logo
NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions

NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies.
Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time.
Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5% of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it 'unreasonable.' Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members.
The following day, Trump said the U.S. should not have to respect the goal.
'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government, saying: 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer.' He also criticized Canada as 'a low payer.'
Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2% of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45%, according to NATO figures.
Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the U.S.-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition.
European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight.
A short summit, decades of mutual security
The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording.
Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years.
Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong U.S. presence on the continent.
Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not.
NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia.
NATO's collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility.
It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the U.S. intends to remain a member of the alliance.
A civilian runs NATO, but the U.S. and its military hold power
The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries.
NATO's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister.
As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other 'NACs' at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members.
NATO's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top U.S. officer.
Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear
With Trump demanding greater defense spending, it's unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelenskyy has been invited, but it's unclear whether he will have a seat at NATO's table, although he may take part in Tuesday's dinner. Russia's war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings.
More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines.
But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60% of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. NATO coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops.
NATO's troop plans
A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern.
Under NATO's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers.
It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge NATO if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against U.S. allies — including imposing tariffs on them — has weakened that deterrence.
The U.S. is carrying the biggest military burden
Due to high U.S. defense spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets.
Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.
After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO allies agreed to make 2% of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago.
In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5%, plus a further 1.5% for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How a coastal Maine town almost became part of Canada
How a coastal Maine town almost became part of Canada

CBC

time17 minutes ago

  • CBC

How a coastal Maine town almost became part of Canada

Social Sharing When U.S. President Donald Trump started talking about annexing Canada to make it the 51st state, people in Castine, Maine, took notice. The town, after all, was twice occupied by Great Britain two centuries ago. The British wanted to carve out a new colony that would be part of British North America — in effect doing the opposite of what Trump has been musing about. "When I do walking tours, I jokingly tell people that this could have been Canada very easily," said Lisa Lutts, the recently retired executive director of the Castine Historical Society. "If the War of 1812, if the Treaty of Paris had been different, this would have been Canada. And I always joke and say, well, I would have had better health care. That's my joke, and people love it." Castine's history of occupation is visible in the historical markers and remnants of British forts that dot its small grid of streets overlooking Penobscot Bay. Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump here by 47 percentage points in the presidential election last fall, and the president's aggressive comments about Canada were deeply unpopular in Castine and nearby coastal communities. "This isn't how you treat your allies," said Pete O'Brien, a resident of nearby Rockland who was showing relatives from California the earthworks of Fort George, built by British troops in 1779. "We're about as close as it gets to you politically, culturally, geographically." Liam Riordan, a historian at the University of Maine at Orono and an expert on the revolutionary period, said Trump's rhetoric represents "a failure to understand the close ties and close relationships that we share." "I think in Maine, the reaction to that has really been one of being appalled and embarrassed." WATCH | 'I see us as a borderland': Occupied Maine then and now: The Maine town that almost became a Canadian border community 1 hour ago Duration 4:58 The British occupied eastern Maine twice. Americans who live there have thoughts on U.S. President Donald Trump's annexation talk. Castine's elevated geographical location at the tip of a peninsula on the eastern side of Penobscot Bay made it a strategic location for colonial powers fighting over North America. A newspaper correspondent referred to its capture in 1814 as "perhaps one of the most admirable military positions in the world." In the 1600s, present-day Castine was the western edge of the French colony of Acadia, with the British-held Massachusetts Bay Colony on the other side of the bay. France gave up all its North American territory in 1763, but when it backed the rebels in the American Revolution, the British seized Castine in case the French decided to take it back. A revolutionary fleet sailed to Castine to push out the British but failed miserably. "A lot of Americans have no idea about the Penobscot expedition and the battle that took place here, because we lost," Lutts said. "We remember the ones that we won." When the revolution ended and the British recognized U.S. independence, "any reasonable person during the treaty negotiations … would have said almost certainly the Penobscot River would be the border," Riordan said. But John Adams, one of the negotiators, pushed for the St. Croix River to be the border because he recognized how Castine would give the Americans better access to lucrative fish stocks and trade routes. Four hundred loyalists who had come to Castine during the Revolution to remain under the British Crown moved again, this time settling what would become Saint Andrews, N.B. Several even moved their houses there on boats and placed them on a street grid similar to Castine's, the reason the two towns resemble each other. Three decades later, during the War of 1812, the British returned to capture Castine again. The story goes that American troops at Fort Madison knew they were outnumbered, fired one perfunctory cannon shot for honour's sake and quickly fled. A local pastor, William Mason, grabbed a white table cloth from his dining room and headed down to the harbour to wave it as a signal of surrender. Castine was a boomtown under British occupation thanks to trade with other British ports such as Halifax and Saint John. "Business is brisk and speculators are daily flocking in from every quarter," the Hartford Courant reported in November 1814. "The war, or rather peace, with the British is becoming very popular here." But the treaty that ended the War of 1812 returned Castine to the U.S. again. Thousands of pounds collected by the British customs house in Castine remained with the British and was used by Nova Scotia's governor, Lord Dalhousie, to establish a college that later became Dalhousie University. "Another reason why we feel very close to Canada is that our money is up there at that university," Lutts joked. "They're not letting us in for free though. They should let Castiners in for free, don't you think?" The end of that war also marked the end of Castine changing hands, but the town's history remains a touchstone for residents to this day. "We understand ourselves by thinking about our relationship with the past," Riordan said. "And Castine really leans into this more than many other local towns." Some local residents aren't sure life would be that different here if history had taken a different turn. "If the Canadian border had been here, I don't think a lot would have changed, because when I look at Maine, I see us as a borderland between Canada and the United States anyway," O'Brien said. "I think there's also a lot of understanding and acceptance and appreciation of the Canadians down here as well. And so it would have just pushed all of that a little farther south, right?"

Iran fires at Israel, warns U.S. after strikes on its nuclear sites
Iran fires at Israel, warns U.S. after strikes on its nuclear sites

Globe and Mail

time34 minutes ago

  • Globe and Mail

Iran fires at Israel, warns U.S. after strikes on its nuclear sites

Iran fired a salvo of missiles and drones on Monday at Israel while also warning the United States that its military has been given a 'free hand' to attack American targets in the wake of the Trump administration's massive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Meanwhile, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said on Monday that 'very heavy damage' is expected at Iran's underground facility at Fordo after a U.S. air strike there with sophisticated bunker-buster bombs. With the strikes on Sunday on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States inserted itself into Israel's war, prompting fears of a wider regional conflict. Iran said the U.S. had crossed 'a very big red line' with its risky gambit to strike the three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. Israel said its defence systems were operating to intercept the latest Iranian threat, which apparently targeted the north and central areas of the country, and told people to head to shelters. Iran described the attack as a new wave of its Operation 'True Promise 3,' saying it was targeting the Israeli cities of Haifa and Tel Aviv, according to Iranian state television. Explosions were also heard in Jerusalem. There were no immediate reports of damage. Analysis: Strikes on Iran mark an abrupt interventionist turn for Trump Iranian-Canadians fear escalation in Middle East conflict after U.S. strikes on nuclear sites In Iran, witnesses reported Israeli air strikes hit areas around Iran's capital, Tehran, midday. It wasn't immediately clear what had been targeted. In Vienna, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that given the 'explosive payload utilized and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred.' He added that 'at this time, no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordo.' Also Monday, Iranian Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, the chief of joint staff of armed forces, warned Washington its strikes had given Iranian forces a 'free hand' to 'act against U.S. interests and its army.' Tens of thousands of American troops are based in the Middle East, many in locations within range of short-range Iranian missiles. The U.S. described its Sunday attack on the Fordo and Natanz enrichment facilities, as well as the Isfahan nuclear site, as a one-off to take out Iran's nuclear program, but President Donald Trump has warned of additional strikes if Tehran retaliates. Mousavi described the American attack as violating Iran's sovereignty and being tantamount to invading the country, the state-run IRNA news agency reported. In the wake of the American attacks on Iran, calls came from across the globe for de-escalation and the return to diplomacy to try and resolve the conflict. On Monday, the European Union's top diplomat said the bloc remained 'very much focused on the diplomatic solution.' 'The concerns of retaliation and this war escalating are huge,' Kaja Kallas said at the start of a foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels where Iran has jumped to the top of the agenda. 'Especially closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is something that would be extremely dangerous and not good for anybody,' Kallas said, referring to a maritime route crucial for oil transport. After Sunday's attacks, Iranian officials repeated their long-time threats of possibly closing the key shipping lane. As Iranians take shelter or flee, some also hope for the end of a repressive regime Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the U.S., France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60% – a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% – and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was meeting on Monday in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of Iran's key allies.

France's court of auditors estimates $6.8 billion public spending for 2024 Paris Olympics
France's court of auditors estimates $6.8 billion public spending for 2024 Paris Olympics

Winnipeg Free Press

time38 minutes ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

France's court of auditors estimates $6.8 billion public spending for 2024 Paris Olympics

PARIS (AP) — France's court of auditors provided Monday the first official estimate of public spending tied to the 2024 Paris Olympics, with the global public expenditure estimated at nearly six billion euros ($6.8 billion). The Cour des Comptes said in its preliminary report, which was published ahead of the 2030 Winter Olympics also awarded to France, that the spending includes €2.77 billion for the event organization and €3.19 billion for infrastructure investments. Paris 2024 organizers challenged the estimates in comments attached to the report. They notably said that some expenditures which predated the event and will continue afterward can't be attributed to Games. They also said that attributing major investments to the Olympics, despite being unrelated projects launched long before, is unjustified. 'Through its methodological choices, the Court has in fact declined to examine the only question that would meaningfully inform public debate: how much public money would have been saved if the Games had not been held in Paris?,' said Tony Estanguet, the former head of the organizing committee. 'It is undeniable that this amount would be far less than the €6 billion currently cited by the court. The organizing committee, as it already stated during the contradictory procedure, estimates that this figure does not exceed €2 billion, while the expected economic benefits of the Games are said to represent three to five times that amount,' he added. The Cour des Comptes insisted that its progress report is based on data available as of March 31, 2025, and does not claim to draw final conclusions. 'The report does not include, due to unavailable data, any analysis of the positive or negative effects of the Games on economic activity or tax revenues, nor an assessment of tax expenditures related to their organization,' the Cour said in a summary statement. 'On this last point, the tax authorities informed the Court that no overall estimate is currently planned. This position is unsatisfactory, and the Court calls on the State to begin this evaluation without delay.' ___ AP Olympics:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store