Latest news with #NatoSecretaryGeneral
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Why Europe should hijack Nato for its own purposes
Call it the five-for-five summit. When Nato leaders meet in The Hague next week, European allies will sign up to a phoney transatlantic bargain in which they pretend they will spend 5% of their economic output on defence and Donald Trump pretends in return that he is committed to Article 5 of the Nato treaty, the mutual defence clause that he has repeatedly undermined. The Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, is deploying all his considerable political wiles and powers of persuasion to contrive a short, 'no surprises' summit at which fundamental differences over Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, trade, the Middle East and liberal democratic values are deliberately excluded. With a US president who disregards the interests of his allies and casts doubt on the collective commitments of the alliance, Rutte has plotted a path through the minefield to keep Nato in business and working to support Ukraine despite the looming expiry of US arms supplies to Kyiv. Diplomats say that instead of the usual comprehensive communique, the summit will issue only a short joint statement, centred on the defence investment pledge to devote 3.5% of GDP to core military expenditure by 2032, with another 1.5% earmarked for defence-related activities such as support for Ukraine, cybersecurity, infrastructure for military mobility and resilience. While Nordic and Baltic states and Poland may meet the core target, the reality is that countries such as the UK, France, Italy and Spain are unlikely to reach that goal because of fiscal constraints and domestic politics. While leaders will recall their past declarations, there will be no explicit mention of Nato's pledge that Ukraine and Georgia will one day be members, which Trump opposes. Just last year, the US under Joe Biden signed up to a statement that Ukraine's path to Nato membership was 'irreversible'. Trump has pulled the handbrake. But at this hypocrites' ball, neither the European allies nor the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is due to make an appearance on the sidelines of the summit, have an interest in a showdown. Preventing a transatlantic train wreck is the best they can hope for. Nato's first secretary general, Hastings Ismay, described the objectives of the alliance as 'to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down'. Keeping the Americans in remains paramount for European security in order to keep the Russians out as Vladimir Putin pursues his war in Ukraine. Nowadays, the allies want the Germans up as major defence spenders. And some would add another aim to the list: keeping the Chinese down. Hopes that Trump might sign up to tougher sanctions against Russia or renew US military assistance to Ukraine have faded. European arms and ammunition supplies are providing enough to keep Ukraine in the fight for now, but with stocks exhausted it will require a massive surge in European defence industrial production to keep sufficient supplies flowing to Kyiv. Rutte's choreography is aimed at avoiding the kind of near disaster that marked the Nato summit in 2018, when Trump berated the then German chancellor Angela Merkel over Berlin's paltry military budget and dependency on Russian gas, and told the allies that if they did not spend more on defence, the US would 'go our own way'. European leaders are seeking an understanding with Trump that, while they beef up their militaries and increase force deployments on the eastern flank, the US will not suddenly withdraw crucial capabilities until Europe is ready to take responsibility. That includes air and missile defences and enablers such as satellite intelligence, command and control systems, strategic airlift and air-to-air refuelling. This burden-shifting requires a managed transition over five to 10 years rather than sudden unilateral announcements from the Pentagon or the White House on Truth Social. They also hope to convince Trump to call off his tariff war against Europe and Canada if he wants them to find extra resources for defence. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion Whether the Europeans can obtain that much in The Hague is far from certain. Trump is notoriously unpredictable and prone to unscripted outbursts when the cameras are rolling. Rutte will massage his ego and give him credit for jolting the Europeans into huge increases in defence spending. Trump has already allayed one of the allies' fears by nominating a new supreme allied commander Europe, after US media reports that the Pentagon was considering giving up the Nato command it has held ever since its creation in 1951. But European leaders must realise that they are living on borrowed time, with the US security focus inexorably shifting towards countering China. They need to hijack Nato for their own purposes. Diplomats call this building the European pillar of Nato. In practice it means European governments making maximum use of Nato's chain of command and decades of experience in collective defence planning and multinational force integration to prepare for the day when they may need to act without the US. That day could come soon if there were a ceasefire in Ukraine and a European-led coalition of the willing were to provide security guarantees for Kyiv, either by deploying forces in-country or helping secure its air and sea space from Nato territory. But until the Europeans are ready to grab the Nato steering wheel, the best option is to extend and pretend. Paul Taylor is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
We must listen to the Baltic States. The Russian hybrid threat is growing
During his visit to London last week, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte issued this dire warning about the threat of Russian aggression: 'Russia could be ready to use military force against Nato within five years. Let's not kid ourselves, we are all on the Eastern flank now.' Rutte warned that Russia produces more ammunition in three months than Nato manufactures in a year and spotlit Chinese technology's critical role in reconstituting Russia's military arsenal. Rutte's stark warning aimed to snap European countries out of their state of complacency but received a mixed reception on the continent. As Russia helplessly watched the destruction of some of its most-prized strategic bombers and struggles to gain a decisive offensive advantage in eastern Ukraine, Rutte's framing seemed hyperbolic to many in Western Europe. For the Baltic States, however, Rutte's rhetoric was not nearly strident enough. Due to his past support for the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline and sluggish approach to increasing defence spending as Dutch Prime Minister, Rutte was already an unpopular figure in the Baltic States. Rutte's latest comments reawakened those critiques as they depicted Russia as a long-term danger rather than an urgent threat to Nato's security. The Baltic States have compelling reasons to be frustrated with Rutte's incrementalism. By illegally transiting its shadow fleet of oil tankers through the Baltic Sea, weaponising migration across land borders and carrying out disruptive cyberattacks, Russia has demonstrated that it is on a war footing with the Baltic States. By dismissing these aggressive actions as mere hybrid threats, Nato risks trivialising an existential threat to the cogency of its alliance. The mood of frustration in the Baltic States is especially pronounced because of the long build-up to Russia's current escalations against them. When I spoke to senior Estonian officials last month, they argued that Russia never truly viewed the Baltic States as sovereign after they restored their independence in 1991. As Estonia pushed for Nato membership during the 1990s, Russian ultranationalists began issuing apocalyptic threats. After earning a plurality of votes in the 1993 legislative elections, LDPR leader and ultranationalist firebrand Vladimir Zhirinovsky warned Estonians to flee to Sweden on fishing boats and threatened to deport the Estonians who stayed home to Siberia. But instead of being recognised for presciently warning about the Russian threat, the Baltic States were all-too-often accused of crying wolf. Even after Russia displayed its true hand by illegally annexing Crimea in 2014 and launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Baltic States still struggled to get their message heard. In response to tightening sanctions against Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko warned in May 2021 that he would allow drugs and migrants to flood into European Union (EU) territory. Lukashenko's threats came to pass as illegal migrants overwhelmed Latvia and Lithuania's border defences in the autumn of 2021. Despite the scale of this threat, the EU refused to finance the construction of a border wall on Lithuania's frontiers. In response to the unresponsiveness of key Nato countries to their concerns, the Baltic States have taken matters into their own hands. From announcing 5 per cent of GDP defence spending targets to Lithuania's investment of $1.2 billion in border security with Belarus and Russia, three of Nato's smallest member states are setting a positive example for the rest of the alliance. These states are also trying to steer Nato towards committing to a firmer response to security threats that fall below the threshold of conventional war. Their argument is that Russia's hybrid threats are steps on an escalation ladder that could lead to full-scale war. Lithuanian officials justified this contention by arguing that shadow-fleet ships could escalate from cutting undersea cables to destroying liquefied natural gas terminals and use disruptive GPS jamming to down civilian aeroplanes. Based on its track record, Russia would maintain a level of deniability around these aggressive actions and any Baltic retaliation could lead to an invasion. As Nato's Article 5 security guarantees do not clearly extend to hybrid threats, former Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves and former Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis recently called for the creation of a new permanent discussion forum on hybrid threats and the potential construction of a Baltic regional security organisation with robust military capabilities. In the European Parliament and Nato gatherings, Baltic officials are calling for European countries to re-evaluate their risk aversion in confronting Russian aggression head-on and to more thoroughly sanction the financial infrastructure that supports the shadow fleet. The efficacy of Ukraine's cross-border operations and the limitations of Russia's retaliatory capacity has caused some Baltic officials to view an exclusive focus on deterrence as obsolete. Ahead of the Nato summit in the Hague later this month, there will be a major focus on Ukraine's future within the organisation. Time should also be devoted to addressing the concerns of the Nato alliance's three most vulnerable and committed participants.
The Independent
10-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Nato boss says increase defence spending or start learning Russian
Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte urged Nato countries to commit to a 'credible path' towards spending 5 per cent of their national income on defence, citing the growing threat from Russia. Rutte suggested that if countries fail to meet the 5 per cent defence spending target, they 'had better learn to speak Russian,' implying a potential inability to defend themselves. While Rutte did not specify a deadline for reaching the 5 per cent target, which is more than double what the UK currently spends on defence, he indicated ongoing consultations with allies to agree on a date. The UK 's strategic defence review commits to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by April 2027, aiming for 3 per cent in the next parliament. Rutte highlighted the need for a 'quantum leap' in defence capabilities, including a 400 per cent increase in air and missile defence, warning that Russia could be ready to use force against Nato within five years.
BBC News
09-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Canada pledges to meet Nato's 2% defence spending target next year
Canada will significantly boost its defence spending to hit a Nato target of 2% of GDP years earlier than planned, Prime Minister Mark Carney has a speech at the University of Toronto on Monday, Carney said the action was required to ward off the "multiplying" threats from hostile governments, terrorist entities and cyber criminals. He also conceded his country was "too reliant" on the United States for defence, adding that Washington was "reducing its relative contribution to our collective security". Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte is pushing for members to agree to a new spending target of 3.5% of GDP at a summit later this month. In his address, Mark Carney said the world was at a "hinge moment" similar to the end of the Second World War. He said his country must act in the face of an aggressive Russia and China, and threats to Arctic also accused Washington of looking to "monetise its hegemony" by making access to its market more spent 1.4% of its GDP on defence in 2024. GDP stands for gross domestic product, and is a measure of all the economic activity of companies, governments, and people in a the election campaign earlier this year, Carney had pledged to hit the 2% spending target by 2030, while the previous government under Justin Trudeau had promised to meet it by 2032. However on Monday, Carney said the spending goal would be hit by March next prime minister said Canada's equipment had aged, "hindering our military preparedness".Only one of four submarines were seaworthy and less than half the maritime fleet and land vehicles were in good working order, he said. Carney said the new strategy would have four pillars - investing more in soldiers and equipment, expanding the military's capability, strengthening the domestic defence industry, and diversifying Canada's defence partnerships. This is an age where "middle powers" must act to defend themselves knowing "if they're not at the table, they're on the menu", Carney said. Carney's announcement comes just a week before Canada hosts the G7 Summit from 15 to 17 June. Speaking to reporters later, Carney said the government's new plan includes a cash increase of C$9.3bn ($6.5bn, £4.8bn) for this fiscal year, which he said will bring Canada's defence spending to the Nato threshold. Some of it would be immediately "spendable" on personnel and would include investing in new submarines, aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and artillery, as well as new drones and sensors to monitor activity in the Arctic and seafloor approaches to the country, he said. Carney said the government would also create a new defence procurement agency, following criticisms of the current process as slow and unwieldly. The agency would "move more quickly in making procurement decisions" and would focus on building domestic capacity.A report by a parliamentary committee in June 2024 highlighted that delays, cost overruns, bureaucratic hurdles, a shortage of personnel and the politicisation of the defence procurement process raised concerns about the government's ability to provide the armed forces with the equipment it needed "in a timely and cost-effective manner". Nato members have for years pledged to meet the 2% target - now seen as the bare minimum - but Canada has long lagged behind its allies. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte arrived in London on Monday where he said the military alliance needed a "400% increase in air and missile defence" to maintain a credible defence deterrence. Last week, Rutte proposed that Nato members spend 5% of their GDP on defence - something US President Donald Trump has called for in the past.
