Wartime NATO summits have focused on Ukraine. With Trump, this one will be different
BRUSSELS (AP) — At its first summits after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO gave President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pride of place at its table. It won't be the same this time.
Europe's biggest land conflict since World War II is now in its fourth year and still poses an existential threat to the continent. Ukraine continues to fight a war so that Europeans don't have to. Just last week, Russia launched one of the biggest drone attacks of the invasion on Kyiv.
But things have changed. The Trump administration insists that it must preserve maneuvering space to entice Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, so Ukraine must not be allowed steal the limelight.
In Washington last year, the military alliance's weighty summit communique included a vow to supply long-term security assistance to Ukraine, and a commitment to back the country 'on its irreversible path' to NATO membership. The year before, a statement more than twice as long was published in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. A new NATO-Ukraine Council was set up, and Kyiv's membership path fast-tracked. Zelenskyy received a hero's welcome at a concert downtown.
It will be very different at a two-day summit in the Netherlands that starts Tuesday. NATO's most powerful member, the United States, is vetoing Ukraine's membership. It's unclear how long for.
Zelenskyy is invited again, but will not be seated at NATO's table. The summit statement is likely to run to around five paragraphs, on a single page, NATO diplomats and experts say. Ukraine will only get a passing mention.
If the G7 summit is anything to go by ...
Recent developments do not augur well for Ukraine.
Earlier this month, frustrated by the lack of a ceasefire agreement, U.S. President Donald Trump said it might be best to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace.
Last weekend, he and Putin spoke by phone, mostly about Israel and Iran, but a little about Ukraine, too, Trump said. America has warned its allies that it has other security priorities, including in the Indo-Pacific and on its own borders.
Then at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, Trump called for Russia to be allowed back into the group; a move that would rehabilitate Putin on the global stage.
The next day, Russia launched its mass drone attack on Kyiv. Putin 'is doing this simply because he can afford to continue the war. He wants the war to go on. It is troubling when the powerful of this world turn a blind eye to it,' Zelenskyy said.
Trump left the G7 gathering early to focus on the conflict between Israel and Iran. Zelenskyy had traveled to Canada to meet with him. No meeting happened, and no statement on Russia or the war was agreed.
Lacking unanimity, other leaders met with Zelenskyy to reassure him of their support.
Questions about US support for Ukraine
Trump wants to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. He said he could do it within 100 days, but that target has come and gone. Things are not going well, as a very public bust up with Zelenskyy at the White House demonstrated.
Trump froze military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine's armed forces for a week. The U.S. has stepped back from the Ukraine Defense Contact Group that was set up under the Biden administration and helped to drum up weapons and ammunition.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth skipped its last meeting; the first time a Pentagon chief has been absent since Russian forces invaded in February 2022.
Addressing Congress on June 10, Hegseth also acknowledged that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget.
It means Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia's attack. Indeed, no new aid packages have been approved for Ukraine since Trump took office again in January.
'The message from the administration is clear: Far from guaranteed, future U.S. support for Ukraine may be in jeopardy,' said Riley McCabe, Associate Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a U.S.-based policy research organization.
Cutting aid, McCabe warned, could make the Kremlin believe 'that U.S. resolve is fleeting, and that time is on Russia's side.'
'Putin has less incentive to negotiate if he believes that U.S. disengagement is inevitable and that Russia will soon gain an advantage on the battlefield,' he said.
What the summit might mean for Kyiv
Trump wants the summit to focus on defense spending. The 32 allies are expected to agree on an investment pledge that should meet his demands.
Still, the Europeans and Canada are determined to keep a spotlight on the war, wary that Russia could set its sights on one of them next. They back Trump's ceasefire efforts with Putin but also worry that the two men are cozying up.
Also, some governments may struggle to convince their citizens of the need to boost defense spending at the expense of other budget demands without a strong show of support for Ukraine — and acknowledgement that Russia remains NATO's biggest security threat.
The summit is highly symbolic for Ukraine in other ways. Zelenskyy wants to prevent his country from being sidelined from international diplomacy, but both he and his allies rely on Trump for U.S. military backup against Russia.
Concretely, Trump and his counterparts will dine with the Dutch King on Tuesday evening. Zelenskyy could take part. Elsewhere, foreign ministers will hold a NATO-Ukraine Council, the forum where Kyiv sits among the 32 allies as an equal to discuss its security concerns and needs.
What is clear is that the summit will be short. One working session on Wednesday. It was set up that way to prevent the meeting from derailing. If the G7 is anything to go by, Trump's focus on his new security priorities — right now, the conflict between Israel and Iran — might make it even shorter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
40 minutes ago
- Fox News
Americans found to have increasing appetite for active US global leadership, led by MAGA Republicans: Report
Nearly two-thirds of Americans support increased engagement in international affairs, according to a newly released annual summer survey from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute. The survey, conducted by polling firms Beacon Research and Shaw & Company Research, marks the third year the Ronald Reagan Institute has conducted a summer survey asking Americans about their attitudes towards foreign policy. It found 64% of Americans overall favor the United States taking a leadership role in international affairs, which is up more than 20% since 2023. The trend of Americans leaning towards international engagement, as opposed to isolationism, has seen growing support across both parties – even the America-first MAGA wing of the Republican Party, which leads the way with 73% support for greater international involvement, according to the new survey. Meanwhile, 69% of Republicans support the idea, as well as 65% of Democrats, the survey found. The survey was released less than a day after the Trump administration ordered a massive surprise strike on Iranian nuclear sites in a move designed to cripple Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure. Approximately 73% of registered voters questioned in a recent Fox News national survey said they think Iran poses a real security threat to the U.S. "Americans are not retreating from the world," the survey's introduction stated. "They are rallying around a foreign policy grounded in peace through strength, strong alliances, and morality in foreign policy." According to the summer survey, which was conducted before the recent Israeli airstrikes on Iran, 45% of those questioned said they would support Israel conducting targeted airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Iran faltered. Meanwhile, 37% said they opposed Israeli airstrikes, while 18% said they were unsure. Partisan affiliation, while less of a factor when survey respondents were asked generally whether the United States should lead on the international stage, appeared to play a larger role in opinions about engagement pertaining to Iran. Sixty percent of Republicans said they support Israeli airstrikes, but that support dropped to 35% among Independents and 32% for Democrats. In addition to attitudes about U.S. leadership in global affairs across the world, the annual summer survey from the Ronald Reagan Institute also covers other foreign policy-related questions pertaining to human rights, trade, defense spending and more. One question sought to gauge an appetite for "territorial expansion." President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled interest in acquiring strategic assets like Greenland and the Panama Canal, while he even floated potentially garnering control of the Gaza Strip amid the area's ongoing issues with terrorism. The survey found that 55% of Americans supported pursuing acquisition of the Panama Canal, while 47% supported the move to acquire Greenland. However, there is also a severe distinction between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, with most Democrats opposed and a majority of Republicans in favor of territorial expansion. When it comes to the Gaza Strip, only 33% of the survey respondents overall indicated they were in favor of such a move, including 24% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans. This year's summer survey from the Reagan Institute sampled 1,257 adults across the United States between May 27 and June 2. You can see the full survey here.
Bloomberg
44 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Turkey Arrests Journalist for Threatening Erdogan, NTV Reports
Turkish authorities arrested a prominent local journalist on charges of threatening President Recep Tayyip Erdogan amid an intensifying crackdown on political opposition. Fatih Altayli was taken from his residence late on Saturday after the Istanbul Prosecutor's office opened an investigation into comments he made on social media. He was placed under arrest on Sunday, NTV television reported.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
How the Attacks on Iran Are Part of a Much Bigger Global Struggle
There are so many things to say in the wake of the U.S. bombing of three key Iranian nuclear facilities that it is easy to get lost in the gripping details. So for now, let me try to step back and explore the global, regional and local forces shaping this story. What's really going on here? It is a very, very big drama, and it is not confined to the Middle East. To my mind, Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with the sole aim of wiping its democracy off the map and absorbing it into Russia, and the attacks on Israel in 2023 by Hamas and Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq were manifestations of a global struggle between the forces of inclusion and the forces of resistance. That is a struggle between countries and leaders who see the world and their nations benefiting from more trade, more cooperation against global threats and more decent, if not democratic, governance — versus regimes whose leaders thrive on resisting those trends because conflict enables them to keep their people down, their armies strong and their thieving of their treasuries easy. The forces of inclusion had steadily been growing stronger. Ukraine in 2022 was getting closer to joining the European Union. This would have been the biggest expansion of a whole and free Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, because it would have added to the West a huge agricultural, technological and military power and left Russia more isolated — and looking more out of step to its own people — than ever. At the very same time, the Biden administration was making rapid headway on a deal for the U.S. to forge a security alliance with Saudi Arabia. In return, Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel, and Israel would begin talks with the Palestinians on possible statehood. This would have been the biggest expansion of an integrated Middle East since the Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979. In short, Ukraine looked poised to join the West, and Israel looked poised to join the East. So what happened? Putin invaded Ukraine to stop the first movement, and Hamas and Iran's other proxies attacked Israel to stop the second. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
