NATO summit in The Hague: A big win for Donald Trump? – DW – 06/23/2025
The NATO summit is set to be all about the money. NATO countries are expected to commit to a massive increase in defense spending — to deter Russia and please US President Donald Trump.
Ramping up Europe's defense spending has been a major demand by US President Donald Trump and his administration since day one. This goal has become potentially acceptable to almost all NATO countries thanks to Secretary-General Mark Rutte's persuasive power, particularly after Germany, the biggest European economy, threw its weight behind it.
Officials at NATO told DW that it's about giving Trump a win but also "about rebalancing in the alliance," as one senior diplomat put it, stressing that if that's achieved, the summit would be a resounding success.
"Hopefully, Trump is not going to leave early like he did from the recent G7 meeting in Canada," Jamie Shea, a former NATO official, told DW. This worst-case scenario is a big concern for some NATO allies and something they want to avoid at any price.
Shea said he thinks "it's important for Trump to be there to learn about all of the good things that NATO is doing at the moment, which help America's security and not just Europe's security."
The goal of spending 5% of GDP on defense is highly ambitious, and has the potential to transform societies in Europe: While in many EU countries, social justice and economic stability were the clear priorities for national governments for decades, in the future they might concentrate on strengthening military power and becoming more independent from the United States. This scenario has led to growing resistance in some parts of Europe.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Asked about how he would explain his plan to citizens in Europe who are against social cuts in favor of new weapons, Rutte recently said that leaders need to act now because "otherwise, four or five years from now, we are really under threat and then you have to get your Russian language course or go to New Zeeland."
Rutte's idea is to cut the cake into two pieces and to allocate 3.5% of GDP to core defense needs and 1.5% to security-related investments. These investments include building broader roads and bridges that could carry heavy weaponry but also cybersecurity, measures against hybrid attacks, civil protection and aid for Ukraine.
Members of the alliance will try to factor in what they are already spending, for instance, on infrastructure, diplomats at NATO acknowledge. But they also stress that the fact that allies were able to agree on the exact definition of the 1.5% target is already a significant success.
The biggest challenge is getting everyone on board with the 3.5% target for core military spending. Spain, which has the lowest military spending in the alliance, has signaled it wants a carve-out.
Other nations, like Italy, are demanding more time than the proposed seven years to meet the obligation. Many NATO members are ready to spend more but refuse to commit to yearly plans — a kind of control mechanism — also proposed by Rutte.
In the end, it comes down to NATO's credibility, Lithuania's former foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, told DW. The alliance "is moving in the right direction," he said. But like many representatives of the countries on NATO's Eastern flank in proximity to Russia, he warns against not being serious about fulfilling the new spending pledge. "What if it is just to have a nice summit and everyone leaves happy, and then nothing really happens?"
In addition, many Europeans are unhappy about the apparent lack of any ambition when it comes to Ukraine. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been invited to the summit, his aspirations to join NATO are unlikely to take center stage at the summit.
There seems to be a zero chance for Ukraine's NATO aspirations to be prominently featured in the summit's final declaration. "Clearly, the United States in particular has wanted to play it down," former NATO official Jamie Shea explained. "So, for Ukraine, it is going to be a rather disappointing NATO summit."
There will be a sentence or two as a reference to Russia as a threat in the final document, NATO sources told DW, but no new tough language, given the ongoing US attempts to get both countries to the negotiating table.
Kristine Berzina, a NATO expert with the German Marshall Fund think tank, says it's important to look at the bigger picture.
"We get so obsessed with the little declarations and paragraphs about such and such," she told DW. What really matters is that "NATO is a strong political alliance and the people at the table believe in each other." That is what she expects to be the summit's strong message.
"Of course, it is about Russia. Talking about the ambitious new steps they're going to take is a signal to Russia," Berzina said.
Still, the summit declaration is expected to be "short and crisp," as one diplomat put it, and the event is deliberately planned as a brief exchange not to bore Trump, who's known for not being a fan of long speeches by others and of multilateral organizations in general.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
The big risk is that should the conflict in the Middle East escalate, Trump may not travel to The Hague at all, according to media reports in the US. At NATO HQ in Brussels, diplomats say they do not have any indication that Trump won't be there.
So, is the NATO summit just about pleasing Trump, as the program, including a dinner with the Dutch king, an invitation to play golf in the Netherlands, and the expected big spending splash, indicates?
In the end, it is about the Europeans, Jamie Shea said. "The 5% of GDP for defense spending is to deter Russia, to keep Europe and NATO citizens safe, sleeping soundly in their beds at night." But he also admitted that "provided the decision on the 5% is taken, Trump should go back to Washington a happy man."To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Most Germans want independent European nuclear deterrent – DW – 06/23/2025
A majority of Germans have backed calls for an independent nuclear deterrent to shield Europe. The poll shows broad support for reducing reliance on the US amid growing unease. Follow DW for the latest news from Germany. Nearly two-thirds of Germans now back the idea of a European nuclear deterrent that doesn't rely on the US, according to a new Forsa poll. Support stands at 64%, with solid backing across age groups, regions, and party lines — something rare in German foreign policy debates. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had already floated the idea before taking office, eyeing talks with France and the UK to build a joint nuclear strategy for Europe amid Trump-era uncertainty. from a cloudy . Welcome to DW's coverage of developments in Germany on Monday, June 23. A study has found that most Germans are in favor of Europe developing a nuclear deterrent that is independent of the United States. Almost two-thirds of people who were asked said they were in favor of a shared nuclear strategy for Europe. The aim would be to reduce Europe's reliance on the US nuclear umbrella, especially amid concerns over the unpredictability of President Donald Trump. Stay with us here to keep up with the latest news from Germany.
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Iran: What are the chances for regime change? – DW – 06/23/2025
The longer Israel's attack on Iran goes on, the greater the speculation about the possibility of overthrowing the government in Tehran. But regime change has historically had disastrous consequences in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly told the US broadcaster Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran "could certainly be the result" of Israel's operation there, because, he said, the Iranian government was "very weak." US President Donald Trump has meanwhile sent out contradictory signals. "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he wrote on his personal social network, Truth Social on June 17, singling out Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." In the night between Saturday and Sunday, the US flew strikes against Iran's three main nuclear sites, and Trump has threatened more attacks should Tehran not return to the negotiation table. "There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran," the US president said Saturday, adding that the US "will go for other targets" should that not be the case. On Sunday, Trump again posted on Truth Social, saying: "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?? MIGA!!!" The longer the conflict with Iran goes on, the more tempting it might appear to Israel and the United States to get rid not just of the Iranian nuclear program, but of the Islamic Republic as well. "It's extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button," said Eckart Woertz, the head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies in Hamburg. "If it did come to that, whether things would then go in the right direction is a whole other question." Foreign-imposed "regime change" is a highly controversial concept. Under international law, it is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the affected state. Often, the move is not democratically legitimized, and it frequently leads to a power vacuum or violence and instability. Newly installed governments often find themselves unable to cope with the challenge of resolving the country's problems, and this results in further crises and conflicts. That's what happened in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defense guarantee contained in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first and (so far) only time. A Western military alliance led by the United States resolved to topple Afghanistan's Islamist Taliban regime, and fight the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. Initially, the operation was quite successful, and by the end of 2001 the Taliban had been driven out of Kabul. But various parties to the alliance disagreed on a number of things, including how military, political and development aid should cooperate. And so, for 20 years, the security situation remained extremely precarious. The country was devastated by attacks as the Taliban launched repeated counteroffensives. Between 2001 and 2021, around 3,600 Western soldiers and almost 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed. The Afghanistan mission cost a total of almost $1 billion (€868 million). After the chaotic withdrawal of the US and its allies in the summer of 2021, the Taliban returned to power. Since then, they have rolled back almost all the progress made over the past 20 years. Afghanistan is isolated and desperately poor, with 23 million people dependent on humanitarian aid. The US once supplies weapons to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was in power for more than two decades. In 2003, however, it decided to overthrow Hussein with help of a "coalition of the willing," but without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Washington justified the decision with the assertion that Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction — claims later proven to be false. "Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because he did not possess them," said Woertz. And, at the time, Iran took note. Once Hussein had been toppled, the Americans installed a transitional government, which was later heavily criticized for mismanagement and lack of knowledge of the country. Existing enmities between Iraq's different religious groups deteriorated into a situation akin to civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Deadly attacks were an almost daily occurrence. Soldiers discharged from the Iraqi army started fighting the US troops who had previously toppled Hussein. Twenty years after the American invasion and the attempted regime change in Iraq, the situation has improved. Violence has died down, and the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in November. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a country in the process of change. Libya is also still suffering the consequences of an attempted regime change, which came from within and was flanked from abroad. In the wake of the Arab Spring, a civil war began in 2011 with protests against the rule of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When Gadhafi attempted to put down the uprisings with bloodshed, NATO intervened militarily in the form of a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population. The regime held on for a few months. Then on October 20, 2011, Gadhafi was killed. But a government acceptable to the entire country was never established. Instead, there have been years of further conflict between rival militias. The state has virtually disintegrated, with two different governments fighting for control since March 2022. The human rights situation remains extremely precarious. Aside from these cautionary examples from recent history, Woertz sees another problem: Ultimately, ground force would be required to force a change of government in Iran. "I don't see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime," he said. "While there was a successful regime change in Germany once, at the end of World War II, that required a ground invasion," said Woertz. "And then you need a transition backed by local people. It helps if there is a common external enemy — like the Soviet bloc after 1945 — which glosses over the differences. But regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don't think Iran will be an exception now."
Local Germany
an hour ago
- Local Germany
How will Germany's extra border checks impact travel this summer?
What's happening? Germany has had reinforced border checks in place at all land borders since autumn 2024. This shift was initially introduced under then-Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) as a temporary six-month measure. The checks are aimed at enforcing the new government's policy of pushing back anyone trying to enter Germany without the necessary documents, including most asylum seekers. However, since the government changed in spring 2025, Faeser's successor, Alexander Dobrindt (CSU), has significantly expanded the policy. Germany now carries out checks at all land borders. Hundreds of additional police officers have been stationed at key crossings, particularly busy ones such as Frankfurt an der Oder (Poland) and Kiefersfelden (Austria). The new measures include mobile units and temporary checkpoints, including at minor crossings. These changes are expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Advertisement Every land border is affected. German authorities have imposed additional checks at the borders with France , Denmark , Belgium , the Netherlands , Luxembourg , Poland , the Czech Republic and Switzerland . In addition, Germany has been carrying out spot checks at the border with Austria since 2015. READ ALSO: Which European countries currently have extra border checks in place? The enhanced checks mean many travellers going into Germany are asked to present documents – a situation the creation of the borderless Schengen Area was meant to avoid. What about Germany's neighbours? Two states bordering Germany have imposed similar restrictions. In the Netherlands , Dutch authorities are conducting random checks along the border with Germany. Checks also occur on some international trains and flights. In France , authorities have imposed random checks on travellers entering by road, air, rail and sea. Advertisement Free movement continues into Germany's seven other neighbours, according to the EU Commission . In practice, that means that travellers coming from Denmark , Belgium , Luxembourg , Poland , the Czech Republic , Austria and Switzerland will likely only be checked going into Germany. What do the enhanced checks mean for me? Travellers planning a holiday abroad this summer should expect identity checks and delays, particularly if travelling by land. Commuters and frequent travellers may face delays, especially at major crossings during peak times. Wait times of over 30 minutes at road crossings are becoming increasingly common, according to motoring groups. Major delays have been reported at road crossings including: Suben (Austria) Walserberg (Austria) Kehl (France) Breitenau/Schönwald (Czech Republic) Frankfurt an der Oder (Poland) Konstanz (Switzerland) Even smaller border towns like Selb, Schirnding, and Waidhaus (all on the Czech border) are seeing longer wait times. Trains may also be stopped at the border, while arrivals on flights from Schengen countries may also be checked. What documents do I need? If stopped, you'll need to present a passport or ID card valid for at least three more months. If you are a non-EU national resident in Germany, it's a good idea to have your residency card or visa to hand too. This rule applies regardless of whether you're traveling by road, rail, or air. Why are controls back? The Schengen Agreement, signed in 1985, aimed to abolish border checks among many EU states. However, it allows governments to reimpose controls when they deem public security to be at risk. States including Germany, France, and the Netherlands now argue that current levels of illegal migration justify such measures.
