logo
NATO leaders gather for historic summit with unity on the line

NATO leaders gather for historic summit with unity on the line

Yahoo9 hours ago

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders were gathering in the Netherlands on Tuesday for the start of a historic two-day summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies.
The allies are likely to endorse a goal of spending 5% of their gross domestic product on their security, to be able to fulfil the alliance's plans for defending against outside attack. Still, Spain has said it cannot, and that the target is "unreasonable." President Donald Trump has said the U.S. should not have to.
Slovakia said that it reserves the right to decide how to reach the target by NATO's new 2035 deadline.
'We are not living in happy land after the Berlin Wall came down. We are living in much more dangerous times and there are enemies, adversaries who might want to attack us,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said ahead of the summit in The Hague.
'We have to make sure that we defend our beautiful way of life and systems and our values,' he said.
Ahead of the two-day meeting, Britain, France and Germany committed to the 5% goal. Host country the Netherlands is also onboard. Nations closer to the borders of Ukraine, Russia and its ally Belarus had previously pledged to do so.
'It's a historic moment. It's probably one of the most consequential moments in this alliance's history," U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said. "We're going to see a renaissance of our defense industries.'
Trump's first appearance at NATO since returning to the White House was supposed to center on how the U.S. secured the historic military spending pledge from others in the security alliance — effectively bending it to its will.
But in the spotlight instead now is Trump's decision to strike three nuclear enrichment facilities in Iran that the administration says eroded Tehran's nuclear ambitions, as well as the president's sudden announcement that Israel and Iran had reached a 'complete and total ceasefire.'
Ukraine has also suffered as a result of that conflict. It has created a need for weapons and ammunition that Kyiv desperately wants, and shifted the world's attention away. Past NATO summits have focused almost entirely on the war in Ukraine, now in its fourth year.
Still, Rutte insists it remains a vital issue for NATO, and that the allies can manage more than one conflict.
'If we would not be able to deal with ... the Middle East, which is very big and commanding all the headlines, and Ukraine at the same time, we should not be in the business of politics and military at all," he said. "If you can only deal with one issue at a time, that will be that. Then let other people take over.'
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in The Hague for a series of meetings, despite his absence from a leaders' meeting aiming to seal the agreement to boost military spending.
It's a big change since the summit in Washington last year, when the military alliance's weighty communique included a vow to supply long-term security assistance to Ukraine, and a commitment to back the country 'on its irreversible path' to NATO membership.
Zelenskyy's first official engagement was with Dutch caretaker Prime Minister Dick Schoof at his official residence just across the road from the summit venue.
But in a telling sign of Ukraine's status at the summit, neither leader mentioned NATO. Ukraine's bid to join the alliance has been put in deep freeze by Trump.
'Let me be very clear, Ukraine is part of the family that we call the Euro-Atlantic family,' Schoof told Zelenskyy, who in turn said he sees his country's future in peace 'and of course, a part of a big family of EU family.'
Schoof used the meeting to announce a new package of Dutch support to Kyiv including 100 radar systems to detect drones and a move to produce drones for Ukraine in the Netherlands, using Kyiv's specifications.
In a joint opinion piece on the eve of this year's summit, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said they backed U.S. peace efforts that should preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and European security.
'For as long as the current trajectory lasts, Russia will find in France and Germany an unshakeable determination. What is at stake will determine European stability for the decades to come,' they wrote in the Financial Times newspaper.
'We will ensure that Ukraine emerges from this war prosperous, robust and secure, and will never live again under the fear of Russian aggression,' the two leaders wrote.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Warning for Trump as Surprise Poll Offers Harsh Verdict on Iran Strike
Warning for Trump as Surprise Poll Offers Harsh Verdict on Iran Strike

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Warning for Trump as Surprise Poll Offers Harsh Verdict on Iran Strike

If any political commentators or Democratic politicians are tempted to see the political battle over President Trump's bombing of Iran through the prism of the run-up to the Iraq War two decades ago, here's a tip: Don't. For politicians and pundits of a certain age, it's normally assumed that military action will unleash a 'rally around the flag' effect, leading the public to reflexively approve of the decisions by the 'commander in chief'—particularly if he's a Republican—and automatically see criticism of him as unpatriotic. But it's unlikely that we'll see a similar dynamic this time around. A surprising new CNN poll shows why. It finds that 56 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's bombing of Iran, while only 44 percent approve. Strikingly, 60 percent of independents disapprove, suggesting the middle of the country is not with Trump on any of this. On Tuesday, while leaving for the NATO Summit, Trump erupted at Israel and Iran for violating a ceasefire he'd announced on Truth Social, fuming that they 'don't know what the fuck they're doing.' Iran launched a strike after the ceasefire. But Israel's response appeared deliberately limited, suggesting both countries want a lasting truce, which Trump highlighted to claim victory. Trump's anger—combined with the new CNN poll—illustrates a complicated tension about this moment. On the one hand, if the truce holds, it's very possible that the CNN polling (which was conducted before the ceasefire) could flip and the public may end up approving of his handling of the situation. Yet the poll also constitutes a clear warning to Trump. Majorities have zero appetite for any kind of drawn-out conflict, and it's likely that this partly is rooted in perceptions that on complicated national security matters, well, Trump has no bleeping idea what the bleep he's doing. Note the CNN poll's remarkable finding that 55 percent of Americans don't trust Trump to make the right decisions on the use of force in Iran. This includes 62 percent of independents. That's a stunning verdict on public perceptions of Trump's competence, or lack thereof. (Meanwhile a Reuters poll finds only 36 percent back the bombing.) It's no accident that the CNN poll also finds that 58 percent of Americans say Trump's bombing will make Iran more of a threat to the U.S. Those two things may be connected: Voters appear unwilling to reflexively grant deference to the commander in chief's declaration that military force is essential to preserving the security of the homeland. Especially if that commander in chief is Donald J. Trump. This will surprise those who were snakebit by George W. Bush's popularity in the run-up to the Iraq War and Karl Rove's political warfare at the time. The grounds for that war were visibly thin. Yet it's hard to convey to people who didn't live through it how unshakable Bush's grip on public opinion seemed after September 11, 2001; how rampant war fever and rank Islamophobia were in this country; and how deeply it all penetrated into every crevice of American life. It's not hard to see why things are different now. Obviously, we've lived through two 'forever wars' since then, and this time, there was no September 11 to rally the public. But there are other reasons too. Bush was more popular (due to September 11) than Trump is now. And public skepticism of Trump's fitness to make decisions like these—again, 55 percent seem skeptical, per the CNN poll—runs so deep that he is ascribed little credibility on these matters, leaving no room to maneuver on them. That latter dynamic probably won't change much even if the truce holds. Consider the run-up to the bombing: Trump's own intelligence officials said Iran's nuclear program didn't pose an imminent threat, which he impulsively dismissed. His warmongering tweets in real time likely alerted Iran in ways that allowed it to move and secure its enriched uranium. As national security analyst Jeffrey Lewis usefully details, the stated American objective of ending Iran's nuclear program has probably not been achieved. If the ceasefire remains, paint-by-numbers pundits will forget all that and robotically declare the entire saga a smashing political triumph for Trump. But there's no need to assume up front that the public will view things this simplistically. Something big is at stake here: Trump and propagandists like Vice President JD Vance want to use this moment to show that a new Trump doctrine has taken hold, and that it will be persuasive to the public. The idea, as Politico's Nahal Toosi shows, is basically that it doesn't count as 'war' if the objective is narrowly drawn and accomplished with quick, overwhelming force and no lengthy quagmires. But the case that diplomacy as opposed to force could have achieved a more lasting solution to the deeper Iran-Israel problem, which Stephen Wertheim explained well before the bombing, remains just as true now as a week ago. So does the case that we would have been better off under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which Trump sabotaged. My suspicion is that the public will conclude something similar: That 58 percent say the bombing will make Iran more of a threat hints at a preference for diplomacy to war that will endure. The stakes are also huge here because Trump and Vance surely hope their showcasing of the Trump doctrine will also seduce voters into accepting quick military actions without congressional authorization. But the new CNN poll finds that a whopping 65 percent say Trump should seek such authorization going forward. And I'm even more persuaded that this will hold even if the ceasefire remains. Here's the bottom line: As of now, majorities don't trust Trump to make complicated national security decisions in the best interests of the country and want Congress deeply involved in them. We should hope the truce holds. But either way, the absence of a reflexive public endorsement of Trump's warmaking is a positive development—and a sign, whether he knows it or not, that he remains on a very short political leash indeed.

What Do Vets And Military Members Think Of Airstrikes
What Do Vets And Military Members Think Of Airstrikes

Buzz Feed

time31 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

What Do Vets And Military Members Think Of Airstrikes

On Sunday, President Donald Trump facilitated US airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran without congressional approval. By Monday, Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a US base in Qatar. Considering all this, I am curious how active military members and veterans view the conflict. So I'm asking those in our BuzzFeed Community to weigh in. Maybe you're a veteran who fought in the Vietnam War, and you remember all too well what it was like to be drafted into a situation you felt was unnecessary. Now, you're hoping things don't escalate for the worse. Or maybe you voted for Trump because he campaigned on being a peace-bringer and anti-war. Now, you see his actions as antithetical to his intended presidency, and you feel betrayed. Or maybe you're an active duty soldier who sees war as necessary, even if it's not ideal. You're willing to do whatever the commander-in-chief asks of you. Whatever the case may be, active military members and veterans, please share your thoughts in the comments. Or, if you'd like to remain anonymous, use the Google Form below.

Trump Heads To NATO As FRAGILE Ceasefire HOLDS
Trump Heads To NATO As FRAGILE Ceasefire HOLDS

The Hill

time34 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump Heads To NATO As FRAGILE Ceasefire HOLDS

President Trump unleashed on the Israelis and the Iranians on Tuesday, expressing his displeasure at continued fighting between the two adversaries after he announced the parameters of a ceasefire the day before. 'We basically — we have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f‑‑‑ they're doing,' Trump told reporters at the White House before taking off for a trip to The Hague for the NATO Summit. The Hill's Drew Petrimoulx discusses Trump's trip to NATO and the possibility of the ceasefire failing with Ambassador Brent Hardt, a Resident Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

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