Latest news with #EuropeanCouncilonForeignRelations
Boston Globe
13 hours ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
Trying to satisfy Trump, NATO is running into difficulties
In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. Advertisement It has already driven an effort by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of GDP on core military spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. Advertisement And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat, and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges, and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. Advertisement In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the PR move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' The proposal may have helped Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Advertisement There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' This article originally appeared in
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Israeli Strikes shake foundation of Iran's theocratic rule
Iran's embattled leaders have found themselves in an existential struggle domestically to protect nearly a half-century of rule, as Israel pounds the military, government and population. The U.S. and Israel have made it clear that even Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could be a target. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," President Trump posted on social media. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there—We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." Israel's attacks have demonstrated how thoroughly its intelligence agency, Mossad, has penetrated Iran. Israel killed the region's top military commanders and nuclear scientists, bombed oil-and-energy infrastructure and well as Iran's state broadcaster, and sent tens of thousands fleeing from Tehran. 'What the last four days has done is create a real rupture in the social contract that has existed at least for the last two decades," said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. That contract, between the regime and its people, 'has been anchored on this promise of security from the state in return for severely restricted political, social and increasingly economic rights." Iran has already had to replace at least six top military commanders killed by Israel since Friday. Its powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which oversees the nation's security, has gone into damage-control mode. Following intelligence failures that allowed Israel to kill military commanders and scientists inside their homes with ease, the Revolutionary Guard has gone on a propaganda offensive. State media outlets have published story after story about the IRGC finding cells working for Mossad, often without offering evidence. On Wednesday, the IRGC said several Israeli 'agents and mercenaries" were arrested in central Iran. It urged residents to 'be vigilant regarding the movements of neighbors who have recently settled in the area." An Israeli military official said these reports were fake and part of misinformation the Iranians are spreading 'in efforts to create the appearance of success." The Israeli prime minister's office didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. 'The political, military, security establishment is trying to regain control of that narrative and that social contract to say we can protect you," said Geranmayeh. 'It's a real challenge to repair. That social contract is now the biggest challenge for them internally." In a televised message on Wednesday, Khamenei vowed to resist Israel and denounced Trump's 'threatening and vulgar" remarks, saying they 'have no effect on the Iranian people's thoughts or actions." 'The United States must know that our people will not surrender, and any military intervention by them will lead to irreparable consequences," Khamenei said. The theocracy was already under pressure before the war erupted. Israel's military has battered its allied militias, Lebanon's Hezbollah and Gaza's Hamas. Syria's Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Tehran, was toppled in December. Israel killed a top Hamas leader while he was visiting Tehran last year and several Iranian commanders in the region. Meanwhile, ordinary Iranians were reeling from economic sanctions. Before Friday's strikes, Iran was under pressure to clinch a deal to end U.S. sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. The value of the country's currency has plummeted since November. And Iran's gross domestic product had fallen 45% since 2012. Before the war, protests were becoming more frequent in response to the economic strains. Nurses and telecommunications workers protested delayed payments. Retired teachers demonstrated in front of parliament over delays in welfare payments. Shoemakers and other merchants in Tehran's main bazaar staged a rare strike in December over high inflation. Israel's strikes in recent days have amplified the pressure dramatically. The value of the Iranian currency has lost 13%. Israel's strikes on natural-gas plants along the Persian Gulf and an oil depot and refinery in Tehran may worsen an energy crisis. It has forced schools, cement factories and pharmaceutical plants to shut down. 'The Islamic Republic is, in essence, losing control of what is going on inside Iran, on at least the symbolic level," said Rasmus Christian Elling, associate professor of Iranian studies at the University of Copenhagen. 'The open question is whether there are enough people still actively participating to meet these challenges and actually do their job. In many ways, the Islamic Republic is helpless right now." Some dissident groups based in the U.S. and Europe have supported Israel's strikes and called for regime change, while other Iranian activists have called for the regime to give up uranium enrichment. But some groups have expressed nationalist sentiments and denounced Israel's attacks. To be sure, there have been no visible signs of dissent inside Iran so far. The government has restricted access to the internet and warned against publishing social-media posts considered supportive of Israel. Five people were arrested in the central city of Yazd on Sunday for 'attempting to disturb public opinion" by sending postings online, according to semiofficial news agency ISNA. Besides, most Iranians at the moment are too busy trying to escape Israel's airstrikes, analysts said. 'This should be quite a strong indicator to President Trump that if you are bombing a nation from the outside, it's going to be very hard for them to organize on the inside for a political opposition or a transition," said Geranmayeh. Iran's reformist president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is also weakened. His policy to open up to the West to get sanctions relief failed. That is giving Iran's hard-liners the upper hand, though they are now compromised as well for not protecting Iran from Israel's strikes. 'The system is under immense strain since neither reform nor force is working," said Mostafa Pakzad, chairman of Pakzad Consulting, who advises foreign companies on Iranian geopolitics and isn't currently in the country. 'The June 13 Israeli strikes and the death of IRGC leaders have shattered the illusion of strategic control. With no reformist credibility and declining coercive legitimacy, the regime is losing both of its traditional legs." Some Iranian officials are worried the country could simply fracture along ethnic lines, say Iranian and Arab diplomats. Iran is populated with Arab, Azeri and Kurdish minorities to the west and Baluch to the east, all of which have separatist aspirations. In some ways, decisions taken by Khamenei have returned to haunt him. The architect behind Iran's military expansion in the Middle East, he and his senior advisers underestimated Israel's desire to confront them. As early as February, Khamenei was made aware of a plan for massive Israeli airstrikes, but when Israel attacked last week, he and his advisers were caught off guard. Khamenei's death would trigger more uncertainty in Iran. The death in a helicopter crash last year of his presumed successor, Ebrahim Raisi, has left the theocracy with no transparent plans for succession, though Khamenei's son is considered a contender. One scenario is that Khamenei's death would lead to military rule in Iran led by hard-liners favoring a nuclear weapon to deter Israel. 'If Khamenei were to die for one reason or another in the middle of this war, in order to prevent a vacuum, the Revolutionary Guard and all the regular military would step in and take control of the situation," said Elling. 'There is no clear religious leader waiting in the corridors that will have popular support and also religious legitimacy." Write to Sudarsan Raghavan at and Benoit Faucon at
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Israeli Strikes Shake Foundation of Iran's Theocratic Rule
Iran's embattled leaders have found themselves in an existential struggle domestically to protect nearly a half-century of rule, as Israel pounds the military, government and population. The U.S. and Israel have made it clear that even Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could be a target. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' President Trump posted on social media. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there—We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' Israel's attacks have demonstrated how thoroughly its intelligence agency, Mossad, has penetrated Iran. Israel killed the region's top military commanders and nuclear scientists, bombed oil-and-energy infrastructure and well as Iran's state broadcaster, and sent tens of thousands fleeing from Tehran. 'What the last four days has done is create a real rupture in the social contract that has existed at least for the last two decades,' said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. That contract, between the regime and its people, 'has been anchored on this promise of security from the state in return for severely restricted political, social and increasingly economic rights.' Iran has already had to replace at least six top military commanders killed by Israel since Friday. Its powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which oversees the nation's security, has gone into damage-control mode. Following intelligence failures that allowed Israel to kill military commanders and scientists inside their homes with ease, the Revolutionary Guard has gone on a propaganda offensive. State media outlets have published story after story about the IRGC finding cells working for Mossad, often without offering evidence. On Wednesday, the IRGC said several Israeli 'agents and mercenaries' were arrested in central Iran. It urged residents to 'be vigilant regarding the movements of neighbors who have recently settled in the area.' An Israeli military official said these reports were fake and part of misinformation the Iranians are spreading 'in efforts to create the appearance of success.' The Israeli prime minister's office didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. 'The political, military, security establishment is trying to regain control of that narrative and that social contract to say we can protect you,' said Geranmayeh. 'It's a real challenge to repair. That social contract is now the biggest challenge for them internally.' In a televised message on Wednesday, Khamenei vowed to resist Israel and denounced Trump's 'threatening and vulgar' remarks, saying they 'have no effect on the Iranian people's thoughts or actions.' 'The United States must know that our people will not surrender, and any military intervention by them will lead to irreparable consequences,' Khamenei said. The theocracy was already under pressure before the war erupted. Israel's military has battered its allied militias, Lebanon's Hezbollah and Gaza's Hamas. Syria's Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Tehran, was toppled in December. Israel killed a top Hamas leader while he was visiting Tehran last year and several Iranian commanders in the region. Meanwhile, ordinary Iranians were reeling from economic sanctions. Before Friday's strikes, Iran was under pressure to clinch a deal to end U.S. sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. The value of the country's currency has plummeted since November. And Iran's gross domestic product had fallen 45% since 2012. Before the war, protests were becoming more frequent in response to the economic strains. Nurses and telecommunications workers protested delayed payments. Retired teachers demonstrated in front of parliament over delays in welfare payments. Shoemakers and other merchants in Tehran's main bazaar staged a rare strike in December over high inflation. Israel's strikes in recent days have amplified the pressure dramatically. The value of the Iranian currency has lost 13%. Israel's strikes on natural-gas plants along the Persian Gulf and an oil depot and refinery in Tehran may worsen an energy crisis. It has forced schools, cement factories and pharmaceutical plants to shut down. 'The Islamic Republic is, in essence, losing control of what is going on inside Iran, on at least the symbolic level,' said Rasmus Christian Elling, associate professor of Iranian studies at the University of Copenhagen. 'The open question is whether there are enough people still actively participating to meet these challenges and actually do their job. In many ways, the Islamic Republic is helpless right now.' Some dissident groups based in the U.S. and Europe have supported Israel's strikes and called for regime change, while other Iranian activists have called for the regime to give up uranium enrichment. But some groups have expressed nationalist sentiments and denounced Israel's attacks. To be sure, there have been no visible signs of dissent inside Iran so far. The government has restricted access to the internet and warned against publishing social-media posts considered supportive of Israel. Five people were arrested in the central city of Yazd on Sunday for 'attempting to disturb public opinion' by sending postings online, according to semiofficial news agency ISNA. Besides, most Iranians at the moment are too busy trying to escape Israel's airstrikes, analysts said. 'This should be quite a strong indicator to President Trump that if you are bombing a nation from the outside, it's going to be very hard for them to organize on the inside for a political opposition or a transition,' said Geranmayeh. Iran's reformist president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is also weakened. His policy to open up to the West to get sanctions relief failed. That is giving Iran's hard-liners the upper hand, though they are now compromised as well for not protecting Iran from Israel's strikes. 'The system is under immense strain since neither reform nor force is working,' said Mostafa Pakzad, chairman of Pakzad Consulting, who advises foreign companies on Iranian geopolitics and isn't currently in the country. 'The June 13 Israeli strikes and the death of IRGC leaders have shattered the illusion of strategic control. With no reformist credibility and declining coercive legitimacy, the regime is losing both of its traditional legs.' Some Iranian officials are worried the country could simply fracture along ethnic lines, say Iranian and Arab diplomats. Iran is populated with Arab, Azeri and Kurdish minorities to the west and Baluch to the east, all of which have separatist aspirations. In some ways, decisions taken by Khamenei have returned to haunt him. The architect behind Iran's military expansion in the Middle East, he and his senior advisers underestimated Israel's desire to confront them. As early as February, Khamenei was made aware of a plan for massive Israeli airstrikes, but when Israel attacked last week, he and his advisers were caught off guard. Khamenei's death would trigger more uncertainty in Iran. The death in a helicopter crash last year of his presumed successor, Ebrahim Raisi, has left the theocracy with no transparent plans for succession, though Khamenei's son is considered a contender. One scenario is that Khamenei's death would lead to military rule in Iran led by hard-liners favoring a nuclear weapon to deter Israel. 'If Khamenei were to die for one reason or another in the middle of this war, in order to prevent a vacuum, the Revolutionary Guard and all the regular military would step in and take control of the situation,' said Elling. 'There is no clear religious leader waiting in the corridors that will have popular support and also religious legitimacy.' Write to Sudarsan Raghavan at and Benoit Faucon at Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
As Trump goes to G7 summit, other world leaders aim to show they're not intimidated
WASHINGTON — President Trump has long bet that he can scare allies into submission — a gamble that is increasingly being tested ahead of the Group of Seven summit beginning Monday in Canada. He's threatened stiff tariffs in the belief that other nations would crumple. He's mused about taking over Canada and Greenland. He's suggested he will not honor NATO's obligations to defend partners under attack. And he's used Oval Office meetings to try to intimidate the leaders of Ukraine and South Africa. But many world leaders see fewer reasons to be cowed by Trump, even as they recognize the risks if he followed through on his threats. They believe he will ultimately back down — since many of his plans could inflict harm on the U.S. — or that he can simply be charmed and flattered into cooperating. 'Many leaders still seem intimidated by Trump, but increasingly they are catching on to his pattern of bullying,' said Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'In places as diverse as Canada, Iran, China and the EU, we are seeing increasing signs that leaders now recognize that Trump is afraid of anything resembling a fair fight. And so they are increasingly willing to stand up to him.' In the 22 instances in which Trump has publicly threatened military action since his first term, the U.S. only used force twice, according to a May analysis by Shapiro. Ahead of the G7 summit, there are already signs of subtle pushback against Trump from fellow leaders in the group. French President Emanuel Macron planned to visit Greenland over the weekend in a show of European solidarity. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said the U.S. is no longer the 'predominant' force in the world after Trump's tariffs created fissures in a decades-long partnership between the U.S. and its northern neighbor. 'We stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans throughout the Cold War and in the decades that followed, as the United States played a predominant role on the world stage,' Carney said this past week in French. 'Today, that predominance is a thing of the past.' The new prime minister added that with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the U.S. became the global hegemon, a position of authority undermined by Trump's transactional nature that puts little emphasis on defending democratic values or the rule of law. 'Now the United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony: charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contributions to our collective security,' Carney said. Israel's attack on Iran has added a new wrinkle to the global picture as the summit leaders gather to tackle some of the world's thorniest problems. A senior Canadian official said it was decided early on that the G7 won't be issuing a joint communiqué as it has at past summits — an indication of how hard it can be to get Trump on the same page with other world leaders. The White House said individual leader statements will be issued on the issues being discussed. Speaking last month at a conference in Singapore, Macron called France a 'friend and an ally of the United States' but pushed back against Trump's desire to dominate what other countries do. Macron said efforts to force other nations to choose between the U.S. and China would lead to the breakdown of the global order put in place after World War II. 'We want to cooperate, but we do not want to be instructed on a daily basis what is allowed, what is not allowed, and how our life will change because of the decision of a single person,' Macron said. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba pushed back against Trump's agenda of levying higher tariffs on imported goods, arguing it would hurt economic growth. The Japanese leader specifically called Trump ahead of the summit to confirm their plans to talk on the sidelines, which is a greater focus for Japan than the summit itself. 'I called him as I also wanted to congratulate his birthday, though one day earlier,' Ishiba said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the summit was an opportunity for Trump to 'mend' relationships with other countries so China would be unable to exploit differences among the G7. She said other foreign leaders are 'not intimidated' by Trump's actions, which could be driving them away from tighter commitments with the U.S. 'The conversations that I've had with those leaders suggest that they think that the partnership with the United States has been really important, but they also understand that there are other opportunities,' Shaheen said. The White House did not respond to emailed questions for this story. Having originally made his reputation in real estate and hospitality, Trump has taken kindly to certain foreign visitors, such as U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Starmer has sought to keep Trump in line with Europe in supporting Ukraine and NATO instead of brokering any truces that would favor Russia. He has echoed the president's language about NATO members spending more on defense. But in his Oval Office visit, Starmer also pleased Trump by delivering an invite for a state visit from King Charles III. The German government said it, too, wanted to send a public signal of unity, saying that while Trump's recent meeting with Merz at the White House went harmoniously, the next test is how the relationship plays out in a team setting. There will also be other world leaders outside of the G7 nations attending the summit in mountainous Kananaskis, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom Trump dressed down in the Oval Office. Italy's Meloni has positioned herself as a 'bridge' between the Trump administration and the rest of Europe. But Italy's strong support of Ukraine and Trump's threatened tariffs on European goods have put Meloni, the only European leader to attend Trump's inauguration, in a difficult position. Mark Sobel, U.S. chair of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum, an independent think tank, said Trump's 'trade policies, backing for right wing European movements, seeming preference for dealing with authoritarians and many of his other actions are alienating our G7 allies,' even if the U.S. president is correct that Europe needs to do more on defense. But even as other G7 leaders defuse any public disputes with Trump, the U.S. president's vision for the world remains largely incompatible with they want. 'In short, behind the curtains, and notwithstanding whatever theater, the Kananaskis summit will highlight a more fragmented G7 and an adrift global economy,' Sobel said. Boak writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Rob Gillies in Toronto, Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo, Sylvie Corbet in Paris, Jill Lawless in London, Geir Moulson in Berlin and Nicole Winfield in Rome contributed to this report.
Mint
6 days ago
- Business
- Mint
As the NATO summit approaches, more than cash is at stake
What makes a good NATO ally? Debates over burden-sharing have 'moved and shaken" the alliance ever since its foundation in 1949, says Rafael Loss of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank. Most recently, Donald Trump, in both his first and his present term, has justifiably railed against Europeans for not paying their fair whack while America keeps them all safe. He has struck a chord, even with the laggards. Belgium's defence minister has vowed to end a 'period of national shame" whereby the country 'was not loyal to its status as a founding member of NATO, but acted as the most notorious free rider of the entire alliance". Even Iceland, which has no armed forces, is looking into ways of being 'a good ally". To get a sense of how things stand, look to the 'three Cs": cash (how much is spent), capabilities (what it is spent on) and commitment (deployment on missions). Begin, as politicians generally do, with cash. At first glance there is much to commend. All but ten of NATO's 32 members meet the current spending target of 2% of GDP, compared with 25 delinquents a decade ago. Italy and Spain, two of the alliance's lowest spenders, have pledged to hit it this year, too. But the positives mostly stop there. For one thing, the 2% goal is obsolete; at the summit that will open on June 24th in The Hague, the alliance is expected to agree to a new target of 3.5% of GDP, plus a further 1.5% for complementary infrastructure. Moreover, the narrow focus on percentages is a poor way of measuring fighting readiness. Members have long padded their figures by cramming barely related budget items under the umbrella of defence. A better gauge of who is pulling their weight is to look at what the cash is spent on. NATO asks that members spend at least 20% of their military budgets on equipment. Virtually all meet that mark (see chart), though it is likely to be raised to one-third at the summit. But again, a focus on numbers can obscure whether the kit serves the purpose of collective defence. Take Greece. Last year it lavished 36% of its military budget on equipment, one of the highest rates. Yet much of that is focused on countering Turkey, another NATO ally, not Russia. The alliance has long sought to influence the kit bought by members through the NATO Defence Planning Process. Under this, allies agree to buy equipment based on the alliance's operational needs. But two decades of fighting jihadists bent that process out of shape. Many members invested in a hotch-potch of systems without much co-ordination. The Russia threat has helped focus minds. 'Instead of building forces for a range of potential scenarios across multiple theatres," write Angus Lapsley and Admiral Pierre Vandier, two NATO officials in charge of the new planning cycle, allies will be asked to 'focus primarily" on deterring Russia. What the division of labour will look like is not yet clear. NATO is expected to sign off on new 'capability targets" in June, which will determine the equipment each member will be asked to provide. They will probably prioritise areas where America has traditionally dominated but may now pull back, such as intelligence collection, deep strike or strategic lift. Just over three-quarters of members have agreed to the new plans, including 'those who [don't] usually accept", noted Mr Vandier. NATO is mulling greater specialisation. The head of its Military Committee, Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, has called for a 'multi-speed approach" whereby bigger armed forces would take on the brunt of projecting power against Russia, while smaller states focus on more humdrum but achievable tasks like logistics or cyber-security. That is already the case to some extent. Luxembourg, with just 900 soldiers, is a critical node in providing space-based satellite communications and contributes to NATO's spyplane programme. Iceland operates an air-defence and surveillance system. But cajoling recalcitrants like Spain and Italy might be trickier. Planners could play to their strengths by asking them to invest more in maritime assets. NATO should take heart when it comes to actual operational commitments, the third C. Even the stingiest allies have skin in the game. On the eastern flank, Spain is in charge of a brigade-sized multinational force in Slovakia, and Italy oversees one in Bulgaria. Portuguese fighter aircraft help patrol the skies over the Baltics. Nearly every small member—from Croatia and Albania to Slovenia—contributes troops to NATO's eastern flank. The more pressing question is whether these limited commitments will be beefed up. In the case of a major war in the east, NATO wants to be able to muster around 100,000 troops within ten days, a sharp jump from the 40,000 it budgets for today. It wants to raise a further 200,000 troops within 30 days. Without American boots, Europeans will struggle to be ready to reach those targets, unless they spend considerably more on recruitment. Cash might still be king after all. © 2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on
