Can this be the most significant NATO after the Cold War?

Because the world holds your breath to find out what is happening after the US has launched direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear monuments, US President Donald Trump is expected in the Netherlands on Tuesday at the NATO summit.

This will be Trump’s first meeting from the moment of re -election. In the past, he has angry comments to the members of the Alliance who detached the US security guarantees. European allies desperately want to prove to him wrong. They hope to convince him not to pull the US troops and capabilities from the continent.

“Relations with Europe were as strained as Trump returned to the White House – over trade tariffs and much more – that a few weeks ago we were not even sure he would come to this summit,” one high -level diplomat told me – which expressed anonymity.

“With Russia and China, they watched Western weakness, it would be a disaster.”

But Moscow and Beijing may still be able to discover popcorn.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rute developed this summit around Trump. He sought to flatter him, coordinating the great hiking for the cost protection to show that Europeans would take more responsibility for his own security.

Rutte also hoped that while keeping the meeting, it focused on the money, which avoided any possible clashes and explosions between Trump and its allies.

This carefully laid plan can collapse.

Depending on the next step of Iran, the US chief commander may decide at the last moment to stay in the situation in Washington.

When he arrives in Europe, as expected, as you could talk about the Middle East, what is the matter? This would introduce the risk of falling between the US president and European allies who advocated the diplomacy about the bombing when it came to Iran.

Trump loves victory and he is very thin. He will not want to feel any dislike at the NATO meeting.

Particularly sure he was convinced that the summit was confident in the summit, and the European countries pledged to spend a colossal 5% GDP on defense – exactly as it demanded in the first weeks ago in the White House.

“This summit is about authority,” it is like NATO Ambassador Matthew Waiter.

But on Sunday, Spain claimed that she had provided a refusal of the new expense plan – something that Rutte later refused.

Other allies in Europe, who are fighting for finding extra money, are also stirred up.

The bottom line is that Europe should support large military and nuclear energy. This is how Rute managed to overcome reluctant leaders – Bar Spain – to subscribe to new high costs. This is a mass commitment.

But, as the former US Ambassador to NATO told me, Julian Smith – even then, Trump has absolutely no guarantees.

It is unclear whether the US will subscribe to the declaration on the end of this week’s pleasure, determining Russia as a major threat to the NATO alliance.

Europe’s confidence in the US as its final defender was shaken by the seemingly soft-soft approach of Trump with Moscow, and its strong pressure on Kiev when he tried to stop the war in Ukraine.

In addition, on Friday night, you almost heard European diplomats grinding your teeth, after Trump justiced a huge 5% target to defense he demanded from the Allies, releasing himself and the US from commitments.

“I don’t think we should, but I think they should,” he said. “We have been supporting NATO for so long … So I don’t think it is necessary, but I think NATO’s countries should absolutely.”

Again, Europe’s leaders must have been better prepared so far in terms of self -defense.

It may be the most stupid and unpredictable, but Trump is not the first president of the United States to move military attention and investment from Europe to other priority areas, especially to the Indo-Pacific. President Obama was very clear about this in 2011.

The US has nuclear weapons stored in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It has 100,000 troops ready for the battle all over Europe, 20,000 of them in Eastern Europe, NATO sent there after a full -scale invasion of Russia.

The continent can make a shortage of the number of squads, especially with Germany and Poland, to significantly gain its ground forces over the next few years. But Europe’s dependence on the United States is deeper, says Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director General of the United Services Institute.

He relied on Washington to collect exploration, observation, Air Force opportunities and command and control. The US played a major role in NATO, uniting its members and forces.

These are the opportunities that are small and needed by US military in Asia, says Mr. Chalmers. When taken out of Europe, they will take a lot of time to repeat.

Not so long ago, many NATO countries in Europe avoided the creation of continental capabilities, such as the expansion of France’s nuclear umbrella at other allies, fearing that the US can say, “Well, you no longer need.

But now Europe is forced to take more responsibility for safety not only to try to persuade Washington to stay – but even if the US president decides to leave Europe to a greater or lesser extent.

No one knows what Trump’s intentions are. Recently, Europe’s NATO leaders were very relieved when its administration announced that the US Lieutenant General Alexus Grinkevich would be engaged in the traditionally occupied US position of the High Commander of Europe. It meant a commitment to a protective alliance.

But Washington conducts its own military expenses and defense review. The ads are expected in the fall. It is unlikely that the US will be new for Ukraine. And it is very likely that 20,000 additional troops in Eastern Europe will be the first US forces to be drawn out of the continent.

Despite this, Poland states that the NATO summit will visit this week. Unlike Spain, Warsaw believes that this is given by example – spending more of its national defense revenues (now 4.7% GDP) than any other NATO member, including the United States. It is directed, as they say, to build the most powerful ground army in Europe.

During the Cold War, Poland lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. Neighbors of the country Ukraine. It is not difficult to convince the Poles that the defense is a top priority.

The argument is more difficult for politicians in countries that are further from Russia. Spanish media have been fully assumed that the cost defense may drop the unstable coalition government.

Trying both to place Trump, agreeing to his protection requirements, as well as sweetening the tablet for more European leaders who affect cash, NATO offers 5% of the target into two parts: 3.5% per annum national revenue in defense, and another 1.5% of GDP, which will be spent on “deficiency”.

It is an additional bonus for the introduction of Europe into line with US military expenses 3.4% of GDP – a huge psychological attraction, says Camille Grand, a former Assistant Secretary -General for NATO investment protection, and now an expert on the protection of the European Foreign Relations Council.

But as you play with the numbers, we say that governments should spend billions more on defense. Money should come from somewhere.

Either new taxes – the method of Estonia tried – or more borrowings that will be very expensive for countries such as Italy, which already have a large amount of government debt. Another option is to reduce welfare costs – known as “weapons or butter” or “tanks or pensions”.

With its strategic defense review, the UK recently emphasized the public the need for more military expenses, but Mr. Chalmers says that neither Downing Street nor most other European governments have completely prepared their electorates for compromises that require huge new defense.

The key schedule of achieving 5% target is key. NATO allies called up to a 7-10-year window. NATO Secretary General suggested it could be too late. According to him, with the economy of Moscow, Russia will be able to attack NATO for five years, he says.

The defense of Europe is not only how many governments spends. How important is what they spend their money on.

The great European weakness is that there are many duplicates and incompatible opportunities on the continent: 178 different types of weapons systems and 17 different tanks are reportedly only in the EU. Disabling the contracts for national defense and pride and the unification of European resources in the name of efficiency is another prickly discussion that will probably be postponed at the summit this week.

So, what are certain results can you expect?

It is very dependent on the person who arrived in the Netherlands from aviation.

Trump’s ambassador to NATO says the meeting may be historical.

“Shooting Watershed” is how another high-level diplomat put me-and maybe “NATO’s most significant summit”: at the moment when Europe started spending as much as the United States for defense and to really take responsibility for its own security.

BBC Indepth is home to the site and application for better analysis, with fresh prospects that dispute assumptions and a deep report on the biggest issues of the day. And we demonstrate the contents that cause reasoning, from different BBC sounds, and iPlayer too. You can send us your reviews in the Indepth section by clicking the button below.