
The Five Percenters: NATO's Promise Of War
The confidence trickster was at it again on his visit to The Hague, reluctantly meeting members of the overly large family that is NATO. President Donald Trump was hoping to impress upon all present that allies of the United States, whatever inclination and whatever their domestic policy, should spend mightily on defence, inflating the margins of sense and sensibility against marginal threats. Never mind the strain placed on the national budget over such absurd priorities as welfare, health or education.
The marvellous irony in this is that much of the budget increases have been prompted by Trump's perceived unreliability and capriciousness when it comes to European affairs. Would he, for instance, treat obligations of collective defence outlined in Article 5 of the organisation's governing treaty with utmost seriousness? Since Washington cannot be relied upon to hold the fort against the satanic savages from the East, various European countries have been encouraging a spike in defence spending to fight the sprites and hobgoblins troubling their consciences at night.
The European Union, for instance, has put in place initiatives that will make getting more weaponry and investing in the military industrial complex easier than ever, raising the threshold of defence expenditure across all member countries to 3.5% of GDP by the end of the decade. And then there is the Ukraine conflict, a war Brussels cannot bear to see end on terms that might be remotely favourable to Russia.
The promised pecuniary spray made at the NATO summit was seen by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as utterly natural if not eminently sensible. Not much else was. It was Rutte who remarked with infantile fawning that 'Sometimes Daddy has to use tough language' when it came to sorting out the murderous bickering between Israel and Iran. Daddy Trump approved. 'He likes me, I think he likes me,' the US president crowed with glowing satisfaction.
Rutte's behaviour has been viewed with suspicion, as well it should. Under his direction, NATO headquarters have made a point of diminishing any focus on climate change and its Women, Peace, and Security agenda. He has failed to make much of Trump's mania for the annexation of Greenland, or the President's gladiatorial abuse of certain leaders when visiting the White House – Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa come to mind. 'He is not paid to implement MAGA policy,' grumbled a European NATO diplomat to Euroactive.
In his doorstep statement of June 25, Rutte made his wish known that the NATO collective possess both the money and capabilities to cope, not just with Russia 'but also the massive build-up of military in China, and the fact that North Korea, China and Iran, are supporting the war effort in Ukraine'. Lashings of butter were also added to the Trump ego when responding to questions. 'Would you really think that the seven or eight countries not at 2% [of GDP expenditure on defence] at the beginning of this year would have reached the 2% if Trump would not have been elected President of the United States?' It was only appropriate, given the contributions of the US ('over 50% of the total NATO economy'), that things had to change for the Europeans and Canadians.
The centrepiece of the Hague Summit Declaration is a promise that 5% of member countries' gross GDP will go to 'core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations'. Traditional bogeyman Russia is the predictable antagonist, posing a 'long-term threat […] to Euro-Atlantic security', but so was 'the persistent threat of terrorism'. The target is optimistic, given NATO's own recent estimates that nine members spend less than the current target of 2% of GDP.
What is misleading in the declaration is the accounting process: the 3.5% of annual GDP that will be spent 'on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure by 2035 to resource core defence requirements, and to meet NATO Capability Targets' is one component. The other 1.5%, a figure based on a creative management of accounts, is intended to 'protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.'
Another misleading element in the declaration is the claimed unanimity of member states. The Baltic countries and Poland are forever engaged in increasing their defence budgets in anticipation of a Russian attack, but the same cannot be said of other countries less disposed to the issue. Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico, for instance, declared on the eve of the summit that his country had 'better things to spend money on'. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has also called the 5% target 'incompatible with our world view', preferring to focus on a policy of prudent procurement.
Rutte seemed to revel in his role as wallah and jesting sycophant, making sure Trump was not only placated but massaged into a state of satisfaction. It was a sight all the stranger for the fact that Trump's view of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a warm one. Unfortunately for the secretary general, his role will be forever etched in the context of European history as an aspiring warmonger, one valued at 5% of the GDP of any of the NATO member states. Hardly a flattering epitaph.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
The Five Percenters: NATO's Promise Of War
The confidence trickster was at it again on his visit to The Hague, reluctantly meeting members of the overly large family that is NATO. President Donald Trump was hoping to impress upon all present that allies of the United States, whatever inclination and whatever their domestic policy, should spend mightily on defence, inflating the margins of sense and sensibility against marginal threats. Never mind the strain placed on the national budget over such absurd priorities as welfare, health or education. The marvellous irony in this is that much of the budget increases have been prompted by Trump's perceived unreliability and capriciousness when it comes to European affairs. Would he, for instance, treat obligations of collective defence outlined in Article 5 of the organisation's governing treaty with utmost seriousness? Since Washington cannot be relied upon to hold the fort against the satanic savages from the East, various European countries have been encouraging a spike in defence spending to fight the sprites and hobgoblins troubling their consciences at night. The European Union, for instance, has put in place initiatives that will make getting more weaponry and investing in the military industrial complex easier than ever, raising the threshold of defence expenditure across all member countries to 3.5% of GDP by the end of the decade. And then there is the Ukraine conflict, a war Brussels cannot bear to see end on terms that might be remotely favourable to Russia. The promised pecuniary spray made at the NATO summit was seen by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as utterly natural if not eminently sensible. Not much else was. It was Rutte who remarked with infantile fawning that 'Sometimes Daddy has to use tough language' when it came to sorting out the murderous bickering between Israel and Iran. Daddy Trump approved. 'He likes me, I think he likes me,' the US president crowed with glowing satisfaction. Rutte's behaviour has been viewed with suspicion, as well it should. Under his direction, NATO headquarters have made a point of diminishing any focus on climate change and its Women, Peace, and Security agenda. He has failed to make much of Trump's mania for the annexation of Greenland, or the President's gladiatorial abuse of certain leaders when visiting the White House – Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa come to mind. 'He is not paid to implement MAGA policy,' grumbled a European NATO diplomat to Euroactive. In his doorstep statement of June 25, Rutte made his wish known that the NATO collective possess both the money and capabilities to cope, not just with Russia 'but also the massive build-up of military in China, and the fact that North Korea, China and Iran, are supporting the war effort in Ukraine'. Lashings of butter were also added to the Trump ego when responding to questions. 'Would you really think that the seven or eight countries not at 2% [of GDP expenditure on defence] at the beginning of this year would have reached the 2% if Trump would not have been elected President of the United States?' It was only appropriate, given the contributions of the US ('over 50% of the total NATO economy'), that things had to change for the Europeans and Canadians. The centrepiece of the Hague Summit Declaration is a promise that 5% of member countries' gross GDP will go to 'core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations'. Traditional bogeyman Russia is the predictable antagonist, posing a 'long-term threat […] to Euro-Atlantic security', but so was 'the persistent threat of terrorism'. The target is optimistic, given NATO's own recent estimates that nine members spend less than the current target of 2% of GDP. What is misleading in the declaration is the accounting process: the 3.5% of annual GDP that will be spent 'on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure by 2035 to resource core defence requirements, and to meet NATO Capability Targets' is one component. The other 1.5%, a figure based on a creative management of accounts, is intended to 'protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.' Another misleading element in the declaration is the claimed unanimity of member states. The Baltic countries and Poland are forever engaged in increasing their defence budgets in anticipation of a Russian attack, but the same cannot be said of other countries less disposed to the issue. Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico, for instance, declared on the eve of the summit that his country had 'better things to spend money on'. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has also called the 5% target 'incompatible with our world view', preferring to focus on a policy of prudent procurement. Rutte seemed to revel in his role as wallah and jesting sycophant, making sure Trump was not only placated but massaged into a state of satisfaction. It was a sight all the stranger for the fact that Trump's view of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a warm one. Unfortunately for the secretary general, his role will be forever etched in the context of European history as an aspiring warmonger, one valued at 5% of the GDP of any of the NATO member states. Hardly a flattering epitaph.

RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again, drops plan to lift sanctions
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Steve Holland , Reuters US President Donald Trump Photo: SAUL LOEB / AFP US President Donald Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites. Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender. Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on 15 June that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader. "His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life," Trump said in a social media post. "I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," he said. Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the US ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X. Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort. "I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said. Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he said. Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear watchdog - or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said. The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on 13 June. However, Iran's parliament approved moves to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. Trump said Iran still wants to meet about the way forward. The White House said that no meeting between the US and an Iranian delegation has been scheduled thus far. - Reuters


NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Luxon shines on global stage but has work to do at home - Fran O'Sullivan
Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who Luxon would meet with later in the week as the sole political leader from the Indo-Pacific Four present at the big security meeting at the Hague, also had a strong career at Unilever before becoming Dutch Prime Minister. Rutte held that role for almost 14 years before taking up the security alliance leadership in October 2024. Further insights into the Unilever style were shared: I was pointed to a Dutch magazine which acknowledged Unilever disproportionally produces leaders as it invested in leadership development long before it became fashionable, and recruitment always factored in more than IQ alone – soft skills and aspects like motivation, personality and worldview. Unilever also used to hire a surplus of management trainees which hence had to compete; people were often thrown into the deep end by being sent overseas, and because of the surplus, good managers ended up elsewhere as well. In Leiden there was business to do. Luxon worked a room stacked with representatives of Kiwi firms based in the Netherlands and potential Dutch investors in NZ. There was keen interest from the private equity players and investors I spoke with in the Government's drive to increase foreign investment in NZ and to leverage the ground-breaking EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement. This is important as the Government seeks to obtain broader-based investment in NZ. This will be emphasised later this year at the European Business Summit, which is expected to attract participation by potential investors from Europe. The Prime Minister is now in his sweet spot on these international sojourns. He is a practised hand when it comes to putting his hustle on. That was evident at his earlier business meetings in Shanghai and Beijing where he promoted NZ dairy and beef products, tourism and more. His meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang were highly successful. It was obvious at the Great Hall of the People that he had struck a warm accord with both leaders – the body language spoke to that along with flattering comments from the president. At the Nato dinner he was placed with French President Emmanuel Macron and EU President Ursula von der Leyen. The Nato meeting was essentially a drum roll for US President Donald Trump off the back of the US bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and his efforts to bring Israel and Iran back to negotiations. The European partners in Nato have agreed to increase their defence budgets at Trump's urging. The meeting between Rutte and Nato's Indo-Pacific partners – NZ, South Korea, Japan and Australia – was more vanilla. Rutte's statement indicated Nato and the Indo-Pacific Four were committed to strengthening dialogue and co-operation, based on shared strategic interests and common values, and on the recognition that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific is interconnected. Rutte expressed Nato's gratitude to the Indo-Pacific partners for their 'steadfast support' to Ukraine and Flagship Projects. Where Nato and the Indo-Pacific Four will concentrate is on learning from each other on key topics, including the security of supply chains, development, production and procurement processes. They will look to collaborate on projects to deliver capabilities including in the space and maritime domains, and in the area of munitions. There will also be co-operation with Nato on emerging and disruptive technologies and opportunities to foster co-operation on innovation through relevant actors, including dual-use start-ups. It seems clear from the Nato statement that the interoperability of NZ's forces with the Western security alliance will also be pursued with the potential to create collaborative defence industrial opportunities. This is heady stuff. Luxon returned to NZ yesterday after 12 days on the road. He is faced with declining polls, the need to engage more with the senior business community through listening and to ensure domestic issues like NZ's energy security are solved. He's done a good job on the global stage - there is now work to be done at home.