Black Night After NATO Day – Blekinge Läns Newspaper

Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Summit. NATO leaders met in Brussels. As expected, the meeting broke the gap between the United States and Europe. A split that was neither good nor necessary

NATO leaders met in Brussels. As expected, the meeting expanded the confidence crisis defense alliance after the US President Donald Trump's entry. Trump attended the meeting to demand that other member states increase their defense costs. The United States does not meet the requirements US troops can withdraw from Europe

The conflict of interest is recognized in the past. It is natural for American voters to comment on the fact that their military are assuming a major responsibility in the defense of Europe. In 2004, for example, George W. Bush announced a reduction in the presence of American troops in Germany. Donald Trump's noisy trading methods are, on the other hand, the expression of a new American foreign policy – a policy that threatens to ground the seven-day security policy in Europe.

Truman's US presidents at Obama have all championed the idea of ​​cooperation. They used the strong US position in the alliance to show exemplary and exemplary leadership in difficult trials.

The current American president, on the other hand, expresses another point of view. The meeting in Brussels was another opportunity to present Trump as a difficult negotiator for the American public. This short-term benefit is to the detriment of the credibility of the heart of the cooperation. Trump has repeatedly expressed his insistence on cooperation and will honor the commitments of the Alliance in a clear position.

Donald Trump sees international politics more as a zero-sum game. Because of its size, the United States can enter into successful bilateral agreements with most countries, from trade to security. He therefore criticizes recurrent organizations such as NATO, the WTO, the UN and NAFTA. The problem with this is that international politics can lose the many benefits of stable and widely respected institutions.

The Washington Post recently reported a conversation between Donald Trump and Stefan Löfven. (Washington Post 26/6) After the Swedish Prime Minister has described Sweden's choice to stay out of NATO and cooperate when it is favorable, Trump should have replied that the United States should consider a similar arrangement. Regardless of what the story tells, the United States under Trump have ceased to consider building a common security with democratic market economies like France, Germany, the United States, and the United States. Norway and Portugal as a global goal. This must take Europe seriously: without the security of the superpower in Western foundations, these countries must take on more responsibility on their own.

The crisis of NATO is also that of Sweden. Throughout the Alliance of Defense Alliances, Sweden has been pressed for the security it has guaranteed in our immediate area. Now, Sweden can not afford to be a security vacuum insufficiently defended. In addition, US federations participate in everything from the air defense of Europe to highlight its presence in the Baltic States. There is a risk of waiting for a historical critical reassessment of security in the immediate area.