annually on defense. Nearly 11 years have passed, and some NATO countries still haven’t met that target.
In that case, it all depended on who was in power in a given country. When the U.S. was governed by Democrats who didn’t attach much importance to this issue, they effectively gave other countries a free pass to act similarly. It wasn’t until Donald Trump’s first presidency that significant progress was made toward meeting the 2% GDP defense spending commitment. Countries knew Trump would hold them accountable and that they would have to pay a political price for their inaction. Once the U.S. began enforcing this, others followed.
The U.S. president had long called on NATO allies to increase defense spending. A year or so ago, President Andrzej Duda joined this initiative. At the time, some political circles and so-called “experts” in Poland criticized his efforts, claiming that the president was “getting ahead of the pack” and engaging in “political PR.” Now that the decision to increase defense spending has become a reality, can this be considered a political victory for Presidents Trump and Duda?
I believe so. It’s worth recalling that in his calls for increased defense spending, Donald Trump often cited Poland as an exemplary ally fulfilling its obligations. He did so again at the summit in The Hague. We can feel proud and satisfied because the stance of the Polish president undoubtedly also contributed to this decision by the member states.
Before the summit, there was speculation about a possible increase in the U.S. military presence in Europe. In the end, no such decision was made.
Given current developments in the Pentagon and the situation in the Middle East, it was unrealistic to expect such a decision. The U.S. also needs to focus more on the Western Pacific now. Internal shifts within Europe seemed more likely, but here too, one has to be realistic. I believe that what was realistically achievable was accomplished at the NATO summit in The Hague.
During the NATO summit, President Trump spoke about the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, concerning mutual security guarantees. He also assured that he would stand by his allies until the end, thus refuting the theories circulated for months that he would turn away militarily from Europe once in office.
Many in the political elite viewed what was happening in the U.S. through the lens of mainstream media. You could even speak of a kind of paranoia regarding Trump. The U.S. president already had his opponents during his first term. In 2018, there were claims that he would pull the U.S. out of NATO during the Brussels summit. I didn’t believe such theories then, and I have no doubts now about the U.S.’ continued engagement in NATO — of course, taking into account American demands such as a fairer sharing of the burden.
How will President-elect Karol Nawrocki’s presidency fit into security policy and the alliance with the U.S.? The president-elect has very good relations with the White House. Could this signal closer military ties with Washington, or will the attitude of Donald Tusk’s government — which, to put it mildly, isn’t fond of the Trump administration — weigh on these relations?
Relations with Washington have been very good for many years. President Andrzej Duda’s tenure is proof of that. Given President-elect Karol Nawrocki’s good relations with the White House, we can hope they will continue at a similar level. As for the policy of Donald Tusk’s government, at least in the defense sphere, the deputy prime minister and defense minister are striving to ensure continuity. As long as the government shows minimum prudence and there is a strong presidential center, there’s a chance the alliance with Washington will not experience any major disruption.