NATO agrees to higher defense spending goal; Spain says it is opting out
FILE PHOTO: The logo of NATO is seen at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in the NATO defence ministers' session together with Sweden as the invitee, at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium February 15, 2024. REUTERS/Johanna Geron/File Photo
By Andrew Gray, Sabine Siebold, Lili Bayer and Ana Cantero
NATO members agreed on Sunday to a big increase in their defense spending target to 5% of gross domestic product, as demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump, but Spain said it did not need to comply just days before a summit in The Hague meant to be a show of unity.
NATO officials had been anxious to find consensus on a summit statement on a new spending commitment ahead of Wednesday's gathering. But Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared on Thursday he would not commit to the 5% target.
NATO boss Mark Rutte has proposed to reach the target by boosting NATO's core defense spending goal from 2% to 3.5% of GDP and spending an extra 1.5% on related items like cyber security and adapting roads and bridges for military vehicles.
After diplomats agreed on a compromise text on Sunday, Sanchez swiftly proclaimed Spain would not have to meet the 5% target as it would only have to spend 2.1% of GDP to meet NATO's core military requirements.
"We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defense investment, but we are not going to do so," Sanchez said in an address on Spanish television.
Spain spent 1.24% of GDP on defense in 2024, or about 17.2 billion euros ($19.8 billion), according to NATO estimates, making it the lowest spender in the alliance as a share of its economic output.
NATO officials argue big defense spending increases are needed to counter a growing threat from Russia and to allow Europe to take on more responsibility for its own security as the United States shifts its military focus to China.
TRUMP CRITICISM
Sanchez's stance risked setting up a summit clash with Trump, who has frequently accused European countries of not spending enough on defense and threatened not to defend them if they do not meet their targets.
On Friday, Trump said Spain "has to pay what everybody else has to pay" and Madrid was "notorious" for low defence spending.
However, he also suggested the U.S. should not have to meet the new target, as the U.S. had spent large amounts to protect the continent over a long period. Washington spent an estimated 3.19% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO says.
But Sanchez argued it was not necessary for Spain to meet the new target and trying to do so would mean drastic cuts on social spending such as state pensions, or tax hikes.
NATO did not release the compromise summit text, which will only become official when it is endorsed by the leaders of NATO's 32 members at the summit.
But diplomats said one tweak in the language on the spending commitment, from "we commit" to "allies commit," allowed Spain to say the pledge does not apply to all members.
In a letter seen by Reuters, Rutte told Sanchez that Spain would have "flexibility to determine its own sovereign path" for meeting its military capability targets agreed with NATO.
A NATO diplomat said Rutte's letter was simply "an affirmation that allies chart their own course for making good on their commitments" to meet their capability targets.
NATO officials have expressed scepticism that Spain can meet its military capability targets by spending just 2.1% of GDP, as Sanchez has suggested. The targets are secret so their costs cannot be independently verified.
"All allies have now agreed to the summit statement – which includes the new defence investment plan," said the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.
Rutte had originally proposed countries meet the new target by 2032 but the deadline in the final text is 2035, according to diplomats. There will also be a review of the target in 2029.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
3 hours ago
- Japan Times
Iran stands alone against Trump and Israel, stripped of allies
Iran's leaders are discovering they're on their own against the U.S. and Israel, without the network of proxies and allies that allowed them to project power in the Middle East and beyond. As the Islamic Republic confronts its most perilous moment in decades following the bombing of its nuclear facilities ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, Russia and China are sitting on the sidelines and offering only rhetorical support. Militia groups Iran has armed and funded for years are refusing or unable to enter the fight in support of their patron. After decades of being stuck in a game of fragile detente, the entire geopolitical order of the Middle East is being redone. The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel was only the beginning. It led to multiple conflicts and tested decadeslong alliances. It offered Trump, on his return to power this year, a chance to do what no president before him had dared by attacking Iran so aggressively and directly.
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Trump is open to regime change in Iran, after his administration said that wasn't the goal
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump on Sunday called into question the future of Iran's ruling theocracy after a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites, seemingly contradicting his administration's earlier calls to resume negotiations and avoid an escalation in fighting. "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!!!" The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth said. What the administration has made clear is that it wants Iran to stop any development of nuclear weapons, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio warning on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that any retaliation against the U.S. or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would "put the regime at risk." But beyond that, the world is awash in uncertainty at a fragile moment that could decide whether parts of the world tip into war or find a way to salvage a relative peace. Trump's warning to Iran's leadership comes as the U.S. has demanded that Iran not respond to the bombardment of the heart of a nuclear program that it spent decades developing. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the U.S. president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began earlier this month. Up until the U.S. president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Hegseth had said that America "does not seek war" with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear program that might seem like more of a necessity after the U.S. strike. All of that raises the question of whether the strikes will open up a far more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. Inside the U.S., the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics with Trump choosing to spend part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress. Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambaste Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. "We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)" Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. What Trump's national security team had to say At their joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. Caine indicated that the goal of the operation -- destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan -- had been achieved. "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Caine said. Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss "sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground," he felt "very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon." Pressed further, he told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon." The vice president said the U.S. had "negotiated aggressively' with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting "in good faith." "I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbors, not to be a threat to the United States, and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears," Vance said. Rubio said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "there are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless, unless they mess around and they attack" U.S. interests. Trump has previously threatened other countries, but often backed down or failed to follow through, given his promises to his coalition of voters not to entangle the United States in an extended war. It was not immediately clear whether Iran saw the avoidance of a wider conflict as in its best interests. How Iran and others are reacting to the US strikes Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the U.S. inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Israeli airstrikes that began on June 13 local time targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals, prompting retaliation from Iran and creating a series of events that contributed to the U.S. attack. While U.S. officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticized the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Washington was "fully responsible" for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. "They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities," he said at a news conference in Turkey. "I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy." China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the U.S. military action. The attacks were "a gross violation of international law," said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated "returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course." A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to "a global level." British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for "a rapid resumption of negotiations." France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi crown prince and sultan of Oman. Iran could try to stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which could create the same kind of inflationary shocks that the world felt after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Oil prices increased in the financial markets as the war between Israel and Iran had intensified, climbing by 21% over the past month. Hegseth offers an explanation for the timeline The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline for the strikes was the result of a schedule set by Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. "Iran found out" that when Trump "says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation," Hegseth said. "Otherwise, that nuclear program, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it." That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the U.S. benefited from Iran's weakened air defenses and was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran. "Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission," Caine said. Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. Caine added that the U.S. used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran's sites at Fordo and Natanz. The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. in Washington, or roughly 2:10 a.m. on Sunday in Iran.
Japan Today
5 hours ago
- Japan Today
Wartime NATO summits have focused on Ukraine. With Trump, this one will be different
FILE - A Ukrainian serviceman of the 28th Separate Mechanised Brigade stands in a trench at the front line, near Bakhmut, Donetsk region, Ukraine, March 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky, File) By LORNE COOK 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. 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. 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. 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. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
