How NATO's ‘daddy strategy' conquered Trump
It was a reception fit for a king.
The pillows had been fluffed at the Dutch royal palace. King Willem-Alexander had a special guest staying overnight and a key role to play in the careful choreography unfolding in The Hague for the NATO summit with the singular goal of making sure US President Donald Trump didn't pull the plug on the world's biggest military alliance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Why the US will remain the world's policeman
I take it we all agree now that he isn't an 'isolationist'. A word that should never have been applied to Donald Trump in the first place went up in smoke at the weekend, along with an unknown amount of Iran's nuclear program. The US bombings were consistent with his strike against Syria in 2017, against the leader of the militant group ISIS in 2019 and against Iran's most senior general in 2020. Given all the abstract nouns that fit Trump well — jingoism, unilateralism, anti-Europeanism — it is a wonder that isolationism ever saw daylight. It is not even clear that he opposed the Iraq war as a private citizen in 2003.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Personal frustration': Megyn Kelly defends Donald Trump's viral f-bomb moment
The Megyn Kelly Show host Megyn Kelly has commented on US President Donald Trump dropping the f-bomb while talking about the ceasefire violation earlier this week between Israel and Iran. 'He did it intentionally. Trump knows what he's doing, especially when it comes to marketing and messaging and I'm sure he is incredibly frustrated with these powers,' she told Sky News host Paul Murray. 'Dealing with the Middle East is especially sticky. 'I think that's what we were hearing ... with the use of the f-bomb, just his personal frustration at the impossibility of this conflict.'
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
UN Security Council faces a whole new world in 2025 — and Donald Trump is testing it
Since the end of World War II, there are two international organisations that have arguably done more than any others to prevent a third catastrophic global conflict: NATO and the United Nations Security Council. Donald Trump, with his doctrine of American isolationism, is severely testing both — by hinting at pulling out of NATO, and bypassing the Security Council on his way to bomb Iran. This week, NATO members met in the shadow of Trump's latest dig at the alliance, when he suggested he may not be entirely committed to NATO's Article 5 — the mutual defence pact, which states that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all. "Depends on your definition," he said on his way to the meeting. "There are numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends." NATO members are now adjusting to the possibility of reshaping their alliance and the need to rethink their defence budgets and procurements. The Security Council is a key part of the UN, which today celebrates 80 years since its foundation, but it is far less able to adapt than NATO. So what impact has Trump's decision to attack Iran without going to the Security Council first had? "I think it's done major damage," said Professor John Langmore, chair of the Initiative for Peacebuilding at Melbourne University. "The most powerful country in the world has acted without regard to the laws and processes, and got away with it. "It very seriously undermines the Security Council, and certainly damages its credibility." It's widely accepted that the UN Security Council, created in the aftermath of World War II, no longer reflects the world as it was then. Its most powerful members were the victors of the war; the US, Great Britain, France, and Russia, along with China, who all have the power to veto any resolution. On June 5, the US vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent" ceasefire in Gaza, despite its 14 other members voting in favour. In February, the US sided with Moscow over the war in Ukraine by drafting a Security Council resolution calling for an end to the war, but containing no criticism of Russia. Nonetheless, Langmore believes the council continues to fulfil its main job of preventing global conflict. "It's been highly effective because there hasn't been a World War III," he said. "It hasn't been able to stop local more localised violence in a whole series of ways. But it has acted in ways that have prevented global war." Chris Michaelsen, a Professor of International Law at Western Sydney University, agrees the council is still effective. "The world is a more peaceful place," Michaelsen said. "It doesn't seem like it, but that's an empirical fact. The number of inter-state wars in the 80 years since the establishment of the United Nations has drastically reduced." Michaelsen said in many big crises — "Ukraine, Iran, Gaza" — the veto countries prevented the council from acting as the UN charter envisaged. "But there are still many other crises — in Africa, and other parts of the world — where despite the massive antagonism now between the Trump administration, China and Russia, the council is still functioning," he said. But he said while the council will survive the Trump presidency, and America's withdrawal from international bodies like the World Health Organisation, its future may depend on who sits in the White House after he leaves office. "If it's another MAGA administration, then I think it can potentially have a lasting damaging effect on the council — because we are essentially looking at 10 years of US disengagement," he said. "I think that's not fatal, but it leads to a further irrelevance."
