NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions

THE HAGUE: US President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies.
Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time.
Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it 'unreasonable.' Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members.
The following day, Trump said the US should not have to respect the goal.
'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government, saying: 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer.' He also criticized Canada as 'a low payer.'
Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2 percent of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45 percent, according to NATO figures.
Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the US-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition.
European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelensky to steal the limelight.
A short summit, decades of mutual security
The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording.
Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years.
Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong US presence on the continent.
Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not.
NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia.
NATO's collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility.
It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the US intends to remain a member of the alliance.
A civilian runs NATO, but the US and its military hold power
The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump.
The US nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries.
NATO's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister.
As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other 'NACs' at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members.
NATO's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top US officer.
Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear
With Trump demanding greater defense spending, it's unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelensky has been invited, but it's unclear whether he will have a seat at NATO's table, although he may take part in Tuesday's dinner. Russia's war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings.
More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines.
But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60 percent of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. NATO coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops.
NATO's troop plans
A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern.
Under NATO's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers.
It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge NATO if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against US allies — including imposing tariffs on them — has weakened that deterrence.
The US is carrying the biggest military burden
Due to high US defense spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets.
Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.
After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO allies agreed to make 2 percent of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago.
In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5 percent, plus a further 1.5 percent for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Arab News

26 minutes ago

• Arab News

Netanyahu's delusional pursuit of a ‘new Middle East'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persistently declares his ambition to 'change the face of the Middle East.' Yet his repeated assertions seem to clash with the unfolding reality on the ground. Netanyahu's opportunistic relationship with language is now proving detrimental to his country. The Israeli leader undoubtedly grasps fundamental marketing principles, particularly the power of strong branding and consistent messaging. However, for any product to succeed over time, clever branding alone is insufficient; the product itself must live up to at least a minimum degree of expectation. Netanyahu's 'product,' however, has proven utterly defective. Yet the 75-year-old Israeli prime minister stubbornly refuses to abandon his outdated marketing techniques. But what, exactly, is Netanyahu selling? Long before assuming Israel's leadership, Netanyahu mastered the art of repetition — a technique often employed by politicians to inundate public discourse with specific slogans. Over time, these slogans are intended to become 'common sense.' As a member of the Knesset in 1992, Netanyahu delivered what appeared to be a bombshell: Iran was 'within three to five years' from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In 1996, he urged the US Congress to act, declaring that 'time is running out.' Iran has remained his primary focus Dr. Ramzy Baroud While the US pivoted its attention toward Iraq, following the September 2001 attacks, Netanyahu evidently hoped to eliminate two regional foes in one stroke. Following the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, Netanyahu channeled all his energy into a new discourse: Iran as an existential threat. Between then and now, Iran has remained his primary focus, even as regional alliances began to form around a discourse of stabilization and renewed diplomatic ties. However, the Obama administration, especially during its second term, was clearly uninterested in another regional war. As soon as Obama left office, Netanyahu reverted to his old marketing strategy. It was during Trump's first term that Netanyahu brought all his marketing techniques to the fore. He utilized what is known as comparative advertising, where his enemies' 'product' is denigrated with basic terms such as 'barbarism,' 'dark age,' and so forth, while his own is promoted as representing 'civilization,' 'enlightenment,' and 'progress.' He also invested heavily in the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) marketing technique. This entailed spreading negative or misleading information about others, while promoting his own as a far superior alternative. This brings us to 'solution framing.' For instance, the so-called 'existential threats' faced by Israel can supposedly be resolved through the establishment of a 'new Middle East.' For this new reality to materialize, the US, he argues, would have to take action to save not only Israel but also the 'civilized world.' It must be noted that Netanyahu's 'new Middle East' is not his original framing. This notion can be traced to a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2004. It followed the US war and invasion of Iraq, and was part of the intellectual euphoria among US and other Western intellectuals seeking to reshape the region in a way that suited US geopolitical needs. The Carnegie article sought to expand the definition of the Middle East beyond the traditional Middle East and North Africa, reaching as far as the Caucasus and Central Asia. American politicians adopted this new concept, tailoring it to suit US interests at the time. It was US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who largely rebranded 'greater' to 'new,' thus coining the 'new Middle East,' which she announced in June 2006. Clever branding alone is insufficient Dr. Ramzy Baroud Though Netanyahu embraced the term, he improvised it in recent years. Instead of speaking of it as a distant objective, the Israeli leader declared that he was actively in the process of making it a reality. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East. We are changing the face of the world,' he triumphantly declared in June 2021. Even following the events of Oct. 7, 2023, and the Israeli war and assault on Gaza that ensued, Netanyahu never ceased using the term. This time, however, his emphasis on 'change' rotated between a future possibility and an active reality. 'I ask that you stand steadfast because we are going to change the Middle East,' he said on Oct. 9 of that same year. And again, in September 2024, he proclaimed that Israel was 'pursuing' a plan to 'assassinate Hezbollah leaders' with the aim of 'changing the strategic reality of the Middle East.' And again, in October, December, and January of this year. In every instance, he contextualized the 'change of the Middle East' with bombs and rockets, and nothing else. In May, coinciding with a major Israeli bombing of Yemen, he declared that Israel's 'mission' exceeds that of 'defeating Hamas,' extending to 'changing the face of the Middle East.' And, finally, on June 16, he assigned the same language to the war with Iran, this time remaining committed to the new tweak of adding the word 'face' to his new, envisaged Middle East. Of course, old branding tactics aside, Netanyahu's Middle East, much like the old US 'greater Middle East,' remains a pipe dream aimed at dominating the resource-rich region, with Israel serving the role of regional hegemon. That said, the events of the past two years have demonstrated that, although the Middle East is indeed changing, this transformation is not happening because of Israel. Consequently, the outcome will most likely not be to its liking. Therefore, Netanyahu may continue repeating, like a broken record, old colonial slogans, but genuine change will only happen because of the peoples of the region and their many capable political players.

Al Arabiya

28 minutes ago

• Al Arabiya

What countries will be most affected by Iran's closure of Strait of Hormuz?

Around 84 percent of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Asia, leaving the economies of China, India, South Korea and others vulnerable should Iran blockade the crucial trading route over US strikes on its nuclear sites. Around 14.2 million barrels of crude oil and 5.9 million barrels of other petroleum products pass through the strait per day -- representing around 20 percent of global production in the first quarter, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). And crude oil from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Iran almost exclusively passes through the corridor. Here are the main Asian countries where oil exported via the strait is destined: China More than half of the oil imported by East Asia passes through the Strait of Hormuz, experts estimate. China is one of the largest buyers, importing 5.4 million barrels of crude oil a day through Hormuz in the first quarter this year, according to the EIA. Saudi Arabia is China's second-largest supplier of crude oil, accounting for 15 percent of its total oil imports -- 1.6 million barrels a day. China also buys more than 90 percent of Iran's oil exports, according to the analysis firm Kpler. It imported 1.3 million barrels of Iranian crude oil a day in April, down from a five-month high in March. India India is highly dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, importing 2.1 million barrels of crude a day through the corridor in the first quarter, EIA data shows. Around 53 percent of India's imported oil in early 2025 came from Middle Eastern suppliers, particularly Iraq and Saudi Arabia, local media reported. Wary of an escalating conflict in the Middle East, New Delhi has increased its imports of Russian oil over the past three years. 'We have been closely monitoring the evolving geopolitical situation in the Middle East since the past two weeks,' India's Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Singh Puri said on Sunday. 'We have diversified our supplies in the past few years and a large volume of our supplies do not come through the Strait of Hormuz now,' he wrote on X, adding 'We will take all necessary steps to ensure stability of supplies of fuel to our citizens.' South Korea Around 68 percent of South Korea's crude oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz -- 1.7 million barrels a day this year, according to the EIA. South Korea is particularly dependent on its main supplier Saudi Arabia, which last year accounted for a third of its oil imports. Seoul's trade and energy ministry said there have been 'no disruptions so far in South Korea's crude oil and LNG imports' but 'given the possibility of a supply crisis', officials were 'planning for potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.' 'The government and industry stakeholders have prepared for emergencies by maintaining a strategic petroleum reserve equivalent to about 200 days of supply,' the ministry said in a statement. Japan Japan imports 1.6 million barrels of crude oil a day through the Strait of Hormuz, the EIA says. Japanese customs data showed 95 percent of crude oil imports last year came from the Middle East. The country's energy freight companies are readying for a potential blockade of the strait. 'We're currently taking measures to shorten as much as possible the time spent by our vessels in the Gulf,' shipping giant Mitsui OSK told AFP. Others Around 2 million barrels of crude oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz each day in the first quarter were destined for other parts of Asia -- particularly Thailand and the Philippines -- as well as Europe (0.5 million barrels) and the United States (0.4 million barrels). Limited alternatives Asian countries could diversify their oil suppliers, but it is difficult to replace the large volumes coming from the Middle East. In the short term, 'elevated global oil inventories, OPEC+'s available spare capacity, and US shale production all could provide some buffer', experts at MUFG Bank said. 'However, a full closure of the Hormuz Strait would still impact on the accessibility of a major part of this spare production capacity concentrated in the [Arabian] Gulf,' they said. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have infrastructure to bypass the strait, potentially mitigating disruptions, but their transit capacity remains very limited -- around 2.6 million barrels a day. And the Goreh-Jask pipeline built by Iran to export via the Gulf of Oman, which has been inactive since last year, has a maximum capacity of only 300,000 barrels per day, according to the EIA.

Al Arabiya

an hour ago

• Al Arabiya

Israeli strike on Iran's Evin prison irresponsible, says sister of French prisoner

An Israeli strike on Evin prison in Tehran on Monday is completely irresponsible and puts prisoners 'in mortal danger,' said Noemie Kohler, the sister of French national Cecile Kohler who is jailed there. Iran's judiciary said Israeli strikes left sections of the facility damaged and Israel's defense minister confirmed the army was targeting it. Cecile Kohler has been held along with her partner Jacques Paris in Evin since May 2022 on espionage charges their families reject. Overall, Iran is believed to hold around 20 European nationals in what some Western governments describe as a strategy of hostage-taking aimed at extracting concessions from the West. Most are held in Evin, a large, heavily fortified complex notorious among activists for rights abuses. It is located in a northern district of the Iranian capital. 'This strike is completely irresponsible. Cecile, Jacques and all the prisoners are in mortal danger,' Noemie Kohler told AFP. 'This is really the worst thing that could have happened,' she added. 'We have no news, we don't know if they are still alive, we're panicking,' Noemie Kohler said. She urged the French authorities to 'condemn these extremely dangerous strikes' and secure the release of the French prisoners. She also expressed concern about the risk of 'chaos' and 'riots.' Noemie Kohler has tirelessly campaigned to secure the release of her sister and her sister's partner Jacques Paris. Chirinne Ardakani, a lawyer for the Kohler family, denounced the strikes as 'illegal'. 'The risk of riots, general confusion and reprisals by the security forces against the insurgent prisoners raises fears of bloodshed,' she told AFP. 'Both sides are playing with people's lives.' The Iranian judiciary's website, Mizan Online, said that the prison buildings remained 'under control.'