Donald Trump's threats could be a make-or-break test for NATO

7 January 2025, 21:36 | Updated: 8 January 2025, 05:43

The public articulation by Donald Trump of a new desired target for NATO allies to spend 5% of national income on defence will surely plunge governments across Europe into crisis mode - not least here in the UK.

Britain presents itself to the world and in particular to the United States as the biggest defence spender in Europe and NATO's most powerful European military.

Yet Sir Keir Starmer has not even managed to set out a timeline for what he describes as a "path to 2.5%" of GDP being invested in his armed forces, up from just over 2% today.

If the prime minister merely sticks to this pledge, he risks being viewed by the new administration as woefully unambitious and not credible on defence.

Then there is the extraordinary threat by Mr Trump to seize Greenland by force if necessary, even though this valuable piece of territory belongs to a fellow NATO ally in the form of Denmark.

The move - were it to happen - would demonstrate the limitations of the alliance's Article 5 founding principle.

It is supposed to guarantee that all allies would come to the defence of any member state which is under armed attack.

But what about if the aggressor is also meant to be an ally?

The president-elect also appeared to dash any hope of Ukraine being offered membership to the alliance anytime soon - a core request of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Instead, Mr Trump sounded sympathetic to Vladimir Putin's absolute opposition to such a move.

He said he would meet the Russian president after taking office - reiterating a promise to end the war in Ukraine, though again without spelling out how.

The outbursts came in a lengthy press conference on Tuesday that marked the starting shot in what could be a make-or-break test for NATO - an alliance of transatlantic friends that rose from the ashes of the Second World War.

Read more:
Trump speaks on Canada, Gaza and reversing Biden ban
A guide to everything about Trump's inauguration

European members of NATO, as well as Canada, already took a battering the last time Mr Trump was in the White House - and rightly so.

The US had for far too long largely bankrolled the security of Europe, while the majority of its allies - including the UK - reaped the so-called "peace dividend" that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, swapping expenditure on defence for peacetime priorities such as economic growth, healthcare and education.

Mr Trump made clear during his first term his displeasure about what he saw as Washington being ripped off and vowed to make Europe take its fair share of the burden.

He even warned member states that the US would not come to the aid of an ally that was not hitting at the very least a minimum NATO spending targeting of 2% of GDP - something they had previously pledged to do by 2024 but were slow to deliver on.

Such language electrified allies in a way that even Putin's initial 2014 invasion of Ukraine, with the annexation of Crimea and attacks in the east of the country, had not.

Yet, with the threat from Russia growing in the wake of its full-scale war in Ukraine in 2022, coupled with conflict in the Middle East and the challenge posed by China, it has become clear that this heightened level of expenditure by allies was still far short of what is required to rebuild militaries across Europe that have been hollowed out over decades.

Read more from Sky News:
Trump's Gaza warning risks becoming less threatening
Trump asks court to dismiss hush money conviction

Mark Rutte, the new secretary general of NATO, set the stage for what is expected to be another push to ramp up investment when he delivered a landmark speech last month in which he called on allies to return to a "war mindset" and "turbocharge" defence spending.

He said this was to counter growing threats, but observers said it was also a pre-emptive response to the anticipated demands of the next Trump administration.

Either way, it poses a huge challenge for all allies, in particular for Sir Keir Starmer.

He and Rachel Reeves face a choice: change course when it comes to their top priorities of economic growth, hospital waiting lists and new housing and instead invest more in defence or defy what will doubtless be growing demands from the United States to spend billions of pounds more on the UK armed forces - and maybe even leave the country in a position whereby the US would not come to its aid if attacked.