特朗普要求购买美国装备，“爸爸梗”反映双方地位落差，北约峰会让欧洲感受苦涩

Group 1 - The NATO summit in The Hague concluded with a push for member countries to increase military spending from 2% to 5% of GDP, although this goal was met with skepticism and opposition from countries like Spain, leading to claims of "symbolic number games" [1][2] - President Trump emphasized that allies should use the additional military spending to purchase American weapons, while French President Macron advocated for the development of European military systems to avoid dependence on the U.S., highlighting the internal divisions within NATO, particularly between the U.S. and Europe [1][8] - NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg promoted the "China threat" narrative to justify increased military spending, raising questions about NATO's intentions as its members already account for 55% of global military expenditure [1][10] Group 2 - The summit was characterized by a brief duration and a vague declaration, which allowed member countries flexibility in interpreting the commitment to the 5% military spending target, reflecting negotiations among countries like Spain that set a maximum of 2.1% [2][4] - Other NATO countries, including Belgium and Luxembourg, are exploring similar flexible spending plans, indicating a broader reluctance to meet the 5% target due to financial constraints [4][5] - The agreement to split the 5% target into 3.5% for core military spending and 1.5% for infrastructure and cybersecurity provides member countries with operational flexibility [5] Group 3 - Trump's approach to NATO spending has been described as transactional, with an expectation that allies must pay for the security guarantees provided by the U.S., raising concerns about the future of collective defense commitments [7][10] - The U.S. arms industry is poised to benefit significantly from increased military spending in Europe, as American defense companies dominate the European arms market [8] - The absence of leaders from key Indo-Pacific nations at the summit raises questions about NATO's efforts to expand its influence in that region, indicating a disconnect between U.S. strategic ambitions and regional realities [9][10]