The truth that nobody wants to talk about

Putin deter or rather not provoke? Who will pay what, and when will Ukraine receive its membership perspective? Such pressing questions as these have seldom had the NATO to discuss. If it remains peaceful in Washington until tomorrow, either many problems have been solved or the most crucial issues have been avoided. Above all, no one dares to approach the following:

Ah, it could all be so beautiful. 75 years after a dozen countries gathered in the US capital Washington to found a common defense pact, the NATO is returning to its roots. The jubilee summit is still being held in Washington until tomorrow. With 32 member states, it has grown into a heavy tanker that is hard to maneuver. The consensus principle still applies.

And the sea is heavy as ever. It roars and churns with war in Europe, in the Middle East. At least it's brewing in the Indo-Pacific, and in the host country USA, President Joe Biden is at risk of losing his office to Donald Trump in November. Trump threatened to leave the NATO entirely during his first term.

For heaven's sake - no fight!

To get into the mood for the celebrations, the heads of state and government of the NATO countries will probably have to ignore the large sea situation beforehand. The goal of the summit, on the panels, conferences, and internal discussions, is to study this situation together, develop strategies for the further course, and above all - and without a doubt - to show unity. Above all, towards Russia.

Two good news items came early from Washington: additional missile defense systems for Kiev and an accident-free speech by US President Joe Biden. In fact, that's good news for the NATO on these days. And a sign of how great and diverse the concerns in the alliance are. The third good news that departing Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg could announce: The NATO countries agree on more and better coordinated cooperation in arms projects. During the procurement of Patriot ammunition a few months ago, several user states of the missile defense system pooled their needs and then ordered 1000 missiles via a NATO joint procurement. Weapons manufacturer MBDA is now building a new production line in Germany.

That may sound simple. Such procedures are by no means common practice among the allies. But the insight into the need to set tempo and good prices instead of individual wishes and single orders is slowly seeping into the heads of Western leaders. Even if this sometimes comes at the expense of the domestic arms industry. In Washington, they want to make significant progress in this field again.

Money will play an even more central role in the coming years. From the goal of burden sharing, the fair distribution of all burdens between the US and the rest of NATO, the Americans want to turn to burden shifting - a new orientation of these burdens. This means: The European partners should take a stronger stance for European issues. So that the US has more capacities to focus on the fragile situation in the Indo-Pacific. Or in short: If Europeans support Ukraine better, we take care of China.

The plans are concrete [

(Note: The last sentence of the original text is missing in the provided translation. It is not clear if it was intentionally left out or if it was an error in the original text.)

Written down are new responsibilities that have been recorded since last year's summit in Vilnius. At the summit, NATO set concrete defense plans for the first time since the end of the Cold War, organized by regions. In this context, "concrete" means a specific goal: Individual member countries have been assigned tasks that must be fulfilled. This means that each country must adjust its defense budget accordingly and in most cases increase it.

As an example, the Bundeswehr: From 2025, it is expected to contribute 35,000 soldiers and soldiers to the two NATO formations of the highest readiness level (very high readiness). This means they must also meet the high requirements of these formations in terms of equipment. And that costs money. These plans are as concrete as they sound - NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has emphasized this - for the last time, by the way. His successor, Mark Rutte, will be responsible for this from October onwards.

As for the agenda items that are still manageable, there is, however, the question of how NATO translates its stance towards Russian President Vladimir Putin into concrete actions that can cause conflicts. On the one hand, there is the faction of the Baltics, supported by Poland, Britain, and France. These countries prioritize robust deterrence and want to invite Ukraine into the NATO membership process. On the other hand, there are the USA and Germany. Their focus is much more on not provoking the Kremlin.

A concrete membership perspective for Kiev cannot be made with Washington and Berlin. In the eyes of the proponents, the NATO is thereby giving up the opportunity to create more security in Europe. One could argue extensively about this point, but that is not wanted in Washington. The top priority is: The store must not fall apart.

While Putin threatens the cohesion of the NATO from the outside, many are afraid that he could also threaten it from the inside: Five months until the presidential elections in the USA, which could possibly pave the way for NATO-critical Donald Trump's return to the White House. The allies are wondering how they can make the NATO as "Trump-proof" as possible, resistant to tantrums.

The easiest tactic to counter this is to strive for greater independence. But this tactic also comes with costs. Currently, the USA provide half of the NATO's defense capabilities for defense, while the other half is shared by 31 countries. Such a division is not sustainable. The alliance members would have noticed this unsustainability even without Trump's threats.

But as an important, if not even the most important goal of this summit is unity given, it is easy to guess which topic the "white elephant" in the room is, which the 32 summit states will likely discuss in depth for another two days: It starts with "Two" and ends with "Percent".

If the NATO allies manage to distribute the burdens more broadly, the next insight could follow: Medium-term, the military budget should aim for a "3" before the comma.

What is the likelihood of that? One should recall the requirement for unanimity. This means that a decision, which only hints at lifting the 2-percent clause, is likely to be excluded. Experts familiar with the intricate NATO processes are certainly not counting on it. This bottle, they believe, will not even be opened in Washington. If any passage were to slip in against the general expectation into the final communique, then that would mean: The NATO states have truly achieved something in Washington.

During the NATO summit, President Joe Biden announced additional missile defense systems for Ukraine, demonstrating the alliance's support in the face of the Attack on Ukraine by Vladimir Putin.
Jens Stoltenberg, the departing NATO Secretary General, announced that NATO countries are agreeing on more and better coordinated cooperation in arms projects, such as the procurement of Patriot ammunition.
One of the major challenges facing the NATO is the division of defense burdens, with the US providing half of the NATO's capabilities and the other half shared among 31 countries. This unsustainability has become increasingly apparent, particularly in the context of the "Two Percent Target."
In light of the upcoming elections in the US and potential return of NATO-critical Donald Trump to the White House, NATO allies are seeking ways to make the alliance "Trump-proof," resistant to potential tantrums.