NATO leaders meet for what could be a historic summit or a divided one
The two-day summit has been overshadowed by Trump's decision to order the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the U.S.-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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. and its military hold power
The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense 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 U.S. 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 U.S. officer.
Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear
With Trump demanding greater defense 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 organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only nonlethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
UK to purchase 12 US-made F-35 jets capable of carrying nuclear bombs: PM Keir Starmer
Jun 25, 2025 03:47 PM IST The United Kingdom will buy 12 U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear bombs and will join NATO's shared airborne nuclear mission, in a major expansion of its nuclear deterrent, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Wednesday. Only three NATO members – the U.S., Britain and France – are nuclear powers, while seven nations contribute to the alliance's nuclear mission by contributing jets. (Pic used for representation)(AP) The government called it 'the biggest strengthening of the U.K.'s nuclear posture in a generation.' Starmer made the announcement while attending a NATO summit in the Netherlands. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte welcomed the decision, calling it 'yet another robust British contribution to NATO.' The U.K. phased out air-dropped atomic weapons in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. Its nuclear arsenal now consists of submarine-based missiles. Only three NATO members – the U.S., Britain and France – are nuclear powers, while seven nations contribute to the alliance's nuclear mission by contributing jets that can carry either conventional or weapons or American B61 bombs stockpiled in Europe. The use of nuclear weapons by the U.K. as part of the mission would require the authorization of the alliance's nuclear planning group as well as the U.S. president and British prime minister. Starmer also announced that the U.K. will provide 350 air defense missiles to Ukraine, funded by 70 million pounds ($95 million) raised from interest on seized Russian assets. The announcements come as the U.K. and other NATO members pledge to increase spending on security to 5% of gross domestic product by 2035. The total includes 3.5% on defense and another 1.5% on broader security and resilience efforts. The U.K. currently spends 2.3% of national income on defense and says that will rise to 2.6% by 2027. Get the latest headlines from US news and global updates from Pakistan, UK, Bangladesh, and Russia get all the latest headlines in one place with including Vance Luther Boelteron Hindustan Times.
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Terms of trade: West Asia isn't the Empire's Achilles' heel anymore
This column is being written on a day when US President Donald Trump seems to have, or claims to have engineered a cease fire between Iran and Israel despite the US having helped the latter with its bombing of Iran's underground nuclear installations. The cease fire followed what seems like token missile attacks by Iran on US military bases in Qatar. The developments so far have turned all doomsday predictions of experts from various ideological standpoints -- they include MAGA's fears of the US entering yet another long-drawn war in West Asia, liberal voices fearing an uncontrolled escalation using even non-conventional means and market watchers fearing a large geopolitical disruption to the global economy and trade or energy flows -- gross overestimates. So, are seemingly knowledgeable people getting worked up about nothing? Or is Trump really a master of brokering deals, and most of the commentariat is unable to see this quality because of its prejudice towards him? There is another way to look at this question. It is best approached by quoting from the Wall Street Journal's 23 June Hard on the Street column. The cease fire followed what seems like token missile attacks by Iran on US military bases in Qatar. (AFP) 'Back in 1977, just before the Iranian Revolution began and planted the seeds of the Second Oil Crisis, the US had net imports of about 3.1 billion barrels of petroleum and refined products, or 14 barrels per person. That per-capita number was unchanged as recently as 2003 at the time of the Iraq war. The US also was a significant importer of natural gas in both of those years. Today, because of hydraulic fracturing, the US has net exports of about 2.5 barrels per capita and is also the world's largest seller of liquefied natural gas. The technology isn't new, but improvements in the past 15 years have been transformational,' it says. The US's military involvement in West Asia, especially in the post-WWII period has had a deep relationship with the petroleum economy. But things have changed in the last decade or so. The US is no longer an energy importer and therefore much more immune from any energy shocks coming from a disruption in this region. To be sure, a lot of friendly oil exporting countries in West Asia continue to be important for the US, more importantly the current US president. The legacy of this energy economy via the petrodollars means that these countries have a lot of money to invest/spend in the rest of the world and both Trump and the US would like a large part of this. But all the US had to do to keep this gravy train going was to derail the transition from fossil fuel use, which Trump has already done by killing the climate deal. If energy security is not really a concern, then why is Trump risking an involvement with Israel's military aggression in the region, one might ask then. The simplest answer to this question is that being seen as not standing with Israel would put the Trump administration in a position which would force a rupture with the neoconservative and Zionist lobby in US's domestic politics. This will have severe financial and ideological consequences. The pro-Israel lobby still controls a lot of purse strings for political finance in the US. Not standing with Israel at the current moment would also be seen as playing into the hands of a pro-Palestinian voice which does not stand against things such as Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran's other violent proxies. Also Read:India welcomes Iran-Israel truce, reiterates concern about stability in region However, Trump is shrewd enough to ensure that it is him and not Benjamin Netanyahu who is seen as the boss in the ongoing chain of events. His outburst including using expletives on Tuesday while referring to both Iran and Israel on Tuesday was meant to send exactly this message. The only other US president who is said to have used an expletive after having met Netanyahu is Bill Clinton, who was frustrated that it was the Israeli and not the American who got away with playing the superpower in that meeting held in 1996. The West Asian or Middle East (as the Americans and Europeans call it) contradiction for the US has lost its economic criticality significantly compared to what it used to be in the 20th century because of the US's self-sufficiency in energy. However, the Israeli aggression in the region – it is only expected to become worse – is creating a deep super-structural fault line in the West, US included, as the Muslim population rises in these countries and they assume a growing role in domestic politics. But it is the non-right-wing parties such as the Democratic Party in the US and Labour in the UK which are facing most of the growing strain because of this cleavage. Does this mean Trump can keep going from one deal or chutzpah to another? Not necessarily. A politics of schadenfreude – best seen in things such as Trump penalising Harvard University for refusing to crack down on alleged antisemitic behaviour on campus – can keep Trump's working class conservative base animated for some time. But it can do precious little to solve the economic contradiction which drove this lot to Trump's fold in the first place. This contradiction is best described as America's success in keeping down inflation by importing from the Global South, most importantly China, but which also entailed unleashing a deindustrialisation and destruction of blue-collared jobs in its domestic economy. Trump's knee jerk response to this problem, his reciprocal tariffs, which he himself put in abeyance, and even a crackdown on illegal migration will likely create more problems for his working-class base than bring back the glory days of the Golden Age of Capitalism. Trump's, or for that matter, all of the neo-right's political legacy will depend on what they can do to solve this primary contradiction rather than running away from it by seeking gratification from periodic acts of schadenfreude or chutzpah. We are very far from the final act in this larger political economy tension in the advanced capitalist world. Also Read: Iran Israel's fragile ceasefire in place - What's next? Explained History, if one were to make a provocative statement to end this column, is still moving at a pace when it changes in decades rather than weeks. an obsessive tracking of flashpoints in the past few weeks seems to have convinced many people that we are living in times where the latter is true. Roshan Kishore, HT's Data and Political Economy Editor, writes a weekly column on the state of the country's economy and its political fall out, and vice-versa
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 minutes ago
- Business Standard
B-2 bomber in Iran strike: What makes America's stealth jet so powerful?
Days after intense speculation, the United States officially entered the Israel–Iran conflict by launching a direct military strike on Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. President Donald Trump confirmed the use of B-2 stealth bombers in the assault, targeting three fortified facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Describing the operation as 'a historic moment for the US, Israel, and the world,' Trump said six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, and 30 Tomahawk missiles launched at the other two sites. At the heart of this strike was the B-2 Spirit—one of the most secretive and expensive military aircraft in the world. What is the B-2 stealth bomber and how does it work? The B-2 Spirit, developed by Northrop Grumman, is a long-range strategic bomber built for penetrating dense air defences undetected. First flown in 1989, it remains a cornerstone of America's stealth strike capabilities. Its unique flying wing design, radar-absorbent coating, and managed heat emissions make it virtually invisible to radar and infrared detection systems. Northrop Grumman claims its radar signature is as small as 0.001 square metres—roughly the size of a bird. Why is the B-2 the most survivable bomber in modern warfare? Unlike conventional bombers, the B-2 is built for deep penetration missions. Its stealth features reduce radar, heat, visual, and acoustic signatures, making it hard to detect even by the world's most advanced defence networks. With an unrefuelled range of over 6,000 nautical miles (approximately 11,000 km), the aircraft can be launched from bases within the continental United States. With aerial refuelling, its range exceeds 10,000 nautical miles. The B-2 used in the Iran strike reportedly flew a near 37-hour non-stop mission, enabled by both mid-air refuelling and cockpit ergonomics designed for long-duration operations. Only the B-2 can carry America's largest bunker-buster bomb A key advantage of the B-2 is its enormous payload capacity—over 40,000 pounds of conventional or nuclear weapons. This includes the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound bomb designed to destroy fortified underground targets like Fordow. Each B-2 can internally carry two MOPs without compromising stealth. According to defence analysts, it remains the only American aircraft capable of delivering such weapons to deeply buried nuclear infrastructure. The reported use of six MOPs in the latest strike confirms the mission required the B-2's unique capabilities. How do pilots manage 37-hour missions aboard the B-2? The B-2 is equipped with amenities rarely seen in combat aircraft: a bed, toilet, microwave, and mini-fridge. With a two-person crew rotating duties, one pilot can rest while the other flies. These additions are crucial for maintaining alertness and performance during long missions—particularly while deploying precision-guided munitions or executing evasive manoeuvres. Why are there only 21 B-2 bombers in the world? Despite its unmatched capabilities, only 21 B-2s were ever built, due to a staggering per-unit cost of over $2 billion. As of 2025, only 19 remain in active service—one crashed and one has been retired. The aircraft requires unique maintenance facilities, including special hangars for reapplying and testing its stealth coating. Given its expense and maintenance complexity, it is reserved for the most critical strategic operations. Why the B-2 still matters in the age of drones and hypersonic missiles Three decades after its debut, the B-2 remains a symbol of strategic airpower. Its role in the Iran strike demonstrates that even in an age of AI warfare, drones, and hypersonics, stealth, precision, and surprise are still the pillars of military dominance.
