NATO as a military organization is hardly suitable for the fight against terrorism. It's like hammering a nail with a microscope. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created for entirely different purposes. This is an alliance for territorial defense, initially to confront the Soviet Union's military power, believes Ivan Timofeev, Programme director of the Valdai Discussion Club and the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

       "NATO is not organized to fight terrorism, therefore NATO's role in struggle against ISIS, against terrorism and extremism in other areas is of secondary importance, it may be limited to intelligence work, training, but no more," Ivan Timofeev said in interview with www.valdaiclub.com on the eve of the NATO summit in Brussels, where a decision may be taken over NATO joining the Western coalition against ISIS.

       "If you take the West and NATO, here the most concrete role is played by specific states and primarily by the US. NATO says, that the fight against terrorism is a key threat, but the problem is that the alliance cannot translate this concern into the language of specific detailed actions", the expert stressed.

       Increasing defense spending

       At the Wales NATO summit in 2014 the task was set to the members of the alliance to allocate 2% of GDP to defense spending, 20% of it for arms purchases and modernization of military equipment. Not every member of the alliance is ready to follow such parameters, Ivan Timofeev noted.

       "There are countries that can do this in principle, for example, the Baltic states, but even if they increase this figure to 2% of GDP, like Estonia, the real contribution to the total budget of NATO will be very small. The UK already spends more than 2%, France is close to 2%, but their interest is clear: they provide their great-power ambitions," the expert said.

       At the same time, there are a number of the alliance members that now have military expenditures at the level of 1% of GDP or slightly more, and they are in principle not interested in increasing them. First, it will cost a fairly big sum of money, and second, it will not strengthen the security. "If Germany increases its military spending to 2% of GDP, then it will be necessary to spend $ 30 billion a year more. The question is - what to spend this money for? Will Germany become safer? There are very big doubts. Or let's take Italy: an increase to 2 % will require a sufficiently serious diversion of resources, and the country is not in the good economic situation, every billion of euros is on the account," Ivan Timofeev noted.

       Therefore, Rome has no particular desire to implement quickly the decision of the Wales summit. There will be a serious discussion. The US interest is understandable: the Americans have quite big military spending - more than 3% of GDP. However, the US is a global power. "Why should Germany, Italy or the Netherlands increase spending to 2% of GDP? In order to cope with the Russian threat, but it is not so terrible in reality. To spend tens of billions of euros to fight windmills is not something that everyone likes."

       The Brussels summit most likely will decide to continue the implementation of the Wales decisions on military spending, but not in full. Maybe, longer terms will be set, although the US will continue to pressure on the allies. "The Wales summit set the deadline for 2024, so there is still time to drag feet. "2024 is the end of Trump's presidential term in case he is not impeached and if he remains for a second term. And it's not a fact that this will happen. In other words, the political conjuncture can change in the United States itself, "the Programme director of the Valdai Club said.

       NATO and Russia

       According to Ivan Timofeev, there is no need to expect a change in the NATO course towards Russia. All the basic postulates are, in principle, written in the communique of the Warsaw Summit. "The current summit will not add anything new, but it will not diminish anything either - there will be no progress towards improvement, and this time Russia will not be number one priority of the agenda, although soon there will be twenty years since the signing of the Russia-NATO Founding Act. I would not expect breakthrough statements, let alone decisions on Russia," the expert concluded.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.