The Trump administration’s dramas in Washington risk distracting Europe from the US message about defence needs in the face of Russia’s threat. This must not be allowed to happen

This week would have been a decisive, perhaps even a pivotal, one for European defence planning – even without Monday’s dramas in Washington. Big allied meetings with any new US administration of the sort that are taking place in Europe this week always provide a moment to reshape defence strategy. Michael Flynn’s sacking as the White House national security adviser ups the ante. It means talks that were already going to be tense now take place in an almost Hollywood spy thriller atmosphere, as fresh uncertainties about the Trump administration’s links to Russia add new layers of flux and drama.

The underlying issue about Russia must not be ignored just because of Mr Trump. In the past three years, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has invaded Crimea, has promoted a civil war in eastern Ukraine, and has put pressure on the Baltic states; it is testing Nato air, sea and cyber defences almost daily, and is meddling in national elections in Europe, as it did in America last year. This is not fake. It is real.

Understandably, most European officials are privately appalled by the administration’s flirtations with Moscow. Some are saying so openly, which is itself unprecedented. Most are taking a cautious approach, watching and waiting to see how the administration settles down. In the short term this means caution about issues such as intelligence sharing, a problem that particularly affects Britain. But it would be a mistake to lose sight of the security threats facing Europe amid all this. The threats are real, and they require a high degree of commitment and cooperation from European nations – including Britain.

On Wednesday, the new US defence secretary, General James Mattis, was in Brussels for the first time since his appointment. He was there to meet Nato counterparts who will have been hanging on his every word after so many mixed signals from Mr Trump. Mr Mattis is widely seen in Europe as an experienced professional who has none of the president’s lurching ambivalence about multilateral alliances. Yet he brought a tough message to the Nato meeting, making clear – as other recent US defence secretaries, notably Robert Gates, have also done – that Europe needs to raise its game and bear more of the Nato spending and commitment burden.

This is not a new plea, but it is six years since Mr Gates stunned a similar gathering with the warning that the alliance risked becoming a military irrelevance. Since then, the European states and Canada have responded more than is sometimes recognised. Their defence spending has risen collectively by 3.8% above inflation in the last year. Deployments in the Baltic states since 2014 have been scaled up, with 16 European states providing air patrols, the UK contributing a naval deployment, and Germany and the Netherlands taking a key role in a new joint taskforce.

On Friday the venue switches from Brussels to Munich for the annual weekend security conference there, an event that has been likened to the Oscars for defence nerds. In Munich, both Secretary Mattis and Vice-President Mike Pence are expected, along with the entire European and Nato defence establishment. The war of words between Washington and the European states over defence spending is likely to continue.

Its underlying message should be taken seriously. Even Nato itself accepts that only five of its 28 member states have met the target of defence spending of 2% of GDP that the alliance first set in 2006. A study this week by the International Institute for Strategic Studies put the number even lower, with only the US, Estonia and Greece hitting the target. There is much wrong with the 2% figure – it is arbitrary, it measures spending rather than defence outputs, some countries bulk up their share by including things like pensions, and some countries cannot afford 2% in austere times. But there can be no gainsaying the fact that Europe should do more, and be better coordinated, for its own defence needs within Nato.