NATO summit commits to higher spending and collective defence
Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan, U.S. President Donald Trump, Dutch King Willem-Alexander and Dutch Queen Maxima, France's President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Sweden's Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Slovakia's President Peter Pellegrini, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, Poland's outgoing President Andrzej Duda, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and NATO heads of state and governments pose for a picture ahead of a dinner hosted by Dutch King Willem-Alexander and Dutch Queen Maxima, on the sidelines of a NATO Summit, at Huis ten Bosch Palace in The Hague, Netherlands June 24, 2025. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann/Pool
THE HAGUE (Reuters) - NATO leaders on Wednesday backed a big increase in defence spending and restated their commitment to defend each other from attack after a brief summit tailor-made for U.S. President Donald Trump.
In a short statement, NATO endorsed a higher defence spending goal of 5% of GDP by 2035 - a response to a demand by Trump and to Europeans' fears that Russia poses a growing threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
"We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all," the statement said, after Trump had sparked concern on Tuesday by saying there were "numerous definitions" of the clause.
But just before the summit opened, Trump had said of fellow NATO members: "We're with them all the way."
SPENDING TO JUMP BY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS
The 32-nation alliance for its part heeded a call by Trump for other countries to step up their spending on defence to reduce NATO's reliance on the U.S.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged that it was not easy for European countries and Canada to find the extra money, but said it was vital to do so.
"There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that, given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative," the former Dutch prime minister told reporters in his home city of The Hague.
The new spending target - to be achieved over the next 10 years - is a jump worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the current goal of 2% of GDP, although it will be measured differently.
Countries would spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence - such as troops and weapons - and 1.5% on broader defence-related measures such as cyber security, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle heavy military vehicles.
All NATO members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal and can meet its commitments by spending much less.
Rutte disputes that but accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly.
Spain said on Wednesday that it did not expect its stance to have any repercussions.
TRUMP TO MEET ZELENSKIY
Rutte has kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge to try to avert any friction with Trump.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had to settle for attending the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening rather than the main meeting on Wednesday, although he was set to meet Trump separately.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban diluted the display of unity when he told reporters that NATO had no business in Ukraine and that Russia was not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO.
The Kremlin has accused NATO of being on a path of rampant militarisation and portraying Russia as a "fiend of hell" in order to justify its big increase in defence spending.
(Additional reporting by Lili Bayer, Anthony Deutsch, Bart Meijer, Stephanie van den Berg, John Irish, Gram Slattery and Charlotte Van Campenhout; Writing by Andrew Gray and Keith Weir; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Trump considers more Patriots for Ukraine, says Putin "has to end" the war
U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy attend a meeting on the sidelines of NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands June 25, 2025. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. THE HAGUE (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump indicated on Wednesday he will consider providing more of the Patriot missiles that Ukraine needs to defend against mounting Russian strikes, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin "really has to end that war". His remarks came after a 50-minute meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on the sidelines of a NATO summit in The Hague. Both leaders described it as a positive step in a conflict that Trump described as "more difficult than other wars". During a press conference in which he celebrated his own diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, Trump said the Patriots were "very hard to get" but that "we are going to see if we can make some of them available". Zelenskiy mentioned air-defence systems but it was not immediately clear whether Trump was referring to more missiles or complete batteries. Trump also left open the possibility of providing more military aid to Kyiv, which has suffered grinding Russian advances on the battlefield in recent months. He had previously shown no sign of resuming the donations of weaponry to Ukraine that his predecessor Joe Biden had instituted after Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022. Asked directly whether the U.S. would contribute more funding to Ukraine's defence this year, Trump said: "As far as money going, we'll see what happens." The U.S.-made Patriot batteries are critical to shooting down the Russian ballistic missiles that have increasingly rained on Ukrainian cities in recent weeks. Dozens of people have been killed over the past week on the capital Kyiv and the southeastern regional capital of Dnipro. Zelenskiy said before Wednesday's meeting that Ukraine was willing to buy more Patriots if the U.S. was unwilling to donate them. He said the talks with Trump were "long and substantive". "Ukraine is ready to buy this equipment and support American weapons manufacturers," Zelenskiy wrote on X. "We also discussed the potential for co-production of drones. We can strengthen each other." Trump added that he would soon speak once more with Putin, adding: "Look, Vladimir Putin really has to end that war." MORE FORMAL LOOK FOR ZELENSKIY Zelenskiy wore a dark, suit-style jacket to the meeting, in contrast to the more informal military-style garb he was criticised for wearing at a disastrous White House meeting with Trump in February. He has since worked to rebuild relations with the Trump administration, whose overtures to Russia have concerned Kyiv. However, he had to settle for attending the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening rather than the main meeting on Wednesday, which backed the big NATO-wide increase in defence spending that Trump had demanded. Unlike last year, this year's summit declaration contained no mention of future NATO membership for Ukraine. While the statement denounced what it called the long-term threat posed by Russia to European and Atlantic security, it did not directly blame Russia for the invasion, as previous declarations have. (Reporting by Yuliia Dysa in Gdansk, Jeff Mason and Katharine Jackson; writing by Dan Peleschuk; editing by Alison Williams, Alexandra Hudson, Mark Heinrich and Kevin Liffey)
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
With Iran, risk-taker Trump places his biggest bet yet
Like the casino owner he once was, President Donald Trump has shown an appetite for risk during the first months of his administration. The United States airstrike on Iran, however, may represent Trump's largest gamble yet. For now, Trump appears to have won his bet that he could limit US involvement and force the parties to a ceasefire. "He wagered," said Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa practice at Eurasia Group. "Things went his way." It remains to be seen whether the ceasefire will hold. Early on Tuesday, Trump expressed frustration that Israel had launched an attack on Teheran hours after the president had declared a break in the hostilities. If the agreement doesn't stick - or if Iran ultimately retaliates militarily or economically, Trump risks fragmenting the America First coalition that helped power him back into office by rendering what his movement stands for increasingly nebulous and ill-defined. "If six months from now, Iran continues to be a problem, it will grind down the MAGA coalition," said Chris Stirewalt, a political analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Trump, in a sense, had already diluted the MAGA brand, Stirewalt said, by doing what he swore on the campaign trail he wouldn't: involve the US in another conflict in the Middle East. And Trump's messaging may already show the challenges that could be faced with winning approval from his base. Last Thursday, Trump said he would take as long as two weeks to determine whether the US would join the war on Israel's side, arguing the time was needed to lower the temperature. Instead, two days later, he approved the bomber run, not only likely catching the Iranians off guard but many Americans as well. His choice to hit Iran could also pose problems for whichever Republican tries to claim his mantle in the next presidential election. "In 2028, the question of foreign intervention will be a dividing line. It will be a litmus test as people struggle to define what MAGA is," Stirewalt said. The White House largely left it to Vice-President JD Vance, one of the most isolationist members of the administration, to defend the Iranian strike on a Sunday news programme. Iran has not been the only example of where Trump has bet big and the payoff remains elusive. His on-again-off-again use of tariffs has sparked uncertainty in markets and stoked inflation fears. His efforts to slash the government bureaucracy have lost momentum with the departure of Elon Musk from his circle of advisers. His hardline immigration push sparked protests across the country. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday, and conducted before the ceasefire was announced, showed that only 36 per cent of those surveyed supported the strikes against Iran's nuclear programme. Overall, Trump's approval rating fell to 41 per cent, a new low for his second term. His foreign policy received even lower marks. Dave Hopkins, an expert on US politics at Boston College, said that Trump neglected to make a case in advance to the American people that the strike was in the country's interests. "We have not seen discussion of Iran as a major enemy of the US or a threat to the US," said Hopkins. Trump's boast that he had forced a ceasefire was part of a pattern, he added. As a candidate, Trump promised he could end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but has since discovered he cannot bend Moscow and Tel Aviv to his will. In fact, in striking Iran, Trump followed Israel's lead, not vice versa. The strike fits with how Trump has approached his second term, with a willingness to govern in broad strokes and act boldly without widespread public backing. He does not need to worry about facing voters again and works with a largely compliant Republican-controlled Congress. Political payback might not happen immediately, said Allison Stanger, a political scientist at Middlebury College, but could come in the form of continued civic unrest in America or Democratic gains in next year's midterm elections. "Trump's political risk isn't immediate escalation," Stanger said. "It's the slow burn of resentment he has built across multiple fronts, both foreign and domestic."
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Analysis-Europe placates Trump with NATO pledges it can ill afford
LONDON (Reuters) -In their rush to retain Donald Trump's support for NATO, the alliance's European members have promised to more than double the amount of wealth they set aside for military spending. The snag is that most can ill-afford to spend 5% of output on defence - so while there will be some unpalatable sacrifices in national budgets, there will also be some creative accounting to divert existing spending to the effort. "They will not get there," Guntram Wolff, senior fellow of the Bruegel think-tank, said of the 5% goal. "If you are a highly indebted country you can't issue more debt, it means very difficult budgetary choices," he said of the hefty tax hikes or spending cuts that it would require. As a piece of political theatre, the Hague summit at least won over its intended audience: Trump himself. Amid concerns about his commitment to NATO's mutual defence clause, he said the United States stood with its European allies "all the way". While few dispute that Europe needs to do more to ensure its own security as tensions with Russia rise, the fixation on the 5% target cut short a separate debate about how it could be using its existing military budgets more efficiently, for example with national governments agreeing on joint procurement. Now it has saddled itself with pledges which - with the notable exception of Germany, whose finances are solid after years of fiscal frugality - most members will find hard to keep. To hit the 5% threshold, European Union countries, whose debt pile already tops 80% of output, would between them have to nearly triple the 325 billion euros ($377 billion) they spent on defence last year to more than 900 billion. Non-EU Britain - whose debt is 100% of output and which already pays more in debt servicing than for every spending item apart from health - would need an extra 30 billion pounds ($41 billion). "The potential losers are not just future generations saddled with huge debts, but today's societies," said Nick Witney at the European Council on Foreign Relations. "Disgruntled populations, whose sense of economic wellbeing has never recovered from the global economic crash of 2008, will likely become even easier prey forpopulist or nationalist politiciansgathering strength across Europe." GUNS OR BUTTER? To be sure, the closer a country sits next to Russia, the less domestic angst there is about finding the extra cash - Poland, the Baltics and Finland are all cases in point. Years of rivalry with neighbouring Turkey have meanwhile attuned Greek public opinion to accept higher defence spending. But Spain's Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez - whose country is alone in not expressly signing up to the new target - voiced the concerns of others when he said the goal was "incompatible with our welfare state". Slovakia, one of the central European countries whose budgets face the greatest strains from the defence build-up, has also baulked at the target, arguing that raising living standards and cutting its borrowing were equally important. Bruegel's Wolff said it remained to be seen whether countries increase their defence quotas by shaving the odd billion here and there off other areas, or whether big-ticket areas such as pensions take a sizeable hit. "But keep it in proportion - there will still be a welfare state but perhaps less generous," he said of social protections across Europe that can account for anything up to 30% of the economy. As leaders depart the Hague summit venue, the national conversations on defence will sound strikingly different to those that were had in the run-up to the gathering. The 5% breaks down into 3.5% to be spent on "core" defence - troops and weapons - and 1.5% on defence-related measures such as adapting roads and bridges to handle military vehicles. The room to wedge existing spending items into the second category will likely prove generous. In France, for example, there is discussion about whether that could include the gendarmes policing country lanes, who are formally part of the defence ministry but whose existing running costs currently lie outside the defence cost tally. The long deadlines aired for hitting the target - in some cases up to a decade - are also an opportunity for those pledges to be fudged as the political spotlight shines elsewhere. "Spending goals will simply be missed," said Witney. "The transformation required will begin to take shape, but less rapidly and less coherently than if more realistic targets had been set." ($1 = 0.7344 pounds) ($1 = 0.8613 euros) (Writing by Mark John; additional reporting by Jan Strupczewski in Brussels; Leigh Thomas in Paris; Maria Martinez in Berlin; William Schomberg in London; Eleftherios Papadimos in Athens; Anne Kauranen in Helsinki; Simon Johnson in Stockholm; Gergely Szakacs in Budapest; Jan Lopatka in Prague; Editing by Alex Richardson)
