NATO summit to ditch Ukraine meeting Politico
The upcoming gathering of the US-led bloc will reportedly have a reduced agenda and issue no long communiques
An upcoming NATO leaders summit in the Netherlands will have a shortened schedule, with the focus on Ukraine drastically reduced, Politico reported on Saturday, citing five people familiar with the matter.
The summit, set to be held in the World Forum in The Hague from June 24 to 25, will only feature two main events - a welcome dinner at the Dutch royal family's castle and a single meeting of the North Atlantic Council instead of the usual two or three, according to Politico. There also will not be a meeting of NATO's Ukraine Council.
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has been only invited to attend the welcome dinner, and it still remains unclear whether he will come, the outlet noted. The sources suggested the abbreviated schedule was a concession to the US and President Donald Trump in particular, who has repeatedly shown impatience with and shunned multilateral gatherings of a ceremonial nature.
NATO officials reportedly pared down the agenda after the G7 debacle, when Trump abruptly left the summit in Canada halfway through the two-day program. He also reportedly opposed a draft joint statement on the Ukraine conflict, and the summit ultimately ended without one.
The upcoming gathering is expected to yield no lengthy joint communique, with the bloc likely to produce only short statements on new commitments. Cuts to the agenda have also been attributed to a need to minimize the risk of derailing the main event of the summit, where members are expected to pledge to hike defense spending to 5% GDP.
Trump has long demanded that NATO countries spend more on defense, and the new commitment will be regarded as a big "win" by the US president, the sources suggested.
"He has to get credit for the 5% - that's why we're having the summit," a European defense official told Politico. "Everything else is being streamlined to minimize risk."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Americans react to US strikes on Iran with worry as well as support for Israel
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — One of Layton Tallwhiteman's earliest memories was watching the news at his uncle's house in Montana in 2003 and seeing the U.S. bomb Baghdad to launch the war in Iraq. Recollections of that war — waged in part to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist – flooded back for Tallwhiteman after President Donald Trump ordered weekend bombing strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities amid its escalating conflict with Israel. The administration has indicated it wants to avoid getting pulled into all-out war. Tallwhiteman, who grew up on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation southeast of Billings, is skeptical. 'Their idea is to eliminate the threat. Like Bush said in Iraq, 'We're going to eliminate the threat. We're going to find weapons of mass destruction and eliminate them.' Did that work the way he planned? No, obviously it didn't,' said Tallwhiteman. The 30-year-old driver for a food distribution company said he usually votes Libertarian, but backed Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump last year. Across the U.S. on Sunday, Americans expressed a mixture of support, apprehension and confoundment at the bombings, which officials said caused severe damage to Iran's nuclear sites. Administration officials said the strikes left room for Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear program. Yet if the conflict spirals, it could test Trump's foreign diplomacy skills and also his support at home. 'It had to be done' B-2 bombers that participated in the weekend strikes returned home to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Sunday. Nearby, retired Air Force veteran Ken Slabaugh said he was '100% supportive' of Trump's decision and the military personnel who carried it out. Slabaugh said Iran has showed resistance to negotiations over its nuclear program for decades, a problem that he said Trump inherited. Iran can't be trusted, Slabaugh said, nor allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. 'It simply had to be done,' he said of the strikes, adding that he's now concerned for members of the military around the world. 'I'm proud of the guys and the gals that are doing the work out there. Nobody in the world does this like we do, and we have the freedom and liberty we enjoy because of that,' Slabaugh said. In Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, Andrew Williams, 18, said he was surprised by the timing of the attack given that many Republicans had expressed opposition to U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. Still, he thought it was necessary if Iran was building nuclear weapons. 'If we are able to get rid of that, that is something we should do,' Williams said. Robert Wallette of Billings said Trump had 'good reason' to conduct the bombing as a demonstration of American support for Israel. 'Iran's evil, evil people. They hate Americans,' he said. Concern about conflict spinning out of control Wallette, 69, a retired contract specialist at the federal Indian Health Service, said he hated Trump when the Republican was first elected because of his arrogant style. His perspective started to shift after Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In 2024, Wallette voted for Trump based on his promises to curb illegal immigration, putting him among the 60% of voters backing Trump last year in Yellowstone County, which includes Billings. Notwithstanding his support, Wallette was unsure if Trump can avoid the U.S. getting drawn into a deeper conflict with Iran. 'Other countries are getting involved and this may be out of his control,' he said. Kent Berame, 32, of Davie, Florida, said it was a little outrageous for Trump to go rogue and approve the attack without explicit support from Congress. He said he doesn't agree with the United States supporting Israel's recent attacks on Iran. 'There's concern that we're putting troops in danger,' said Berame, a Democrat who owns his own marketing company. 'And obviously there's a retaliatory response toward all of our bases over there.' Berame said it's frustrating that the U.S. might be increasing hostilities with Iran just a few years after finally ending the war in Afghanistan. 'I don't want to see any U.S. soldiers in harm's way or in danger,' he said. Back in Billings, Trump voter Patty Ellman said she worries about the U.S. getting sucked into another extended conflict. 'We have enough going on in America to get into other countries' wars. Let's just take care of us right now,' she said. Ellman, a 61-year-old who stepped in as caregiver for her ex-husband after he suffered a stroke, said the U.S. should retaliate if attacked, but otherwise stay out of Iran's conflict with other countries. 'That's their business,' she said. 'We need to worry about Americans and how we're going to survive and are we going to have Social Security.' ____ With contributions from David Fischer in Davie, Florida; Nicholas Ingram in Knob Noster, Missouri; and Mingson Lau in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump's go-it-alone strategy on Iran risks dividing an already split Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites without fully consulting the U.S. Congress layered a partisan approach onto a risky action, particularly because the White House briefed top Republican leaders beforehand without doing the same for Democrats. While House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Republican leader John Thune and the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee were all briefed before the action, their counterparts were not. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was given a perfunctory heads-up by the White House shortly before the strikes were made public. And House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries' office received a 'courtesy call' before Trump announced it. The so-called Gang of Eight congressional and intelligence leaders were not notified before the mission, according to two people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. One, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he learned of the strikes on social media, which he said 'is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.' 'Bad enough that we weren't informed,' Himes, of Connecticut, said Sunday on CNN, 'but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' It's a highly unusual situation that is complicating the difficult politics ahead for the president and his party as the U.S. enters an uncertain national security era with the surprise military attack on the nuclear facilities, an unprecedented incursion in Iran. Trump faces a vote in Congress as soon as this week on a war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would 'direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.' Another resolution has been introduced by lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. House. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, said Trump's actions are 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' At the same time, the Trump administration is expecting Congress to send an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of the president's big tax breaks bill also heading soon for a vote. Senators are set to be briefed Tuesday behind closed doors on the situation in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that the White House made 'bipartisan courtesy calls' to congressional leadership. She said in a social media post that the White House spoke to Schumer 'before the strike' but that House leader Jeffries 'could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.' While the president has authority as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to order specific military actions, any prolonged war-time footing would traditionally need authorization from Congress. The House and Senate authorized actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 'Congress should be consulted,' Kaine said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We were not.' As soon as Trump announced the actions late Saturday, he won swift support from the GOP leadership in Congress. Johnson, Thune and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, were all briefed ahead of time and sent almost simultaneous statements backing the military campaign, as did the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Rick Crawford, also of Arkansas. But by apparently engaging with only one side of the political aisle, Trump risks saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action against Iran, which may or may not prove popular with Americans. Rather than rally the country to his side, Trump risks cleaving its already deep divisions over his second term agenda. Johnson, who praised Trump's action against Iran as 'the right call,' said the president's targeted strike was within his authority and in line with past presidential actions. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,' Johnson, R-La., said on social media. Trump himself has shown little patience for political dissent from within his party, even as criticism rolls in from among his most trusted backers. The Iran military campaign threatens to splinter Trump's Make America Great Again movement, which powered his return to the White House. Many Trump supporters aligned with his campaign promises not to involve the United States in overseas actions and instead to be a peace-making president. 'I think I represent part of the coalition that elected Trump,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on CBS. 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have introduced their own war powers resolution in the House, a sign of how close the far left and far right have bonded over their opposition to U.S. campaigns abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The Trump administration insisted Sunday the U.S. is not seeking a war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' said Vice President JD Vance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' And Trump swiftly attacked Massie, who is one of the most steadfast non-interventionist GOP lawmakers in Congress — along with Sen. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — and the president suggested he would turn his Republican Party against the congressman. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' the president said on social media. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.' __ Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Trump is open to regime change in Iran, after his administration said that wasn't the goal
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Sunday sent a series of conflicting messages to Iran — with U.S. officials initially indicating a willingness to resume negotiations after a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites and President Donald Trump talking up the possibility of regime change. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump posted on social media. 'MIGA!!!'
