NATO defense funds not ‘pouring in’ as Donald Trump claims

President Trump may have pleased European allies with a full-throated defense of NATO in his speech to Congress on Tuesday night, but he also raised eyebrows by claiming his own criticism of the alliance has paid off because money is now “pouring in” from member nations to increase their own military budgets.

While there has been an uptick in NATO member defense spending, it actually began more than two years ago amid increased European fears over Russia’s 2013 invasion of Ukraine — well before Mr. Trump entered the 2016 presidential race and began hitting countries for failing to pay their fair share.

And debates over new defense spending increases remain heated in Europe: Germany’s foreign minister said Wednesday that a serious military spending boost by Berlin could be geopolitically risky because it might raise concerns of German “military supremacy” on the continent.

The comments by Sigmar Gabriel, an ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, exposed the sticky politics around European military budgets — a sore spot for successive U.S. administrations for decades.

The U.S. is one of just five of the 28 NATO countries meeting or exceeding the target of 2 percent of GDP spending devoted to defense, and there have been no hard commitments to provide new funds since Mr. Trump took office.

“I would not call it ’money pouring in,’” Heather A. Conley, who heads the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington, said Wednesday. “I would say that NATO leaders are taking this very seriously, and we’re starting to see much more direct conversations on it in Europe’s parliaments and defense ministries.

“Mr. Trump’s questioning of NATO and America’s commitment has added to the discussion,” she said, “but it started well before.”

The situation came to a head in 2014, when NATO members agreed to end years of defense cuts that had left much of Europe without basic funding for such military capabilities as refueling airborne fighter jets.

While the agreement wasn’t legally binding, it called on members to reach the 2 percent goal by 2024. The money wouldn’t flow into NATO directly, but would beef up the capabilities of individual nations, expanding their ability to contribute troops, equipment and other assets to the alliance.

Analysts say the development was driven by several factors, led by Russia’s increasingly aggressive military posture that had put several NATO members in Eastern Europe on edge.

“The Russian intervention in Ukraine is what really began this,” Ms. Conley said. “Baltic countries and Poland have been increasing their spending on defense because they face a threat from Russia. But European countries from the south and east have also been increasing because of the crisis surrounding migrants, and the French have made an increase in response to terrorism.”

Daniel Kochis, a European affairs analyst with The Heritage Foundation, agreed.

“Even the Germans have increased their defense spending this past year,” he said. “They jumped from about 1.2 percent of their GDP in 2016 to about 1.22 percent in 2017 — an increase of roughly [$2.1 billion].”

But most members remain far below the 2 percent threshold, and the increases that have occurred are still “far from where we need to be,” Mr. Kochis said.

Only the U.S., Britain, Poland, Estonia and Greece met the target in 2016, although Latvia, Lithuania and Romania are close, according to Reuters.

Mr. Trump can claim credit for shining a harsh spotlight on the problem with his 2016 campaign criticisms, calling NATO “obsolete” and threatening to pull Washington back from the alliance.

Mr. Kochis said he also wouldn’t have used the words Mr. Trump did, but added that the president “was right to highlight the defense spending increases and to continue trying to get NATO members to pony up even more.”

Mr. Trump’s comment that defense dollars from NATO allies are “pouring in” was apparently an off-the-cuff remark veering from his prepared text Tuesday night.