NATO chief to call for four-fold increase in Europe's air defense spending
LONDON — Washington's European allies must make a 'quantum leap' in military spending to deter Russia, the head of NATO is expected to say Monday, calling for a 400% increase in the continent's air and missile defense budget.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's comments are set to be among the strongest yet from the organization as it attempts to improve the continent's insufficient defenses against Russi a while also avoiding the political ire of President Donald Trump.
'The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defense,' Rutte is expected to say in a speech to the London-based think tank Chatham House, in remarks released beforehand by the alliance. 'The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defense plans in full. The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.'
Trump's clear signaling that he would like to at least significantly reduce decades of American military support for Europe has sent its nations scrambling to beef up their own arms industries.
The American president's suggestion that NATO allies should up their minimum defense spend from 2% to 5% of GDP was once seen as outlandish; but last month Rutte too backed this idea and said he expected it to be adopted at NATO's June 24-25 summit.
On Monday he will make a similarly ambitious call, according to NATO's pre-released remarks. He will ask for a '400% increase in air and missile defense' and add that 'militaries also need thousands more armored vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support.'
'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,' he will say. 'We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.'
Rutte's comments would come against the backdrop of European powers vowing to spend more on their military budgets, having relied for decades upon America's protection first against the Soviet Union and now Putin's revanchist Kremlin.
NATO's constituents must also maintain a balancing act when it comes to Ukraine — which is not a member. Kyiv's allies want to support a neighbor it sees as a bulwark against Russian aggression, while keeping onside a White House increasingly sympathetic to Moscow's worldview.
Trump has previously described his 'very, very good relationship' with Putin, a man considered a pariah by former President Joe Biden and other Western leaders.
Many officials and analysts in Europe acknowledge that Trump is right to demand that wealthy nations such as Germany be able to look after themselves without Washington's help.
However many of these same commentators have expressed their horror at the tactics used by Trump, who has suggested that the United States would not protect underpaying allies, and openly inviting Russia to 'do whatever the hell' it wants to them.
That risks shattering the central premise of NATO: Article 5 of its founding charter — an 'all-for-one and one-for-all' mutual defense promise suggesting that if one ally is attacked, the rest would come to its aid.
The scenario the founders had in mind was that the U.S. would join the fight if Russia decided to launch an act of aggression against a smaller European country. In practice however, the only time it has been used in the real world was the other way round, when the alliance lent Washington symbolic defensive help after 9/11.
Previous American presidents have always seen this as a good trade off: America underwrites European security, and in return has a huge influence over political, diplomatic and even cultural happenings on the continent and beyond. The soft power return on investment was always seen as a profitable one.
However, Trump has repeatedly questioned this logic, not only undermining the promise behind Article 5 but using hostile language against those historically considered Western brethren.
The realization among European allies that Washington is no longer committed to its mutual defense has sparked a drive to push up defense budgets and revive the long-since dormant arms industry on the continent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump turns against Fox News after shock poll and singles out anchor Jessica Tarlov for 'soiling' evening broadcast
Donald Trump continued his recent feud with Fox News, saying liberal commentator Jessica Tarlov's appearances are what 'make MAGA absolutely hate' the network. Trump posted to Truth Social Friday: 'Why does Fox News allow failed TV personality Jessica Tarlov to 'soil' The Five? Her voice, her manner, and above all else, what she says, are a disgrace to television broadcasting.' The president appears to be reacting to Tarlov - the most consistent Trump-hating voice on the show and network - discussing negative polling numbers on Friday's show. 'I've had the best poll numbers that I've ever had, and she is constantly saying the exact opposite. The just out highly respected Rasmussen Poll is at 56%, Insider Advantage 54%, and many others are at 56% to 68%! Sadly, the audience has to listen to her spew off that I am doing poorly in the polls, while I am beating the democrats by 15%+ points and, more importantly, I just won an election against two candidates, Sleepy Joe and Kamala, in a Landslide by winning all 7 Swing States, and the Popular Vote by millions, with records broken everywhere!' Trump still stood by commentators Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld, saying the pair are 'terrific' but that they 'don't see all of these poll numbers and can't, therefore come to my defense. But I can!' He continued: 'Nobody can stand Tarlov! She lies over and over again, and MAGA is complaining, BIG LEAGUE, that she's all over Fox. Watch their ratings go down by keeping her on the show — nobody wants to listen to her. Why doesn't she talk about the fact that I had ZERO illegal aliens come into our Country last month, whereas Sleepy Joe Biden allowed 62,000 people in, many from prisons, mental institutions, and gangs.' The president finished by writing that 'people like Jessica Tarlov make MAGA absolutely hate Fox!' Tarlov was citing polls that had Trump in the red with both independents and overall voters on key issues. The president appears to be reacting to Tarlov (pictured) - the most consistent Trump-hating voice on the show and network - discussing negative polling numbers on Friday's show 'When we say the people don't like this, they don't like it. That doesn't mean that Democrats aren't still unpopular. That doesn't mean I don't know if the election was held again today Donald Trump might very well win again if it was.' However, she said that 'directionally' the polling numbers are going against the president. His comments Friday come after Trump went on a tear Thursday morning after a new Fox News Channel poll showed Americans split on the Republican's immigration policy. 'The Crooked FoxNews Polls got the Election WRONG, I won by much more than they said I would, and have been biased against me for years. They are always wrong and negative,' Trump posted to Truth Social. 'It's why MAGA HATES FoxNews, even though their anchors are GREAT,' Trump fumed. 'This has gone on for years, but they never change the incompetent polling company that does their work.' He then pointed to the latest survey. The poll, which was released Wednesday, showed Trump with a 46 percent approval rating overall, with another 54 percent disapproving of the job he's done so far. His numbers on 'border security' were better - with 53 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving. Trump still stood by commentators Jesse Watters (pictured center) and Greg Gutfeld (pictured right), saying the pair are 'terrific' but that they 'd on't see all of these poll numbers and can't, therefore come to my defense. But I can!' When voters were asked about 'immigration' his numbers were lower again. Forty-six percent said they approved and 53 percent said they disapproved. His lowest numbers were actually on the topic of 'inflation,' with 64 percent disapproving of Trump's handling of this top economic issue, and just 34 percent approving. Still, he took offense at how he was being rated on the border. 'Now a FoxNews poll comes out this morning giving me a little more than 50% at the Border, and yet the Border is miraculously perfect, NOBODY WAS ABLE TO COME IN LAST MONTH,' he wrote. '60,000 people came in with Sleepy Joe in the same month last year.' 'I hate FAKE pollsters, one of the Worst, but Fox will never change their discredited pollster!' the president complained. The outburst came Thursday morning as the world continued to wait and see whether the United States would join Israel in its current bombing campaign against Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday night that Trump had signed off on an attack plan for Iran but the president had yet to issue a final order. Overnight Thursday the U.S. did not get involved in the week-long war between Israel and Iran. 'The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!' also wrote on Truth Social Thursday morning. The president also slammed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell - who he appointed - after the Fed decided Wednesday not to push interest rates down as Trump has demanded. '"Too Late" Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit,' Trump wrote. 'Europe has had 10 cuts, we have had none,' he continued. 'We should be 2.5 Points lower, and save $BILLIONS on all of Biden's Short Term Debt.' 'We have LOW inflation! TOO LATE's an American Disgrace!' Trump wrote.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Angela Rayner accused of waging 'class war' over her plans to cut funding for wealthier Southern areas so more can be spent in the North
Labour was yesterday accused of declaring 'class war' over plans to cut funding for town halls in the South and splurge it in its northern heartlands. Under Angela Rayner 's shake-up, wealthier southern households face a raft of raids to help pay for the giveaway in Labour's traditional working-class areas. These include hikes in council tax bills and fees, such as parking, planning and licensing charges. Town halls in the South also face having to cut existing services because of the raid on their coffers. Under the plans, unveiled yesterday, town halls with 'stronger council tax bases', which tend to be in wealthier parts of London and the Home Counties, will get less Government cash. Those with 'weaker bases', often in the North, will get more under the 'progressive' redistribution model. The Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner, who is also the local government secretary, has long argued that an overhaul of council funding is needed. Ms Rayner, the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, has pointed to people living in the North who pay hundreds of pounds more in council tax than those in wealthier southern areas, calling it 'unfair'. But the plans, which affect councils in England and would begin for three years from next April, sparked a furious backlash. Greg Smith, the Tory MP for Mid Buckinghamshire, said: 'We're already massively over-taxed and council tax has already blown out of all proportion across the country. 'Anything that takes from the South to pay for the North is class war.' And Kevin Hollinrake, the Tories' local government spokesman, said: 'In reality, Labour's appetite for tax hikes knows no bounds. These new backdoor rises in fees and charges are nothing more than stealth taxes – punishing the very councils that have kept taxes low and responsible.' The new proposed formula for allocating money would take into account local needs, based on population, poverty and age data. This will lead to more cash going to deprived areas. And Government grants, which account for about half of councils' income, will now be based on calculations of what local authorities could raise if all areas charged the same rates of council tax based on their housing mix. This will mean steep falls in grant income for wealthier councils. Vikki Slade, the Lib Dems' local government spokesman, said: 'It would be a big mistake for the Government to force councils into unfair council tax rises. 'At a time when councils desperately need support, it beggars belief that Angela Rayner is considering reducing funding entitlements for many, including councils which already receive very little grant funding.' But ministers insist councils won't go bust as it would be phased in over three years, removing a potential 'cliff edge' if the redistribution happened in one go. They also say it will not lead to huge council tax hikes because these are already capped at 5 per cent, and most councils already raise it by this amount every year. However, they could apply to Ms Rayner, who is from Stockport, for special permission to raise it by more than this given the unprecedented pressure their finances could come under. They are also likely to look at cutting back on existing services and hiking other fees to help balance the books. It raises the prospect of councils being handed more powers to raise revenues by hiking such fees. Yesterday's new consultation, which will run until August 15, said ministers will now 'review all fees previously identified and consider where there is the strongest case for reform'. Kate Ogden, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said councils in 'leafier suburban and rural areas' in the South will be among the biggest losers. Local government minister Jim McMahon said: 'There's broad agreement across council leaders, experts, and parliamentarians that the current funding model is broken and unfair. 'This Government is stepping up to deliver the fairer system promised in the 2017 Fair Funding Review but never delivered.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
