NATO’s Hague Declaration – an equalised and lethal alliance with double vision
NATO’s summit in The Hague concluded in record time with a five-paragraph Declaration. Yet it remains hotly debated whether it was a success or a sign of weakness. The summit was all about defence spending, internally focused to ensure the US remains in the Alliance and committed to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. At a time of rising external security threats, NATO made next to no mention of its adversaries. While an ambitious defence spending target was agreed, many important points were left unsaid.
Seen from NATO headquarters, the summit was a success – enshrining a target to spend 5% of GDP on defence (up from the 2% set in 2014), of which 3.5% on core military capabilities. Leaders also rubber-stamped updated plans for defence production and rapid adoption of new military technologies. Allies used strategic appeasement towards President Trump, ensuring he could declare a big win to keep transatlantic peace. Secretary General Rutte repeatedly praised Trump for making the Europeans step up, increase defence spending and equalise the burden between Europe, Canada, and the US. He also praised the US leader for ensuring Iran does not develop a nuclear capability. The Alliance emerged united – “stronger, fairer and more lethal”, in Rutte’s words. The pledge shows NATO is serious about rearmament and still able to achieve consensus among the 32 allies.
Despite this result, there is limited enthusiasm among security and defence experts and practitioners about the outcome. The unprecedentedly short Declaration, omitting any strong messaging on key security issues, raises the question of whether appeasing Trump took precedence over deterring Russian President Putin. Above all, the Declaration understates the urgency of present security threats.
To the dismay of Eastern flank countries, there is no strong language about Russia’s revisionist imperialism. One of the three core messages ahead of the summit was support for Ukraine, yet the Declaration does not mention Russia’s full-scale invasion and war of aggression against Ukraine, nor does it cite mounting Russian hybrid warfare against European countries. There is also no reference to China.
Looking ahead, implementation is key. The Declaration leaves some loopholes and room to manœuvre for countries such as Spain – the lowest spender – and even the US. The test will be whether spending increases fast enough, and allies strengthen their industrial base to deter Russia. While member states must submit annual plans on a credible incremental path to the 5% goal, a review is set for 2029 – when Trump will no longer be in the White House. What happens without a snarling watchdog remains to be seen. Allies may continue towards the 2035 target – far later than anxious Eastern flank countries sought – or let the promise slide.
Allies pledged further assistance to Ukraine but the wording on aid is vague and does not include long-term and concrete financial commitments. There was no clear path for Ukraine towards NATO membership, and no NATO-Ukraine Council meeting. This does not show political resolve. It is a setback for both Ukraine and Georgia, which were promised eventual NATO membership back in 2008 but left open to Russian attack. The absence of a clear vow to stop Russia in Ukraine or of any strategy beyond deterrence and defence hands Moscow a de facto veto over NATO enlargement, encouraging the establishment of spheres of influence in this geopolitical competition.
The Hague Summit will remain in history as a step forward on defence capabilities but with missteps that may pull NATO backwards.
Iana Maisuradze is a Junior Policy Analyst in the Europe in the World Programme, working on Eastern Partnership and Transatlantic Affairs.
