‘Crosses our red lines': Trump demand divides NATO
Poland spent 4.1 per cent of GDP on defence last year, according to official NATO figures, while Estonia spent 3.4 per cent and Latvia spent 3.1 per cent. Germany, France and the Netherlands spent slightly more than 2 per cent, while the UK spent 2.3 per cent.
Rutte has urged member countries to aim for a massive increase, with 3.5 per cent to be spent on the military and another 1.5 per cent on supporting services such as cybersecurity, roads and ports.
Speaking in London earlier this month, he had a grim warning for the British: 'If you do not do this, if you would not go to the 5 per cent, including the 3.5 per cent core defence spending, you could still have the National Health Service, or in other countries their health systems, the pension system, et cetera, but you had better learn to speak Russian.'
But there is an awkward fact behind Trump's demands for mammoth European spending: the US itself devoted 3.4 per cent of GDP to defence last year, according to the NATO tally. While Trump has spoken of increasing the Pentagon's budget to more than $US1 trillion ($1.54 trillion), that will depend on the US Congress.
In any case, Trump expects Europe to commit to a target he will not endorse for himself.
'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said of the spending goal last Friday. 'We've been supporting NATO [for] so long.'
What is missing from the NATO debate, however, is a detailed plan for where the money would go. The percentage target is wholly theoretical unless it comes with specific proposals to expand industrial capacity and military production.
The disagreements at the summit, due to begin in The Hague on Tuesday, will come at a time when outside support for the Atlantic security pact has moderated this year.
The summit has lost the top-level participation of three of the four Indo-Pacific nations (IP4) – Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand – invited to the defence meetings each year.
Loading
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba cancelled his attendance on Monday amid doubts about whether he would meet Trump, while South Korean President Lee Jae-myung cited the 'growing instability in the Middle East' as one reason to withdraw.
This means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is not alone among IP4 leaders in choosing not to attend NATO this year, amid the domestic furore about whether he would meet the US president. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles will represent Australia at the summit.
While New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is in Europe for meetings and is due to attend NATO, he told reporters on Monday he did not expect a meeting with Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
35 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
Israel vows response after saying Iran broke ceasefire
Israel's defence minister has ordered the country's military to respond forcefully to what he says was Iran's violation of a ceasefire with Israel. The directive by Israel Katz on Tuesday followed an announcement by the military that it had detected missile launches from Iran towards Israel. Less than three hours earlier, US President Donald Trump had said the ceasefire was in effect. Katz said the military had now been instructed to carry out high-intensity operations against targets in Tehran. Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had agreed to Trump's ceasefire proposal, declaring Israel had achieved its goal of removing Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile threat, but warned it would respond forcefully to any violations, his office said. Writing on Truth Social earlier, Trump declared: 'THE CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT!' Loading content... His announcement on Tuesday came after Iran launched a fresh wave of missiles, killing four people, according to paramedics, and as Iranian authorities reported nine people killed in an attack in northern Iran on Tuesday morning. When Trump announced on Monday what he called a complete ceasefire to end the war, he appeared to suggest Israel and Iran would have time to complete missions that were under way, at which point the ceasefire would begin in a staged process. His declaration came after a sharp escalation of the conflict since Sunday, when the United States bombed Iranian nuclear sites, prompting Iran to retaliate by firing missiles at a US base in Qatar on Monday. Early on Tuesday, witnesses said they heard explosions near Tel Aviv and Beersheba in southern Israel, while Iran's semi-official SNN news agency reported Tehran fired its last round of missiles before the ceasefire came into effect. Israel's military said six waves of missiles were launched by Iran and Israel's national ambulance service said four people were killed in Beersheba. In Iran, the deputy governor of the northern province of Gilan said four residential units were destroyed in a 'terrorist attack' on Tuesday morning, killing nine people and injuring 33. A senior White House official said Trump had brokered the ceasefire deal in a call with Netanyahu and Israel had agreed so long as Iran did not launch further attacks. An Iranian official earlier confirmed Tehran had agreed to a ceasefire, but the country's foreign minister said there would be no cessation of hostilities unless Israel stopped its attacks. Abbas Araqchi said if Israel stopped its 'illegal aggression' against the Iranian people no later than 4am Tehran time (10.30am AEST) on Tuesday, Iran had no intention of continuing its response. Israel, joined by the United States at the weekend, carried out attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities after alleging Tehran was getting close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran denies ever having a nuclear weapons program but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said that if it wanted to, world leaders 'wouldn't be able to stop us'. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani secured Tehran's agreement during a call with Iranian officials, an official briefed on the negotiations said. US Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff were in direct and indirect contact with the Iranians, a White House official said. Hours earlier, three Israeli officials had signalled Israel was looking to wrap up its campaign in Iran and had informed the United States. Earlier on Monday, Trump said he would encourage Israel to proceed towards peace after dismissing Iran's attack on an American air base that caused no injuries and thanking Tehran for early notice of the strikes. He said Iran fired 14 missiles, calling it 'a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered'. Iran's attack came after US bombers dropped 13.6-tonne bunker-buster bombs on Iranian underground nuclear facilities at the weekend, joining Israel's air war. The Trump administration maintains its aim was solely to destroy Iran's nuclear program, not to open a wider war. Trump has cited intelligence reports that Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon, without elaborating. However, US intelligence agencies said earlier in 2025 they assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. with AP
Sydney Morning Herald
35 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
If this ceasefire doesn't hold, let's hit the streets again
I am so angry about the Albanese government's apparent support for Trump blundering into war in Iran ('US acted alone in Iran: Albanese', June 24). Have they forgotten so quickly Trump's erratic behaviour as US president and our own record in having supported George Bush's attack on Iraq's supposed weapons of destruction? It seems it's time for many of us to again take part in protest marches against this war and to raise serious questions about our involvement in AUKUS. Zeny Giles, New Lambton James Massola's attempt at nuance and ambiguity ('PM dodges war talk, but the visuals are awkward', June 24) is exposed when he compares and contrasts Anthony Albanese's position for not going gung-ho with America by sending a ship to the Middle East with what John Howard did do and what Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison would have done. We know how Iraq turned out. That war not only cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but it also resulted in the strengthening of Iran in the Middle East and surely must rank as one of the most egregious acts of stupidity in the history of US foreign policy. Now Trump has chosen to do it all over again. Frank Carroll, Moorooka (Qld) Thank goodness Albo and Penny are in charge and not Howard, Abbott or Morrison. Charmain Brinks, Newcastle The government's response to Trump flaunting his bunker-busting boy's toys in Iran was as careful and balanced as it should have been ('PM missed his chance to make point on Iran', June 24). It's the Coalition that deserves calling out for its unfailing and reflexive war-mongering, always demanding we ride along as junior belligerents as we did in Vietnam and Iraq, and cheering on Netanyahu war crimes in Gaza. Jeffrey Mellefont, Coogee Trump's ego is the real present danger Geoffrey Robertson's reasoned view that Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is – under international law – no different from Russia's attack on Ukraine or the George W. Bush/Tony Blair/John Howard invasion of Iraq ('Trump's rap sheet is long, but this may top them all', June 24) – if anything suggests that Trump's big ego is more dangerous than Iran's nuclear threat. Steve Ngeow, Chatswood Although Geoffrey Robertson, KC, is correct and a breach of international law has been perpetrated by the USA, he overlooks the danger to Israel of Iran having nuclear weapons, capable of wiping out Israel in one blast. Surely, the bombing of the nuclear enrichment plants in Iran is the lesser of two evils? Pasquale Vartuli, Wahroonga We may debate whether the bombing was an act of aggression or an act of war, as does Geoffrey Robertson. We may go along with any setback to the Iranian nuclear program, as do others. But the optics of this happening right now are so clearly in tandem with Netanyahu's ambitions. Trump's contempt for the once much-vaunted rules-based order, and ours by proxy, is blatant. But it leaves Australia with little moral authority and nothing with which to back it up anyway. China must be delighted. Ian Bowie, Bowral It is an extraordinary time. The Australian government comes out in support of an action deemed by legal experts as illegal – an action that President Trump ordered after ignoring the information from his own intelligence experts. The repercussions of this decision remain to be seen but will certainly have a significant impact on all our lives. Louise Dolan, Birchgrove Clues in history Donald Trump would never be mistaken for a renaissance man, but shouldn't he at least show awareness of Iran's recent history, and the coup d'etat backed by the US and UK in 1953? That coup removed Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was nationalising the oil industry in which Britain held substantial interests. The pro-Western Shah was empowered, overseeing a notoriously corrupt, autocratic and repressive regime, with secret police, the Savak, who were infamous for their brutality. Anger at this regime, and its imposition by the West, has been described as sowing the seeds for the Iranian revolution of 1979. The CIA has admitted the coup of 1953 was detrimental. If it hadn't occurred, Iran may well have had a very different trajectory to the present. How, then, might the Iranian people feel about Trump's post that: 'if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' ('Iran warns Trump', June 24). Especially if 'regime change' were to install the son of the deposed Shah as Iran's leader. Barbara Chapman, South Yarra (Vic) There is much talk of regime change, but would it be for our betterment? JD Vance at least has a brain and is Yale-educated, but his hard-right, isolationist and misogynistic views could make him even more dangerous than the moronic show-pony who can change his mind several times a day. Oh, regime change in Iran? Sorry. Bernard Moylan, Bronte I'm all for regime change in Iran, but can we get a two-for-one offer and include the US? Corrado Tavella, Rosslyn Park (SA) If Iran really had developed to an advanced stage its alleged nuclear weapons program, there is no way the US would have bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. The US would never risk the likelihood of a retaliatory strike, particularly from a nuclear-capable nation. In what could only be described as a self-defeating argument, both Israel and the US have tried to manufacture a story about Iran planning an imminent nuclear attack against Israel (hence the US bombing run against Iran). However, if this were more than merely plausible, America's bunker-buster bombs would still be in their hangars. Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay Poised to profit? As many news outlets have reported, it appears that Donald Trump, his family and members of his administration have greatly profited from his policies and actions since retaking office. Now the USA has bombed sites in Iran upon the orders of the president. It seems likely that this will result in oil rising in price, especially as one of the few retaliatory measures the Iranians can take is to choke off traffic through the Strait of Hormuz ('Tehran threatens to choke off strait crucial to world oil supply', June 24). What seems unlikely is that this would not have occurred to the Americans. 'Drill, baby, drill' was Trump's pre-election mantra. The question is, given that Trump and his administration would have known that attacking Iran in this manner would very likely result in increased oil prices, did any of them – Trump, his family, or members of his administration – position themselves to profit from this oil price rise? Peter Arthur, Artarmon It is strange that Jennifer Parker ('Canberra must heed strait threat', June 24), in her article about the effects that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz might have on oil supply to the world, particularly China and Australia, does not mention the opening of a railway between Tehran and China. The transit time between Iran and China is 15 days, about half the time taken by ships, and it will be able to carry all manner of goods. China would no doubt regard any disruption to the line by a nation state as an act of war, and as a nuclear armed state with about 3000 combat aircraft, would quickly wreak vengeance on the aggressor. Iran has more options than some have posited, and hubristic actions could have nasty consequences. Joe Goozeff, Leura Un-Trumpable! Amazing! Donald Trump has brokered an end to the Israel-Iran war ('Middle East ceasefire', June 24). He must be a near certainty for the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I would predict that if someone else wins, it will be because votes for Trump were stolen and awarded to the other candidate. Don Firth, Wooli Taxpayer stumps up for climate inaction The 10-fold increase in disaster relief is not the result of 'natural' disaster; it is a result of human-induced climate change ('Disaster relief spending shoots up', June 24). The headlining relief expense of the NSW budget is putting a price on climate change that even the most diehard denialist can't ignore. We are now seeing the long-predicted atmospheric changes and the real economic consequences of fossil fuel consumption. The costs to the public purse are obvious as taxpayers bear the brunt of inaction. The private costs to citizens and business are growing at a similar rate through direct damages costs and astounding insurance premiums. The knuckle-dragging go-slow by the Liberal National parties and the conservative elements of the Labor Party needs to be exposed. The slow momentum on climate action is leading us down a path our society cannot afford and is anything but natural. Peter Hull, Katoomba Perhaps Premier Chris Minns and Treasurer Daniel Mookhey could check with their mates in the insurance industry if they are unsure about rebuilding on floodplains, along rivers or allowing quaint timber cottages acting as tinderboxes when nestled in bush. Just as building codes and standards changed in Darwin and Cairns after cyclones, we face global warming and its attendant fires, floods, droughts and mudslides, so building codes and politicians must catch up. Jenny Forster, Manly Bezos blowout The law of matrimonial longevity states that 'the amount [in American dollars] expended on frivolous self-indulgence and ego-flattering nuptial ceremonies is inversely proportional to the longevity of the marriage so celebrated, but is also positively proportional to the acrimony and expense of the inevitable divorce'. Less formally, the law states 'the more expensive the wedding celebrations, the shorter the marriage'. It is supported by a trove of empirical data gathered over five decades, and the resulting PhDs have been published in several academic sociology journals of repute ('Wedding crashers ready to spoil Bezos' lavish nuptials in Venice', June 24). Philip Bell, Bronte Music in the moment There is one surefire way to avoid AI-generated music, and that is to buy songs only by artists you can go and see live ('AI goes pop online, and it's unsettling in so many ways', June 24). It will still be a while before AI robots can reproduce the rattle of strings on a thrashed guitar, a drumstick thrown into the crowd or croaky lead singer belting out an anthem for the third time in a row and loving it. Colin Stokes, Camperdown Make $3m limit There's a simple solution to Jim Chalmers' superannuation problem (Letters, June 24): limit super balances to $3 million. On June 30, each year, any amount exceeding that limit must be withdrawn. Invest it how you like, but pay full tax on the return. This solves a number of issues, including the use of super for tax minimisation and, of course, it gets around the thorny issue of taxing unrealised gains. The effect on revenue would be immediate and meaningful, and the fairness of super – and its original intention as a retirement funding mechanism – would be restored. Angus McLeod, Cremorne No, Noel Thompson (Letters, June 24). Tax reform does not need consensus. It requires courage to undo the tax scams inflicted on the country by economic rationalists over too many years. Paul Fergus, Croydon A number of contributors to the letters page have been having a good old whinge about being rightfully taxed on large superannuation balances. Most Australians (according to the polling) are very happy for this new tax to happen. A lot of Australians would like Jim Chalmers to go harder. I'm thinking that some people must live in the 'wealthy superannuation bubble' because they appear to be properly ignorant of the real-world concerns of the majority. My advice to them is to maintain your health and keep your family close – and do some charity work. That provides some purpose and clarity as to what's really important. It's not losing an undeserved tax break. Wendy Atkins, Cooks Hill Running, not flying To Avalon emu Dave Watts (Letters, June 24): Ms Carde is right, but there is an upside. Females will fight each other to mate with you. Swings and roundabouts. Jennifer Briggs, Kilaben Bay Ashes engendered It's not a bright idea to store ashes in post office boxes at Bondi Road Post Office ('Memorial plan may dig cemetery out of cash hole', June 24). The boxes are designed for male [sic] only use. Col Shephard, Yamba Wartime uplift With all the devastating news about war and destruction, it was good to read about a successful program at Western Sydney University that supports students who have come to Australia from war-torn countries ('Refugees thriving under uni program', June 24). They help each other, and the friendships they make give them confidence as they enter Australian society and make such a valuable contribution in various fields of endeavour. Josephine Piper, Miranda Meanwhile, in Gaza, the daily killing of civilians doing nothing more sinister than desperately seeking food to feed themselves and families continues. Where is the worldwide condemnation? Con Vaitsas, Ashbury Go and sit on a bench under a tree in a park somewhere, close your eyes, listen to the birds and imagine if all the money the bully boys are spending on armaments was instead invested in schools, universities, hospitals, medical science, conservation of flora and fauna, renewable energy, reafforestation. What a wonderful world it would be. Kent Mayo, Uralla First wattle flowers on my morning walk. Keith Russell, Mayfield West
Perth Now
35 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Leaders at historic NATO summit with unity on the line
World leaders are gathering in the Netherlands for the start of a historic two-day NATO summit that could unite the world's biggest security organisation around a new defence spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies. The allies are expected to endorse a goal of spending five per cent of their gross domestic product on their security, to be able to fulfil the alliance's plans for defending against outside attack. US President Donald Trump's first appearance at NATO since returning to the White House was supposed to centre on how the US 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". Past NATO summits have focused almost entirely on the war in Ukraine, now in its fourth year. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte insisted that it remained a vital topic. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy 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 in 2024, 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. In a joint tribune on the eve of this year's summit, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said they backed US 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," they wrote in the Financial Times newspaper. "What is at stake will determine European stability for the decades to come. "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. Before the official program, Zelenskiy is scheduled to meet Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof. Later in the day, Zelenskiy will address the Dutch parliament.
