U.S. Pushing Allies to Limit Focus on Ukraine in NATO Summit Communique
The United States is pressuring European allies to limit references to Ukraine in the final communique coming out of next week's NATO summit, according to several sources, a symbolic move that would signal a decline in support for Kyiv under U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.
Trump officials have pushed NATO allies to agree to limit mentions of Ukraine in the communique, the document issued at the conclusion of the annual conference that lays out the security alliance's priorities, according to multiple sources in Washington and Europe who are familiar with the negotiations.
The current draft of the summit's communique only includes one passing mention of Ukraine's defense capabilities and does not include a broad statement of support for Kyiv, a European official who viewed the draft told Newsweek.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Newsweek.
If the U.S. and other NATO members approve the draft, it would represent a departure from the strong statements of support for Ukraine issued at the end of the NATO summits held under former President Joe Biden after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
"People in Moscow, Beijing and in other major capitals of the world look carefully at how the United States and NATO characterize the international security situation," said Jeff Rathke, the president of the American-German Institute at Johns Hopkins University. "If NATO backs away from what it has previously committed to [at the summit], it's a signal of weakness that will very much be picked up on."
NATO members are expected to take some steps at the summit to show support for Ukraine. Secretary-General Mark Rutte has called on member states to increase their annual defense spending to deter Russia.
The alliance is expected to announce new spending targets of 5 percent at the summit, according to several sources. The figure would consist of 3.5 percent spending on core defense programs and 1.5 percent on military-related infrastructure and logistics. The plan represents a significant victory for Trump, who has long called on NATO members to step up their defense spending.
In recent months, the United Kingdom, France, and other countries have also pledged greater military aid to Ukraine, which has relied on Western support in its fight against Russia.
The aid has raised tensions between Europe and the U.S. since Trump took office, vowing to bring a swift end to the war in Ukraine.
The administration brokered peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, but the negotiations haven't resulted in any meaningful breakthroughs so far. Trump has expressed frustration with both countries for failing to reach a deal, but he has more frequently criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky than Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It remains unclear whether Trump will support a Senate bill to impose new sanctions on Moscow or a new military aid package for Ukraine once the current funding for Kyiv expires.
A final NATO summit communique that barely mentions Ukraine would be a marked contrast to the statements issued by the security alliance over the past several years. The alliance expressed unequivocal support for Ukraine at the conclusion of the annual summit last year, which was hosted by the Biden administration in Washington.
"Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and gravely undermined global security," the 2024 communique said.
NATO pledged in the document to "bolster our long-term support to Ukraine so it can prevail in its fight for freedom."
Ukrainian officials said they hoped NATO allies would prioritize Ukraine at the summit without angering Trump, who has spent the past week focused on the escalating war between Israel and Iran.
"They're thinking about how to diplomatically promote Ukraine at the NATO Summit and how to not antagonize Trump. It's a difficult challenge," Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of Ukraine's parliament, told Newsweek.
"In the final communique, I'd like to see something said about supporting Ukraine," he added.
Related Articles
"Hitler" Comments Deepen NATO Ally Turkey's Feud With IsraelRussia Accuses UK of Sabotage Plans With US in 'NATO Lake'US and NATO Ally Patrol Waters Near ChinaRussia Feigns at Peace. Congress Must Sanction Putin's War Machine | Opinion
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stocks struggle, oil up for 3rd week as Trump weighs US action on Iran
By Stella Qiu SYDNEY (Reuters) -Share markets in Asia struggled for direction on Friday as fears of a potential U.S. attack on Iran hung over markets, while oil prices were poised to rise for a third straight week on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. Overnight, Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran, and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel as a week-old air war intensified with no sign yet of an exit strategy from either side. The White House said President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the U.S. will get involved in the Israel-Iran war. The U.S. President is facing uproar from some of his MAGA base over a possible strike on Iran. Brent fell 2% on Friday to $77.22 per barrel, but is still headed for a strong weekly gain of 4%, following a 12% surge the previous week. "The 'two-week deadline' is a tactic Trump has used in other key decisions, including those involving Russia and Ukraine, and tariffs," said Tony Sycamore, analyst at IG. "Often, these deadlines expire without concrete action, (similar to TACO), and there is certainly a risk of this happening again, given the complexities of the situation." Still, a cautious mood prevailed in markets with Nasdaq futures and S&P 500 futures both 0.3% lower in Asia. U.S. markets were closed for the Juneteenth holiday, offering little direction for Asia. The MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan edged up 0.1% but was set for a weekly drop of 1%. Japan's Nikkei slipped 0.2%. China's blue chips rose 0.3%, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng gained 0.5%, after the central bank held the benchmark lending rates steady as widely expected. In the currency markets, the dollar was on the back foot again, slipping 0.2% to 145.17 yen after data showed Japan's core inflation hit a two-year high in May, which kept pressure on the Bank of Japan to resume interest rate hikes. Investors, however, see little prospects of a rate hike from the BOJ until December this year, which is a little over 50% priced in. The U.S. bond market, which was also closed on Thursday, started trading in Asian hours on a subdued note. Ten-year Treasury bond yield was flat at 4.389%, while two-year yields slipped 2 basis points to 3.925%. Overnight, the Swiss National Bank cut rates to zero and did not rule out going negative, while the Bank of England held policy steady but saw the need for further easing and Norway's central bank surprised everyone and cut rates for the first time since 2020. Gold prices eased 0.2% to $3,363 an ounce, but were set for a weekly loss of 2%. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dollar set to finish week on upbeat note buoyed by safe-haven appeal
By Johann M Cherian (Reuters) -The dollar was set to log its biggest weekly rise in over a month on Friday, as uncertainties about a raging war in the Middle East and the repercussions it could have on the global economy fuelled an appetite for traditional safe havens. The dollar index comparing the U.S. currency against six others is poised for a 0.5% climb this week. The conflict between Israel and Iran shows no signs of subsiding and market participants are nervous about potential U.S. intervention in the region. The two countries have been in a week-long air battle as Tel Aviv seeks to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions and cripple the domestic government. The White House said U.S. President Donald Trump will make a decision within the next two weeks about whether to join Israel in the war. The resultant recent spike in oil prices added a new layer of inflation uncertainty for central banks across regions which have been grappling with the potential repercussions of U.S. tariffs on their economies. "Rising oil prices introduce inflation uncertainty at a time when growth is weakening," said Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo. "That makes central banks' jobs much harder — do they ease to support growth or hold back to avoid fueling inflation? Most seem to be prioritizing growth concerns for now, assuming that crude gains may not be sustained." In early Asia trading, the euro inched up 0.16% to $1.151, while the dollar weakened against the yen by 0.17% to 145.23 per dollar. Also underpinning the yen's gains was hotter-than-expected inflation data that kept expectations for upcoming interest rate hikes alive. Furthermore, minutes from the Bank of Japan's policy meet this week showed policymakers agreed on the need to keep raising rates that are still at very low levels. The Swiss franc was flat at 0.816 per dollar on Friday but was set for its largest weekly drop since mid-April after the country's central bank lowered borrowing costs. Swiss rates now stand at 0%. Currencies positively correlated to risk sentiment such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars were steady, while sterling was little changed at $1.34. Although the Federal Reserve earlier this week stuck with its forecast of two interest rate cuts this year, Chair Jerome Powell cautioned against giving that view too much weight. Analysts saw the central bank's delivery as a 'hawkish tilt' further underpinning the greenback's gains this week. Investors were, however, taken aback by an unexpected 25 basis point interest rate cut by Norges bank and the krone is down by more than 1% against the dollar this week. Though geopolitical tensions were the main market focus this week, concerns about tariffs and the impact they may have on costs, corporate margins and overall growth are ever-present. These concerns have weighed on the dollar, which is down about 9% this year. Trump's early July tariff deadline looms and sources said that European officials are increasingly resigned to a 10% rate on "reciprocal" tariffs being the baseline in any trade deal between the U.S. and the EU. Elsewhere, the offshore yuan was little changed at 7.185 after China kept benchmark lending rates unchanged as expected. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
