Source: 24sata.hr
We had a NATO summit in The Hague where everything revolved around defense spending. It seems that everyone will interpret the conclusions in their own way. To begin with, can we make a brief summary—what did we gain, and what did we lose from this summit?
The recent NATO summit only confirmed what had already become apparent during the first term of U.S. President Trump (2017–2021), and in his second term, he is only reinforcing it more strongly—that the transatlantic alliance is no longer as stable and solid as it was before he came to power. The so-called Pax Americana, which first guaranteed peace to Western Europe and later to the entire European Union through American military backing since the end of World War II, no longer exists. There are two main conclusions from the summit: 1. European NATO member states committed to increasing their defense spending to 5% of their GDP over a certain period. Of that, 3.5% will go directly to defense, while 1.5% will be allocated to projects indirectly related to defense, such as infrastructure development or strengthening industries that are indirectly connected to defense. 2. The spending percentages committed to by European NATO members do not apply to the United States. This fact alone makes it clear that Europe will now have to take care of its own defense. U.S. President Trump stated in the end that America still stands behind collective defense, but it is entirely clear that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty—on collective defense—no longer applies absolutely and equally to everyone: the U.S. might defend Poland, but it is much less likely that it would defend, for example, the small Baltic states. European leaders publicly pretend that this is not the case and that they still believe in the strength of NATO as it has been so far, because the U.S. remains by far the largest and unmatched military power in the world. However, everyone understands what is really going on, and that is why an initiative has been launched to create a “Coalition of the Willing” among the leading European NATO member states. In other words, Europe must now take full responsibility for its own defense and security. Given the expansionist aspirations of Russia and its president Putin, this is no small task. Perhaps it is also high time that Europe assumed this responsibility—after all, it is not an insignificant power. Europe today:
- Spends more on defense than China;
- Has a GDP nearly 10 times larger than Russia’s;
- Has significantly more inhabitants than the United State;
- Is territorially larger than India;
- Of the eight formal nuclear powers and one informal one (Israel), two are in Europe—France and the United Kingdom.
But organizationally, politically, and even psychologically, Europe is still not ready for its own defense, which is why the period ahead is potentially dangerous and unstable.
When it comes to defense spending, the president of the country is somewhat skeptical, while the prime minister says that NATO’s decision to increase defense spending is logical and that this goal is not unattainable for Croatia, adding that higher spending will not come at the expense of pensions, social welfare, etc. What do you expect—can we realistically achieve this? Should we expect higher taxes or increased national debt?
Defense spending includes many things beyond just weapons production. It can encompass everything from IT research and industry to food production as a strategic resource. Of course, this must be managed wisely and involve Croatia in the common European defense and security policy where we have certain comparative advantages. That is certainly not population size or mass production of sophisticated weaponry. But specialized supporting industries, leveraging our geopolitical position, the specific experiences Croatia has from the war and post-war period in the ’90s, and many other things we might not even currently consider as resources, can be elements for strengthening common European defense while simultaneously driving industrial and manufacturing development within Croatia itself. No sensible person would finance defense strengthening through additional taxes, but rather through a new economic development strategy. I believe it goes without saying that given its size and geopolitical position, Croatia must be part of the joint European defense and security project.
Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez stated that Spain is a sovereign country and that it will find its own way to achieve the required capability target without being measured strictly by how much money it spends on it—this immediately provoked an angry reaction from the U.S. President.
What is the greatest immediate threat to Europe at this moment? It is Russia and Putin’s expansionist policy. Just look at a map to see where Spain is located. In the returning, retrograde politics of great powers and their spheres of influence, geography is once again becoming extremely important. Russia is objectively not a threat to Spain. But it is a threat to Eastern and Central Europe, and therefore also to the core states of the European Union, which it destabilizes both internally and by undermining the EU as a political community as a whole. The U.S. president’s reaction to Spain’s position is of little importance in this context.
In the adopted final declaration of the summit, among other things, there is a promise of continued support for Ukraine, but there is no mention of open condemnation of Russia. Admittedly, one specific sentence highlights the long-term threat that Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security. But should the Russian aggression have been more clearly condemned?
There should be no illusions: all European leaders clearly and loudly condemn the Russian aggression against Ukraine, fully aware that it is an act of aggression in Europe against a European country. However, they have softened their rhetoric in order to persuade Trump to support the joint final declaration. Trump is inclined toward dictators and sometimes even resorts to their methods himself, with Putin being someone he particularly admires. This was evident from the fact that his main intervention at the G7 summit in Canada was to express regret that Russian President Putin had not been invited to the meeting. Putin is certainly not an American ally, but he is Trump’s personal ally—and Trump values that above all else. And for Ukraine, every form of American support and assistance is vital, which is why it becomes the task of diplomacy to preserve and maintain that support by any means necessary.
The summit was also described as “historic” — but does that label even make any sense? What have we actually learned from it?
When we describe something as “historic,” we usually mean it brought about major progress or success. In that sense, this summit was certainly not historic. Perhaps only in the sense that it confirmed Europe must urgently pull itself together, get organized, and take full responsibility for its own defense and security—while, at the same time, trying to keep NATO alive in its old format for as long as possible. The European Union, in its various iterations, has been a very successful peace project, an excellent political project, and a strong economic project. Now the time has come for it to also become a successful defense and security project—so it can preserve all its earlier achievements.
One of the things that marked the entire event was the rather unpleasant behavior—or rather, unworthy communication—between NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and U.S. President Donald Trump. How did the “Daddy talk” steal the spotlight at the NATO summit?
Rutte’s communication and attitude toward Trump were also the very first question at the press conference after the summit. He referred to Trump as “daddy” and generally flattered him in a way that was completely inappropriate. World leaders are trying to find effective ways to communicate with Trump, experimenting with various approaches—including this unseemly, sycophantic style adopted by NATO Secretary General and former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. So far, in fact, only various dictators have successfully communicated with him, or earned his respect and appreciation. Still, if one must find a way to talk to Trump, then the approach of Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, is far more impressive—and far more effective—than Rutte’s. What concerned me more than the tasteless flattery was Rutte’s claim that the U.S. bombing of Iran is in accordance with international law. There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is a brutal theocratic dictatorship and that no one in their right mind would support that regime. But that does not mean that bombing Iran is in accordance with international law—because it isn’t. If you look at how the UN defines the circumstances in which an attack on another country is legally permitted, none of those conditions are met in this case. You can, of course, say that you consider the attack on Iran justified, deserved, or useful for regional stability… That may or may not be true, but it is your opinion. But claiming that it is in accordance with international law is simply false—and that is a much more dangerous symptom than mere flattery.
So now, after all this—should European leaders still trust the U.S. president when he says he stands by his allies? Trump’s behavior doesn’t exactly inspire much confidence.
I don’t think European leaders do believe that. They are fully aware that this alliance has become uncertain and questionable. But they are trying to preserve as much of the alliance as is realistically possible under the current circumstances. I believe that is a justified form of realpolitik.
At the same time that NATO leaders decided to increase defense spending, Russian President Putin announced cuts—claims that are viewed with deep skepticism in the West. Do you believe Putin’s statements?
Most NATO member states have still not reached the defense spending level of 2.5% of GDP. On the other hand, Russia has increased its defense funding by 600% over the past fifteen years, and it is estimated that it currently spends 7.1% of its GDP on defense (according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). So even if it were true that Russia is cutting defense spending, it would still be several times higher than that of the European NATO member states.
The world order is collapsing—practically, it’s as if the UN no longer exists. The war in Ukraine has entered its fourth year of Russian aggression. Israel is literally destroying the Gaza Strip before the eyes of the entire world, and we’re receiving daily reports of horrific killings. We’ve recently seen an Israeli attack on Iran, followed by a brief American bombing of Iranian territory. The question many are now asking is: What comes next?
At this moment, there are over a hundred wars being fought around the world—most of which we don’t even know about. We once believed that this explosion in information accessibility would help prevent war crimes and atrocities, especially as they’re now shared on social media in real time. But unfortunately, the opposite has happened: people have either become numb to it, or they can no longer distinguish truth from lies, or everything seems like some sort of computer simulation—until it reaches their own doorstep. We often criticized the United States for acting as the world’s policeman. But today, it’s becoming clear that despite all its mistakes and missteps—and there were many—that was still a global order that mostly followed a set of rules applicable to everyone. Now that the U.S. is no longer playing that role, and everything is based on transactional “deals”, while international multilateral organizations and institutions have nearly lost all relevance, it’s becoming evident how dangerous this is for small and medium-sized countries. Out of the 193 UN member states, only 13 are classified as large countries. The remaining 180 are medium or small. One world order is collapsing, and another has yet to emerge. It surely will emerge—but as those of us who have lived through the aftermath of war know all too well, the worst time is the in-between. At this moment, Europe is the only remaining stronghold of democracy—imperfect, sometimes cynical, lacking strong leadership, yet still a democracy guided by the core ideals of political equality, solidarity, and the rule of law. The question now is whether, in the emerging global order, Europe will have the strength to become one of the world’s major powers—with a sphere of democratic influence of its own.
What do you think Iran’s current position is after the Israeli attack that shook the regime in Tehran? Iran has been militarily supporting Russia in the war against Ukraine all these years, thus aiding the aggression, and now Moscow’s support seems to be absent?
As I’ve already mentioned, Iran is ruled by a rather terrible regime. But even within that framework, there were better and worse times. For example, during President Rouhani’s term, there was a beginning of liberalization and gradual transformation of the regime. It was also under his mandate that the nuclear deal with Iran was negotiated, in which the EU played a very significant role. However, during Trump’s first term, the United States withdrew from that agreement, which gave momentum to the extremists in Iran and brought an end to Rouhani’s project. As for the support, Iran has been selling drones to Russia and probably still does. I don’t think there is any deep alliance here; it’s simply a useful transaction. I assume Russia considers the American bombing of Iran as a tacit amnesty for its actions in Ukraine and sees it as a political gain. So there’s no reason for Russia to protest; it’s just scoring points. Moreover, Ukraine is already costing Russia too much in every respect for it to have the capacity to enter into another conflict.
Where is Croatian foreign policy in all of this, given that for years it hasn’t been unified? The government follows one course, while the president takes a different approach. Maybe the real question is: what is Croatian foreign policy?
For some time now, foreign policy in Croatia has been a field of rivalry and conflict between the president and the government. Perhaps this is because it’s one of the areas where they share decision-making power and it seems relatively harmless enough for them to clash over. However, in the meantime, foreign policy has become one of the most important aspects of politics. The sooner we all realize this, the better.
President Zoran Milanović is clear: Croatia should recognize Palestine. The government has not taken a position on this. What is your view on the matter?
Before the recent war and the de facto genocide in Gaza, I believed that the Palestinian state should first be established and then recognized. In other words, the “two-state solution” agreed upon and signed in Oslo should be implemented first, and only then should the state be recognized. However, given today’s circumstances, I have changed my view because recognizing Palestine now would have a symbolic significance and serve as a form of resistance to a terrible policy of which we are helpless daily witnesses.
The president of the country has also repeatedly accused Israel, saying that the country is run by a criminal clique trying to drag the world into war, with the message that Israel can do whatever it wants and has been doing so for decades, and that such a country should not be engaged with. What is your opinion on such a statement by the president?
I believe it is important to distinguish between the state and the government that currently leads it. Israel as a state has a meaningful and solid reason for its existence. Many of those who built it carried with them the best ideals for organizing life in a community. Over thirty years ago, Yitzhak Rabin, a former Israeli Prime Minister and before that a general in the Israeli army, said “Enough” to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians by signing the peace agreement within the Oslo Accords. But today, all of that feels like it belongs to another world and another life. This government, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu and controlled by ministers from small fundamentalist parties such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, has brought Israel to an existential danger. I agree that there is little left to discuss with such a government. But that certainly does not apply to the state of Israel, which I hope will have a different future.
For the end of the interview, one question related to neighboring Serbia. The student protests have turned into nationalist gatherings. It is evident that Vučić lacks public support and has decided to maintain power through harsh repression and mass arrests at any cost. Did you expect this?
I disagree that the student protests have turned into nationalist rallies. The Serbian authorities have tried everything to undermine these protests: physical violence, arrests, false accusations, counter-protests, and discrediting by all possible means. Now they have resorted to their most effective tactic, previously used against the opposition — making the protesters appear like themselves, only even more radical. By inserting their own people, speakers, and so-called spontaneous participants, they create the impression that these students and protesters are no better than the government, thus discouraging any engagement. We should not fall for this. Of course, such gatherings contain a mix of elements, and that will likely increase. But the real students and protesters have demonstrated that there is a civic Serbia ready for political engagement despite very difficult circumstances. That is the only interesting and relevant aspect here. The rest are political games and tricks.
* Vesna Pusić (Zagreb, 1953) is Croatian journalist, publicist, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, and university professor. Pusić is considered one of the key figures responsible for Croatia’s integration into European Union and one of the most influential Croatian politicians overall.
