Latest news with #NATO.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth confident NATO will commit to Trump's defence spending target
NATO countries are in talks about raising their defence budgets. US wants members to spend 5% of their GDP on defence. The goal is to strengthen the alliance. Mark Rutte suggests a 3.5% defence spend and 1.5% on security. New targets for troops and weapons are expected. Germany may need more soldiers. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday he was confident that members of the NATO alliance would sign up to Donald Trump's demand for a major boost in defence spending, adding that it had to happen by a summit later in U.S. president has said NATO allies should boost investment in defence to 5% of gross domestic product, up from the current target of 2%."To be an alliance, you got to be more than flags. You got to be formations. You got to be more than conferences," Hegseth said as he arrived at a gathering of NATO defence ministers in Brussels."We're here to continue the work that President Trump started, which is a commitment to 5% defence spending across this alliance, which we think will happen," Hegseth said, adding: "It has to happen by the summit at The Hague later this month."Diplomats have said European allies understand that hiking defence expenditure is the price of ensuring a continued U.S. commitment to the continent's security and that keeping the U.S. on board means allowing Trump to be able to declare a win on his 5% demand during the summit, scheduled for June 24-25."That will be a considerable extra investment," NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told reporters, predicting that in the Hague summit "we will decide on a much higher spending target for all the nations in NATO."In a bid to meet Trump's 5% goal, Rutte has proposed alliance members boost defence spending to 3.5% of GDP and commit a further 1.5% to broader security-related spending, Reuters has of the new investment plan will likely continue to be negotiated until the eve of the NATO TARGETSIn the meantime, Rutte said he expects allies to agree on Thursday on what he called "historic" new capability targets, which define how many troops and weapons and how much ammunition a country needs to provide to NATO, would aim to better balance defence contributions between Europe, Canada, and the United States and "make NATO a stronger, fairer and a more lethal alliance", he said in opening remarks to the will need around 50,000 to 60,000 additional active troops under the new NATO targets, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said as he arrived at the NATO remain divided over the timeline for new has proposed reaching the 5% defence target by 2032 - a date that some eastern European states consider too distant but which some others see as too early, given current spending and industrial production Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur said that to meet the capability targets, "we need to agree on the 5% in five years. We don't have time for 10 years, we don't have time even for seven years."Sweden would also like to see NATO reaching 5% defence spending in 2030, Defence Minister Pal Jonson told is an ongoing debate over how to define "defence-related" spending, which might include spending on cybersecurity and certain types of infrastructure."The aim is to find a definition that is precise enough to cover only real security-related investments, and at the same time broad enough to allow for national specifics," said one NATO diplomat.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The hidden power of marathon Senate speeches: What history tells us about Cory Booker's 25-hour oration
Democratic U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey made history on April 1, 2025, when he stood on the Senate floor and spoke for 25 hours and five minutes, delivering the longest floor speech in the history of the U.S. Senate. Booker's speech detailed his concerns about President Donald Trump's new executive orders, other policies and approach to government in his second term. 'I rise tonight because silence at this moment of national crisis would be a betrayal of some of the greatest heroes of our nation. Because at stake in this moment is nothing less than everything that we brag about, that we talk about, that makes us special,' Booker said. Although Booker's speech was not technically a filibuster, meaning a prolonged action at the Senate in order to delay or stop a vote on a legislative action, it was clearly a monumental physical achievement. Booker stood, wearing a black suit, for the entirety of his speech and did not pause to take bathroom or meal breaks. What does the subject matter of Booker's speech, as well as his style of giving it, say about its potential effectiveness? Could it succeed where filibusters have failed? Many other long Senate speeches in history offer a variety of useful historical hints about the political significance of Booker's record-breaking speech. One unusual element of Booker's oration is that it was not focused on just one narrow issue. Most of the lengthiest filibusters from across Senate history are focused on bills that cover important but specific issues. In 1953, Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon, for example, set a record for the longest filibuster when he spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes. Morse protested a bill involving the transfer of land and oil rights between coastal states and the federal government. The bill passed, despite Morse's filibuster. Sen. Strom Thurmond, the South Carolina politician who broke Morse's record just four years later, infamously – and unsuccessfully – protested the Civil Rights Act of 1957 with a 24-hour, 18-minute speech. Booker's speech came in the midst of a vote to confirm Matthew Whitaker as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. Whitaker was confirmed shortly after Booker's speech concluded. Booker and the procession of Senate colleagues who asked him questions referenced this and other appointments in their remarks. But Booker largely used the speech to build a much bigger case against the Trump administration, most notably that the administration had wrested from Congress much of its constitutionally mandated budgetary authority by extensively cutting federal staff, grants and spending without congressional approval. 'These are not normal times in America,' Booker said toward the beginning of his address, 'and they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.' The rules and culture of the Senate have always been more lax when it comes to what congressional experts call 'germaneness' – in other words, how relevant a Senator's action is to whatever is being debated. For example, the Senate often allows nongermane amendments, meaning those that have little or nothing to do with the bill being debated. Booker leveraged that Senate tradition to make a larger point about what he called an ongoing 'crisis' in American democracy. Booker may have covered a wide variety of areas in his speech, ranging from proposed Republican cuts to Medicaid to mass firings of federal workers, but there's no question that he stayed focused on his critique of the Trump administration – a difficult task to stick to for 25 straight hours. Booker's predecessors in the pursuit of Thurmond's record have demonstrated this difficulty in keeping a marathon speech focused. For example, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas diverted from his argument when he gave a 21-hour, 19-minute speech protesting President Obama's signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, in 2013. Cruz, who still serves with Booker in the Senate, took the opportunity to tell his young daughters a bedtime story on the Senate floor, reading aloud from Dr. Seuss' children's book 'Green Eggs and Ham.' Louisiana Sen. Huey Long, meanwhile, shared recipes for southern fried oysters during his 1937 protest of the federal appointments process. Booker, on the other hand, almost uniformly kept his focus on his grievances against the Trump administration and used only notes designed to reinforce his central argument that Trump is not leading in the best interest of the country. According to an April 1 press release from Booker's office, the senator drew from over 1,000 pages of prepared material assembled by his Senate aides, including stories from more than 200 Americans who had written to Booker protesting Trump's actions. In many instances, Booker also spoke extemporaneously about the administration's actions. At other times, his fellow senators broke in for a lengthy question, but even these kept the conversation, and Booker's attention, focused on taking Trump — and occasionally Elon Musk – to task. In all instances, Booker used his speech to rally the public. 'My voice is inadequate. My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they are trying to do,' he said at one point. 'But we the people are powerful, and we are strong.' Of course, with few tangible results to show for lengthy Senate speeches, people might be tempted to view these long orations as little more than trivia or political theater. On some occasions, filibusters have made a legislative impact. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York, for example, filibustered a budget bill in 1986 for nearly 23½ hours to protest an amendment that would have killed funding for a jet trainer plane manufactured in his state. His filibuster didn't stop the bill entirely, but he did secure a concession that prolonged the project's life. For the most part, however, lengthy filibusters throughout history have been largely fruitless efforts legislatively. Even so, the symbolism of these speeches, including Booker's, can have effects on politics and representation that last beyond the legislation the senator is protesting. It's difficult to know yet just how effective Booker's efforts will be in motivating an anti-Trump coalition to stand up to the administration, either in Congress or among voters. But politically speaking, Booker's timing was fortuitous – on April 2, the same evening Booker wrapped up his address, liberals secured a crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court seat in a high-turnout election, when Judge Susan Crawford beat Judge Brad Schimel. Schimel is a Trump supporter and received nearly US$20 million in donations from organizations supported by Musk. Democratic politicians also outperformed expectations in two special elections to the U.S. House in Florida, though they lost the races. Taken together with Booker's herculean effort, these events could serve as a catalyst for Trump's opponents to strike back in the coming months. The symbolic significance of Booker's achievement has also not gone unnoticed. Booker, who is Black and reflected on ancestors who were both enslaved or enslavers in his speech, was himself mindful of the historical relevance. 'To be candid, Strom Thurmond's record always just really irked me,' Booker said after his speech in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. 'The longest speech on our great Senate floor was someone who was trying to stop people like me from being in the Senate.' If nothing else, Booker took that record from Thurmond and made it his own. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charlie Hunt, Boise State University Read more: How Democrats are making a mistake in rural America – by not showing up US Senator Cory Booker just spoke for 25 hours in Congress. What was he trying to achieve? GOP lawmakers eye SNAP cuts, which would scale back benefits that help low-income people buy food at a time of high food prices Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Jordan Times
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Jordan Times
US and Russia hold talks in Saudi, no seat for Ukraine
US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud, National Security Advisor Mosaad bin Mohammad al-Aiban, the Russian president's foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov, and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attend a meeting together at Riyadh's Diriyah Palace on February 18, 2025 RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Top US and Russian diplomats met in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday for talks on resetting their fractured relations, the first such discussions since the Russian invasion of sides downplayed expectations of a breakthrough in this first high-level meeting between the countries since US President Donald Trump took the very fact the encounter is taking place has triggered concern in Ukraine and Europe following the United States' recent overtures towards the Diriyah Palace in Riyadh, the talks began without visible handshakes, and no statements were made.A stern-faced US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat across from Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, with US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff by his was accompanied by senior Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan and national security adviser Musaad bin Mohammad al-Aiban also President Volodymyr Zelensky said Kyiv was not invited to the discussions. European leaders met in Paris on Monday for emergency talks on how to respond to the radical pivot by the new Trump for a possible summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are also expected to be on the is pushing for a swift resolution to the three-year conflict in Ukraine, while Russia sees his outreach as a chance to win said Kyiv "did not know anything about" the talks in Riyadh, according to Ukrainian news agencies, and that it "cannot recognise any things or any agreements about us without us".As the Riyadh meeting got underway, the Kremlin said a lasting settlement in Ukraine would be "impossible" without addressing the wider issue of European security and that Ukraine had the "sovereign right" to join the European Union but that it was opposed to it joining NATO."A lasting and long-term viable resolution is impossible without a comprehensive consideration of security issues on the continent," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, adding Putin was ready to talk to Zelensky "if necessary".In Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun welcomed "efforts towards peace" in Ukraine, adding that "at the same time, we hope that all parties and stakeholders can participate" in said ahead of the meeting that Putin and Trump wanted to move on from "abnormal relations" and that it saw no place for Europeans to be at any negotiating Trump-Putin summit Moscow's economic negotiator for talks with Washington, Kirill Dmitriev, told state TV on Tuesday that he expected "progress in the not so distant future, in the next two-three months"."We have a series of proposals, which our colleagues are thinking about," said Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment earlier told reporters the Riyadh talks would be "primarily devoted to restoring the whole complex of Russian-American relations", alongside discussions on "possible negotiations on a Ukrainian resolution, and organising a meeting between the two presidents".Moscow, which for years has sought to roll back NATO's presence in Europe, has made clear it wants to hold bilateral talks with the United States on a plethora of broad security issues, not just a possible Ukraine prospects of any talks leading to an agreement to halt the Ukraine fighting are years after Moscow invaded Ukraine in February 2022, both Russia and the United States have cast Tuesday's meeting as the beginning of a potentially lengthy process."I don't think that people should view this as something that is about details or moving forward in some kind of a negotiation," US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce Ushakov told state media the talks would discuss "how to start negotiations on Ukraine." Europe meeting 'not an option' Both Ukraine and Russia have ruled out territorial concessions and Putin last year demanded Kyiv withdraw its troops from even more was in Turkey on Tuesday for discussions on the conflict with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He is due in Saudi Arabia on said last week he was prepared to meet Putin, but only after Kyiv and its allies had a common position on ending the European leaders gathered in Paris for an emergency security summit, Russia's Lavrov said Monday he saw no point in them taking part in any Ukraine significance of the talks taking place in Riyadh -- once a diplomatic pariah under the former US administration -- was not lost on analysts."Europe's the traditional meeting place for the Americans and the Russians, but that's not an option in the current environment," said James Dorsey of the National University of Singapore."You either go to Asia or you go to Saudi Arabia," he said. Moscow heads into the talks boosted by recent gains on the battlefield, while Kyiv also faces the prospect of losing vital US military aid, long criticised by Trump.
Saudi Gazette
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
Hegseth rules out NATO membership for Ukraine
BRUSSELS — US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday that the war between Ukraine and Russia 'must end,' that Kyiv joining NATO is unrealistic and that the US will no longer prioritize European and Ukrainian security as the Trump administration shifts its attention to securing the US' own borders and deterring war with remarks before a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Hegseth also said that European troops should be the primary force securing a post-war Ukraine—something US troops will not be involved in, he added.'The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement,' Hegseth said. And he added that any security guarantees offered to Ukraine 'must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.''To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,' he also said that a return to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders, before Russia invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine, 'is an unrealistic objective.'Many NATO allies would actually agree with Hegseth that getting Crimea back from Russia is not realistic, and not even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has insisted on that as a precursor to peace talks. One NATO official said it would have been more concerning if Hegseth had said that returning to Ukraine's pre-2022 borders was the comments about security guarantees are sure to concern Zelensky, who said this week that Europe alone cannot provide meaningful security guarantees to Ukraine without American leadership. Zelensky has also continued to insist that his country joining NATO is the only way to deter Russia from launching new attacks in the after Hegseth spoke, President Donald Trump announced he'd spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday morning. Trump said the two agreed to work 'very closely' together and begin negotiations 'immediately' on ending the war in Ukraine.'[W]e will begin by calling President Zelensky, of Ukraine, to inform him of the conversation,' Trump said. The Kremlin said Wednesday that Putin invited Trump to visit Moscow, which would mark the first visit by a US president since spoke with Zelensky shortly after getting off the phone with on Wednesday afternoon, Trump said he agrees with Hegseth and does not 'think it's practical' to have Ukraine join NATO.'I don't think it's practical to have it. Personally, I know that our new secretary of defense is excellent. Pete made a statement today saying that he thinks it's unlikely or impractical. I think probably that's true. I think long before President Putin, they said there's no way they'd allow that. This has been going on for many, many years. They've been saying that for a long time that Ukraine did not go into NATO, and I'm okay with that,' Trump said from the Oval Office.A European defense official told CNN that while many in NATO don't necessarily believe Ukraine can join the alliance given the political realities with Russia, they also don't say so publicly —as Hegseth did — because they want to avoid giving Russia the idea that it can dictate who can and cannot former Biden administration officials weighed in quickly on X, saying Hegseth had ceded valuable leverage.'They just surrendered one of the main points of leverage before negotiations even begin,' said former State Department spokesman Matthew also did not announce any new US aid to Ukraine. 'We're also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe,' he comments did not necessarily come as a surprise to the US allies. NATO and the European Union had been bracing for the US to step back significantly from the leading role it had been playing since 2022 in providing and coordinating military aid to Ukraine. That is why NATO set up its own security mechanism to help coordinate military assistance to the country.'We hear your concerns on stepping up for Ukraine, and we hear your concerns on stepping up for European security,' UK Defense Secretary John Healey said in response. 'We are and we will.'The UK may quickly be supplanting the US as Ukraine's closest western ally. It chaired the meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group for the first time on Wednesday, and Ukrainian defense minister Rustem Umerov issued a lengthy readout of his meeting with Healey at NATO on Wednesday, accompanied by a photo of the pair shaking hands and contrast, Umerov's description of his meeting with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was one sentence long, accompanied by a photo of them standing side by side, without shaking NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said earlier on Wednesday that he 'agrees' with Trump 'that we must equalize security assistance to Ukraine. But to really change the trajectory of the conflict, we need to do even more.'And Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans told CNN that 'I do agree that as Europe, we should do much more in order to defend our own continent and to safeguard our own security.'But the US defense secretary's comments were the clearest articulation yet of how the Trump administration intends to try to decouple itself from Europe and make the Ukraine conflict a fully European problem. It's a stark departure from the approach of the Biden administration, which made the transatlantic alliance and support for Ukraine the centerpiece of its foreign alliance's smaller, eastern flank countries — those closest to Russia — are particularly worried about the US stepping Defense Minister Andris Sprūds told CNN that the US is 'absolutely indispensable' when it comes to 'constraining and containing the aggressor country, Russia.'Hegseth also echoed calls by Trump for allies to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP, instead of 2%, saying the latter is 'not enough.' A senior NATO official told reporters on Wednesday that the 'the ask by the US for European allies ... to invest more is nothing new,' and agreed that 2% is too the end of his remarks, Hegseth emphasized that the US 'remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe. Full stop. But the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency.'The European defense official said after Hegseth spoke that there is a general feeling of relief that the US is not planning to pull out of NATO altogether. The sentiment is that as long as the US remains a member of the alliance, there will at least be some room to negotiate on the specifics of the US' support for Europe and now, the US is not halting the military aid to Ukraine that is already flowing from aid packages announced during the previous as has long been the case, Ukraine still needs more armored vehicles, long range-weapons and air defense systems, the NATO official told CNN. And Hegseth gave no indications on Wednesday that the US will continue dipping into US military stockpiles to send weapons and equipment to Ukraine, a process known as Presidential Drawdown Department of Defense has not yet done so with the nearly $4 billion in congressionally authorized funds that were left over from the previous also did not outline what a possible negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia might look like. In an interview with Britain's The Guardian published Tuesday, Zelensky suggested swapping territory seized by Ukrainian forces inside Russia's Kursk region for Ukrainian territory seized by Russia—but Moscow swiftly rejected the idea.'Russia has never discussed and will not discuss the topic of exchanging its territory,' Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday. As CNN reported on Tuesday, there is a hardening consensus within the administration that Putin, rather than Zelensky, will be the main hurdle to getting both sides to the negotiating table. European officials similarly said they've seen no signs that Putin is willing to engage in meaningful negotiations. — CNN
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Zelensky proposes swap of seized territory with Russia
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is proposing an exchange of seized territory with Russia as part of any potential negotiations to end the war. Ukraine holds control of a small pocket of Russian territory, parts of Kursk Oblast, captured during a surprise incursion in August. Zelensky, in an interview with The Guardian, said he planned to offer Russia control of Kursk in exchange for Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation. 'We will swap one territory for another,' Zelensky said. Zelensky did not say which territory Kyiv would request be returned to Ukraine in an exchange for Kursk, nor did he address negotiations over the status of other land occupied by Russia. 'I don't know, we will see. But all our territories are important, there is no priority,' he said. Zelensky's remarks come as President Trump is laying the groundwork for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to halt the nearly three-year war, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. Russia had also invaded Ukraine in 2014, capturing and annexing the Crimean Peninsula and pockets of territory in Ukraine's east. Moscow controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory in the east of the country and the Crimean Peninsula. Russian President Vladimir Putin's demands for ending the war against Ukraine include Kyiv recognizing Russian control over four territories of Ukraine, including areas Russian forces do not occupy, and for Kyiv to give up its aspirations to join NATO. Trump had said during the campaign he would end the war in 24 hours but extended that timeline to about 100 days since entering office. He told the New York Post he has spoken with Putin by phone, but he would not say how many times. Top Trump administration officials are headed to Europe this week to huddle with allies and Ukrainian officials over U.S. plans to bring Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table. This includes Vice President Vance, who is expected to meet Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference taking place from Friday to Sunday. Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will also travel to Munich. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is in Europe touring U.S. military installations. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
