NATO leaders set to back Trump defence spending goal at Hague summit
* NATO leaders set to back Trump defence spending goal at Hague summit
Alliance set to adopt higher target of 5% of GDP
*
Allies hope for clear Trump commitment to defence pact
*
Spain says it does not need to meet new target
*
NATO boss Rutte lavishes praise on Trump
By Andrew Gray, Sabine Siebold and Jeff Mason
THE HAGUE, -
NATO leaders gather in The Hague on Wednesday for a summit tailor-made for U.S. President Donald Trump, with European allies hoping a pledge to hike defence spending will prompt him to dispel doubts about his commitment to the alliance.
The summit is expected to endorse a higher defence spending goal of 5% of GDP - a response to a demand by Trump and to Europeans' fears that Russia poses an increasingly direct threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
NATO officials are hoping the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites at the weekend, will not overshadow the gathering, hosted by alliance Secretary General Mark Rutte in his home city.
Trump has threatened not to protect NATO members if they fail to meet spending targets and he raised doubts about his commitment again on his way to the summit by avoiding directly endorsing the alliance's Article 5 mutual defence clause.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he said there were "numerous definitions" of the clause. "I'm committed to saving lives. I'm committed to life and safety. And I'm going to give you an exact definition when I get there," he said.
The new target - to be achieved over the next 10 years - is a big increase on the current goal of 2% of GDP, although it will be measured differently. It would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in extra annual spending.
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 military vehicles.
All NATO members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal. Madrid says it can meet its military commitments to NATO by spending much less - a view disputed by Rutte.
But Rutte accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his intense efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly.
UNUSUAL INSIGHT INTO SUMMIT DIPLOMACY
Trump gave an unusual insight into those efforts on Tuesday by posting a private message in which Rutte lavished praise on him and congratulated him on "decisive action in Iran".
"You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done," Rutte told Trump.
"Europe is going to pay in a BIG way as they should, and it will be your win."
To satisfy Trump, Rutte has also kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge.
The text is expected to cite Russia as a threat and reaffirm allies' support for Ukraine but not dwell on those issues, given Trump has taken a more conciliatory stance towards Moscow and been less supportive of Kyiv than his predecessor, Joe Biden.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had to settle for a seat at the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening rather than a seat at the main meeting on Wednesday, although Trump said he would probably meet with Zelenskiy separately.
Zelenskiy's plans for a meeting with Trump in Canada last week were dashed when the U.S. president left a G7 summit early, citing a need to focus on the crisis in the Middle East.
Zelenskiy and his aides have said they want to talk to Trump about buying U.S. weapons including Patriot missile defence systems and increasing pressure on Moscow through tougher sanctions.
The Kremlin 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.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
8 minutes ago
- First Post
Who won the Israel-Iran war? What did US gain?
A Donald Trump-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran is in place, effectively ending the '12-day war'. Now, all three parties are claiming victory, but who gained the most from it? read more People riding on a moped wave Iraqi and Iranian flags as they celebrate in front of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, following a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Israel and Iran said they had agreed to US President Donald Trump's proposal for a ceasefire, on the 12th day of war between the foes. AFP After 12 days of several missiles being fired, deaths and destruction and a whole lot of threats, the United States President Trump got his 'peace', Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got his war, and Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei got to survive. On Tuesday (June 24), Iran and Israel finally agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the US president and after a rocky start with claims of violations of the truce, which even led to Trump dropping the F-bomb, it seems that the pause in the conflict is holding for now. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As the dust settles, all three — the US, Iran and Israel — have declared victory. But is that true? Or have all three sides lost? Here's the outcome of the '12-day war' and here's who — if any — came out on top. How did the Iran-Israel war unfold? It all began on June 13 when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion to neutralise what it described as an existential threat posed by Iran's advancing nuclear programme. To reach this end, the Jewish nation fired multiple rockets and missiles at Tehran, aiming military and civil infrastructure. Iran, in retaliation, hit back with its own barrage of missiles, destroying residential buildings. Then late on Saturday, Trump, who had until now demanded that Tehran negotiate on the nuclear deal, entered the war with strikes on three nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, 'completely obliterating' them as the US president claimed. A satellite image shows damage to the tunnel entrances of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Research Centre, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Isfahan, Iran. Maxar Technologies/Reuters In retaliation, Iran struck back, firing missiles at the largest US airbase in the Middle East, Al Udeid in Qatar , a day later. It appeared as though West Asia was poised for a broader, longer war. But within two hours of that strike and rising fears, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social, 'It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire.' Trump called it 'the 12 Day War … that could have gone on for years and destroyed the Middle East'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The news resulted in a collective sigh of relief, though many wondered if Israel and Iran would abide by the ceasefire terms. And two-and-a-half hours after it took effect, the world had its answer as the Jewish nation accused Tehran of firing missiles . The Iranian military denied firing on Israel, state media reported, but explosions boomed and sirens sounded across northern Israel, and an Israeli military official said two Iranian missiles were intercepted. An irate Trump then told reporters that both sides had violated the truce agreement. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f*** they're doing.' But it seems that at the end Trump's strong words helped and both countries held up their ends of the ceasefire. But what did Israel gain from all of this? Now, as both — Israel and Iran — adhere to the ceasefire, what is it that Israel gained from the '12-day war'? Summing up the war against Iran, Prime Minister Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Israel removed 'two existential threats — the threat of destruction via nuclear weapons and the threat of destruction via 20,000 ballistic missiles' that Iran was moving to build. Israel would have faced destruction in the near future 'if we hadn't acted now.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In a statement to the country, he said, 'Israel destroyed Iran's ballistic missile production program and landed 'the most severe blow in [the regime's] history.' Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed the success of Operation Rising Lion. He said that that Israel has removed 'two existential threats — the threat of destruction via nuclear weapons and the threat of destruction via 20,000 ballistic missiles'. AFP 'We sent Iran's nuclear programme down the drain,' Netanyahu stated. 'If someone in Iran tries to restore that programme, we will act with the same determination, the same power, to cut off any such attempt.' He also briefly mentioned Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, and said: 'We must defeat Hamas and bring back the hostages.' Israeli watchers noted that through Operation Rising Lion, Netanyahu and his administration showcased the country's firepower — it gained air supremacy in the battle against Iran and even claimed to destroy half of Iran's launchers. The war also boosted Israel diplomatically. By convincing Trump to launch the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel demonstrated, not just to Tehran but to the world, that Washington stands firmly with Tel Aviv. The '12-day war' will also help Netanyahu politically — as he heads into the polls scheduled for next year. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another gain for Israel was that the missile strikes diverted attention from the conflict in Gaza where it stands accused of weaponising food, which the United Nations deems as a war crime. How did the '12-day war' bump Trump's stature? The US entered the Iran-Israel conflict on late Saturday with its B-2 bombers striking three nuclear strikes in Iran, with Donald Trump stating that the attack was 'very successful' and 'completely obliterated' Tehran's nuclear programme. An early Pentagon assessment and other experts opine that the damage to the three nuclear sites isn't as far-reaching as Trump claims. As per initial classified US assessment, the strikes only set back the nuclear programme by a few months. The report produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency – the intelligence arm of the Pentagon – concluded key components of the nuclear programme, including centrifuges, were capable of being restarted within months. There's also the case of the 400 kg of enriched uranium that is yet to be found. After he brokered a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Donald Trump has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by a US House Representative. Reuters However, while Trump may not have succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear ambitions, he was able to play peacemaker, at least somewhat. He was able to broker peace between the two warring nations and also avoided a 'forever war'. In fact, US House Representative Buddy Carter nominated Trump for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for his 'extraordinary and historic role' in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'President Trump's leadership helped end the armed conflict between Israel and Iran and prevented the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' Carter wrote, referencing Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why is all not lost for Iran? If one goes by Trump and Netanyahu's statements, then Iran was the biggest loser of this war. However, that's not the case. Despite claims that Iran's nuclear programme has been destroyed, assessments state otherwise. A Pentagon report finds that Tehran's nuclear programme has been pushed back by just a few months. Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi said that the war against his country had failed to achieve its goals. 'I'm not saying they haven't inflicted harm, yes, there was harm,' Araghchi said on Monday. 'But they did not achieve their main goal to strip us completely of all our capabilities or any other goals they may have had.' An Iranian woman holds up her country's flag in an anti-US and anti-Israeli rally at Enqelab-e-Eslami (Islamic Revolution) square in downtown Tehran. AP The war has also helped Iran keep up with its narrative of 'defiance'. Despite being continuously bombed by Israel, the Islamic Republic continued to strike back, causing equal damage to Israel. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, through its measured strike on the US' Al Udeid Air Base , Iran showed that it is capable of restraint. It also helped reassert its military dominance to its own citizens. In a televised speech, a spokesman for Iran's Armed Forces said the attacks on the American base in Qatar had been carried out by the Revolutionary Guards Corps. 'We warn our enemies that the era of hit and run is over,' said the spokesman. All in all, it seems that no one won this war. As ITV wrote, the war changed little, other than remind the region that survival is a good substitute for success. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
To war or not to war? How the Iran-Israel ceasefire unfolded – and what's next
It began with missile sirens and bunker-busting bombs and ended with a social media post. In less than 48 hours, the world witnessed an extraordinary diplomatic about-turn, as President Donald Trump brokered a sudden ceasefire between Israel and Iran following days of airstrikes, retaliatory missile launches, and a near-miss with a wider regional war. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The chaos reached its peak when Iran fired missiles at a key US base in Qatar, prompting Trump to call both Tel Aviv and Tehran to the negotiating table with blunt threats and unexpected praise. By Tuesday morning, the missiles were (mostly) silent, Israeli jets were recalled mid-air, and the Middle East entered a fragile peace declared not through formal diplomacy but via Truth Social. Trump hailed it as a historic success: 'It was my great honour to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!' But intelligence reports and the reality on the ground suggest the truth is more complicated. While the missiles have stopped for now, questions over the durability of the truce and what comes next loom large. A 48-hour diplomatic scramble The ceasefire talks gathered momentum following the US bombing of three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, including Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. In the aftermath, Iran launched a limited missile strike on the US air base at Al-Udeid in Qatar. Though no casualties were reported, the attack prompted a flurry of high-level calls and behind-the-scenes negotiations. According to a senior White House official, Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and told him bluntly that no further US military action was forthcoming. Meanwhile, US special envoy Steve Witkoff reached out to Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, urging a return to the negotiating table. 'We're already talking to each other, not just directly, but also through interlocutors,' Witkoff told Fox News. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Iran, while initially denying any agreement, indicated it would halt its attacks if Israel ceased airstrikes by 4am Tehran time. Trump's social media posts acted as both a megaphone and a tool of diplomacy. 'ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS. IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION,' he warned after Israeli jets prepared for strikes even after the ceasefire announcement. Vice President JD Vance, caught off-guard during a live interview, confirmed the administration was scrambling to finalise the agreement just as Trump declared it done. The BBC reported that the ceasefire, finalised within 24 hours of the US base attack, followed a period of 'frantic' negotiations involving Qatar, which played a key mediating role. Qatar's prime minister confirmed that Trump had called the Emir directly after the Iranian attack, using the moment as an opening to broker peace. A fragile truce under fire Even after Trump's 'complete and total CEASEFIRE' post, violence continued. Iran launched waves of missiles at Israel after the declared ceasefire time, hitting a residential building in Beersheba and killing four civilians. In response, Israel struck regime targets in Tehran, with officials claiming 'hundreds' of Iranian forces were killed. Despite these violations, both sides later formally accepted the truce. Iran's Araghchi said, 'we have no intention to continue our response' if Israeli attacks stopped, while Netanyahu's office confirmed Israel had achieved its war goals. Trump expressed fury at the continued strikes, accusing both sides of acting recklessly. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f they're doing,' he said before boarding Air Force One to attend the NATO summit. Yet once airborne, Trump again took to social media, declaring: 'All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly 'Plane Wave' to Iran, Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect!' At the UN, Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani signalled that diplomacy could still prevail: 'Diplomacy and dialogue are the only path to resolving the unnecessary crisis over Iran's peaceful programme.' What lies ahead? While the missiles have fallen silent, for now, uncertainty looms. A preliminary US intelligence report indicates Iran's nuclear programme may be only months behind schedule not 'destroyed.' Experts warn that Iran still has substantial capability and remains a threat. Vice Admiral Brad Cooper told lawmakers, 'They do,' when asked whether Iran still posed a danger to US troops. The ceasefire opens the door for renewed talks, though questions remain about who in Iran has the authority to negotiate. 'The country's leadership and the regime is not cohesive enough to be able to come to some sort of negotiations at this point,' said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. Witkoff insists discussions have already begun and are 'promising.' Trump's strategy bypassing traditional diplomacy and relying on a tight inner circle has unnerved some in Washington. Congressional leaders received little warning before the US strikes, and briefings were abruptly postponed. Still, the administration sees opportunity. 'We didn't blow up the diplomacy,' Vance said. 'Our hope … is that this maybe can reset here.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed: 'The president's made that clear from the very beginning: His preference is to deal with this issue diplomatically.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Nato leaders to meet for what could be historic summit or divided one
US President Donald Trump and his Nato counterparts will meet formally Wednesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organisation around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the allies. Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time. Then Spain rejected the new Nato target for each country to spend 5 per cent of its gross domestic product on defence, calling it unreasonable. Trump insists on that figure, but doesn't say it should apply to America. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members. Trump has since lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Snchez's government, saying: Nato is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer." He also criticised Canada as a low payer. European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight. The two-day summit has been overshadowed by Trump's decision to order the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the US-led war on Iraq deeply divided Nato, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition. A short summit, decades of mutual security The summit in The Hague involved an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Indeed, much about this Nato summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong US presence on the continent. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not. Nato's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia. Nato's collective security guarantee Article 5 of the treaty underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the US intends to remain a member of the alliance. Asked again on Tuesday whether he would abide by Nato's security guarantee, Trump said: There's numerous definitions of Article 5, you know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends. He added only that he is committed to life and safety. A civilian runs Nato, but the US and its military hold power The United States is Nato's most powerful member. It spends much more on defence than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump. The US nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries. Nato's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister. As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other NACs at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs Nato headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members. Nato's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top US officer. Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear With Trump demanding greater defence spending, Ukraine's role has been downgraded, compared to previous summits. Zelenskyy attended a royal dinner that Trump also attended Tuesday. He will not have a seat at Nato's table for its one working session. But nor will any other non-Nato leader. More broadly, Nato itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organisation, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only nonlethal support fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armour, and equipment to counter drones or mines. But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60 per cent of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. Nato coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organise training for Ukrainian troops. Nato's troop plans A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined Nato recently because of this concern. Under Nato's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers. It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge Nato if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against US allies including imposing tariffs on them has weakened that deterrence. The US is carrying the biggest military burden Due to high US defence spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets. Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, Nato members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Nato allies agreed to make 2 per cent of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago. In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5 per cent, plus a further 1.5 per cent for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts.
