The Lowdown On This Week's NATO And EU Summits
I'm RFE/RL Europe Editor Rikard Jozwiak, and this week I am drilling down on two big gatherings: The NATO summit in the Hague, followed by the EU summit in Brussels a day later.
Briefing #1: All You Need To Know Ahead Of The NATO Summit
What You Need To Know:NATO leaders will gather in The Hague on June 2425 with one key question looming: Can they agree on a hefty new defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP? The spotlight, however, will be firmly on US President Donald Trump.
Ahead of the Hague meeting, speculation had been mounting that he may skip the summit altogether, although the White House eventually confirmed he will be present.
The summit has essentially been designed to please the American leader and avoid any sign of disharmony in the club. Lingering fears remain of a repeat of the infamous 2018 NATO summit in Brussels, when Trump -- then in his first term -- threatened to pull the United States out of the alliance unless European countries and Canada significantly increased their defense outlays.
Since then, most allies have ramped up spending, with most now reaching the 2 percent target agreed in Wales in 2014, driven by a mix of American pressure and the war in Ukraine.
What was supposed to be a three-day-meeting in the Netherlands has now been reduced to a social dinner with spouses hosted by the Dutch king at one of the city's royal palaces on June 24, followed by a working session of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) the following day -- a meeting not even expected to last three hours. And that's it.
Deep Background:It is at the NAC session that leaders will agree on the so-called Hague Declaration. The document hasn't been finally approved yet, but earlier drafts RFE/RL has seen indicate it will be a short one.
While previous summit texts stretched several pages, touching upon all sorts of policy items, this one may only have as few as five paragraphs. Last year, it was 38 paragraphs with an additional six-point annex outlining security assistance for Ukraine. The key issue is the 5 percent defense spending target and when it should be reached.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has already sent a letter to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte ahead of the meeting saying the target is unreasonable and asking for an exemption for Madrid. Just before the summit, Spain was given some flexibility by Rutte to reach the target.
The 5 percent target proposed by Rutte includes 3.5 percent for "hard" military spending on capabilities such as missiles, helicopters, and fighter jets. The other 1.5 percent has been earmarked for "resilience" -- a deliberately vague term for most member states as this spending can include pretty much anything.
Most are likely to spend it on infrastructure, however, to improve military mobility. And they may also include contributions to Kyiv here, with the draft document noting that "allies reaffirm their commitment to provide support to Ukraine and, to this end, will include direct contributions toward Ukraine's defense and its defense industry when calculating Allies' defense spending."
Drilling Down
Disagreements also remain over the deadline for reaching the 5 percent target. Apart from the United States, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, few are happy with 2032 as the target date, simply because they think it is impossible to meet this deadline.
It now looks like 2035 will be the target instead. In any event, the declaration will include a reference to a review of the target in 2029.
It has not been lost on NATO officials that this date comes a year after the next US presidential elections, even though they have been quick to insist that this is simply the halfway mark between now and 2032.
To the relief of European allies, NATO's mutual defense clause -- Article 5 -- is referenced in the draft declaration amid persistent fears that Washington wasn't truly committed to coming to the aid of the other 31 allies if they were attacked. Russia is also mentioned in the text as a "long-term threat" to Euro-Atlantic security.
The document will also reference transatlantic industrial cooperation, a nod to Washington's interest in ensuring US companies also benefit from a European defense splurge.
Furthermore, it reveals next year's summit will be in Turkey followed by a meeting in Albania. Turkey has long sought to host a NATO summit, but several alliance members have for years been reluctant due to the ongoing crackdown on the Turkish opposition. Now, with Ankara's growing geopolitical clout, from the Middle East to Ukraine, that ambition will finally be realized in 2026.
Another major uncertainty is how prominently Ukraine will feature at the upcoming summit. Kyiv's NATO membership aspirations were headline topics at the Vilnius summit in 2023 and again in Washington a year later, but talk about this has died down since Trump publicly dismissed the country's chances of joining.
There is no mention of Ukraine's potential membership in the draft Hague texts, with some NATO diplomats telling RFE/RL under condition of anonymity they believe omitting any mention is better than including a watered-down version of the language from the Vilnius and Washington communiques, which at least promised future membership.
With no formal NATO-Ukraine Council slated for the summit at the leaders' level, NATO foreign ministers will instead have something of a compensatory dinner on June 24 in the presence of their Ukrainian counterpart, Andriy Sybiha.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will also be in The Hague to attend the leaders' social dinner, an event that NATO's Indo-Pacific partners -- Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea -- are also due to attend.
Zelenskyy may also take part in some sidebar events at the summit, such as the NATO defense industry forum. There may also be a "mini summit" on Ukraine with Rutte and other European leaders after the formal NATO meeting is over.
Briefing #2: And The EU summit In Brussels
What You Need To Know:A day after the NATO summit in The Hague ends, EU leaders will take the short journey south to Brussels for their regular summer European Council. Kicking off on the morning of June 26, this summit may continue into the next day as there are plenty of items on the agenda -- most notably Iran, where the EU is struggling to stay relevant. According to the Brussels diplomats I have spoken with, however, the bloc stillaims to act as a conduit for potential direct talksbetween the United States and Tehran.
That said, there are also several key political decisions on the table -- especially concerning Ukraine. When Poland took over the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union with much pomp and circumstance at the start of the year, the stated goal was that formal EU accession talks would start with Ukraine and Moldova during the first six months of 2025. Polish diplomats had even confidently voiced hopes that more than one of the six negotiating clusters would be opened during their chairmanship. It's fair to say that things have not panned out as expected.
Deep Background:Unanimity is needed for every cluster to be opened, and Hungary has persistently blocked any move to this effect, even conducting a widely criticized consultative referendum on Ukrainian EU membership.
This summit is something of a "last chance saloon" to unblock the situation, but few diplomats believe Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban will give it much thought. Some think that maybe things will get moving on this issue after the summit in July when Denmark takes over the presidency.
However, since this has increasingly become a domestic political issue in Hungary, most believe Budapest will continue vetoing progress until the country's parliamentary elections in April 2026.
As regards Ukraine and Moldova, the draft summit declaration seen by RFE/RL states that "the European Council looks forward to the next steps in the accession process in line with the merit-based approach, with clusters being opened when the conditions are met."
The key question now is whether Ukraine and Moldova should be separated in the accession process, as none of the 27 EU member states appears opposed to allowing Chisinau to proceed. Several member states, however, are reluctant to green-light this "decoupling" as they don't want to "succumb to Hungarian blackmail," as they put it, and believe the pair should continue together on the road to membership.
On the other hand, the EU also wants to give Moldova a carrot, with thefirst-ever EU-Moldova summit in early Julyand what are expected to be tightly fought parliamentary elections in September.
Drilling Down
The most likely scenario, however, is that all preparatory work on the accession talks will continue in the hope that every cluster can be opened once there is approval from everyone.
For now, the most likely candidate to show concrete progress at the end of June is Montenegro, which is expected to close a cluster of chapters on June 27.
So much for the "EU enlargement momentum" that eurocrats have so often keenly propagated in previous years. If there is one area where Hungary -- and increasingly Slovakia -- may be more willing to move forward, it's sanctions against Russia.
There are two decisions to be taken on sanctions: the newly proposed18th round of restrictive measuresand the six-month rollover of all sanctions imposed on the Kremlin since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago.
Several European diplomats have indicated there might be something of a quid pro quo during the summit, whereby both sanctions decisions will be adopted, but it will be generally accepted that Ukraine cannot move forward on the accession path for now.
For most officials, the most important thing is to get an extension of all the previous sanctions.
This includes all frozen Russian assets in the bloc, totaling over 200 billion euro ($230 billion).
Hungary was toying with the idea of not a giving thumbs-up to the prolongation last time around in January, but officials think it won't be too dramatic this time, with Russia's increased attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets making any calls for potential peace talks moot.
The fact that the actual deadline for the extension isn't till the end of July means most people RFE/RL has spoken are confident that something can be worked out.
For the 18th sanctions package, most things have been agreed on a diplomatic level already.
This is not too surprising, as most of the blacklistings and proposals -- such as de-SWIFTing Russian banks and sanctioning Nord Stream 1 and 2 -- have been relatively uncontroversial.
Quick approval is also more likely now that the headline proposal to lower the Russian oil price cap from $60 to $45 per barrel appears unlikely to gain traction.
The United States didn't get onboard with this idea at the recent Group of Seven summit, and few believe that the EU -- even with potential political support from allies such as Britain and Canada -- is willing or able to lower the cap without Washington.
Looking Ahead
On June 25, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be in Strasbourg to sign the final document establishing a new tribunal investigating the Russian crimes of aggression against Ukraine. The new court has been in the works ever since the full-scale invasion of the country over three years and will now be one step closer to realization.
That's all for this week!
Feel free to reach out to me on any of these issues on X @RikardJozwiak, or on e-mail atjozwiakr@rferl.org.
Until next time,
Rikard Jozwiak
If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition subscribehere.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
3 hours ago
- CBC
Carney wants to spend an extra $9B on defence by April. Is that possible?
Social Sharing Prime Minister Mark Carney's goal of hitting NATO's defence spending target of two per cent of gross domestic product this year will be an uphill — nearly impossible — battle, say experts and critics. An extra $8.7 billion is earmarked for defence spending by the Department of National Defence (DND) or other government departments, and $370 million for the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Allies had been pushing Canada to meet NATO's goal for nearly 20 years — but actually actually doing so became imperative with Donald Trump in the White House. "Mark Carney's words are right, but he's gotta crack the whip here real quick," said John Ball, a former Canadian defence industry executive for nearly four decades and now consultant. NATO defines defence expenditures as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, or those of allies and the alliance. Conservative MP and defence critic James Bezan warns it will be difficult for procurement officials inside government to reverse a long-standing culture of risk aversion, deferred decisions and allowing billions of dollars in lapsed spending. WATCH | Canadian defence spending expected to climb further: Canada, NATO allies agree to 5% defence spending target 1 month ago "By the time we get back into Parliament and a budget is passed, we're going to have half a year to spend money that the department won't be able to shovel out the door," Bezan said in an interview with CBC News. He wonders if the government will just engage in a "game of creative accounting" to meet its NATO commitments on paper. But some within the Canadian defence industry as well as DND and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) themselves point to existing mechanisms that can be leveraged to move quickly. Those include the use of standing offers, supply arrangements and pre-qualified vendor lists, as well as strategic partnerships with defence companies identified as centres of excellence, bilateral partnerships with other countries and the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. In situations that are truly time sensitive, the government can invoke a National Security Exception (NSE), Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) or issue an Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN). Although these have strict eligibility criteria and are not everyday tools. "If the government can demonstrate to us that this is in the interest of national security and there is a limited availability from a competitive factor, we would be open to those types of procurement," said Bezan. "But we can't make a habit of using NSEs as a way to … get the equipment that we require for the Canadian Armed Forces." Carney outlined on June 9 the general areas for increased investment, but gave no specifics. The list included better compensation; health care and infrastructure for personnel; new equipment such as aircraft, armed vehicles and ammunition; expanding the Canadian Coast Guard and moving it under DND; repairing and maintaining existing ships, aircraft and other assets; and developing new drones and sensors to monitor the sea floor and the Arctic. "We think it's largely going to be made up of items that are already identified or some that have been languishing in the procurement pipeline or projects that were underfunded," said Christyn Cianfarani, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). Spending at home One way to spend faster would be to expand existing orders for armoured vehicles, ships and planes. For example, augmenting an existing contract for 360 light armoured vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems in London, Ont. A company spokesperson says it would be able to quickly respond to contract amendment requests. But if the government intends to buy equipment not already on order or in the inventory, Cianfarani argues DND and PSPC have to change their approach. "There should not be a protracted procurement process," she said. "Probably a good portion of that $9 billion could be spent on Canadian firms." The prime minister has explicitly stated that part of the goal is to build up the Canadian defence industry, while acknowledging that continuing to do business with allies, including the U.S., will remain necessary. Cianfarani is far from alone in her concern over Canada's procurement process, one of the main reasons critics argue spending $9 billion in less than a year is doubtful. PSPC says its preference is for open, fair and competitive procurement. But many argue the process is overly long, and in some cases merely a box-ticking exercise where the winner is a foregone conclusion. "Why did they do it? They did it to appease," said Ball of those requests for proposals that already have a preferred candidate in mind. Cianfarani said it's frustrating for firms to spend millions on a bid for which they never had a real chance. She said it would be better to engage in "directed procurement" more often, as is done in other countries, where the government knows what it wants to invest in — and who the best suppliers are — and it then chooses them. But Bezan and others warn of the risk of boondoggles increases if the rush to spend money also means hurried oversight. "Talking about going to two per cent, and higher down the road, doesn't mean we give licence to spend money frivolously," said Bezan. 'Deliberate urgency' Those in the defence industry argue that they too want to make sure there's value for money. "I use the phrase 'deliberate urgency,' in that we need to think about how that money impacts the Canadian economic situation," said Chris Pogue, a former Royal Canadian Air Force pilot and now president of Calian Defence and Space. "I don't think we should let urgency overcome smart procurement, but things can move quickly if we have a sense of the direction we want to go and the kind of capability we need." Pogue said capabilities around sovereignty need to be homegrown, such as equipment and supplies needed for operations in the Arctic. An additional challenge is that most defence spending, at least on the capital side, is spent and accounted for over a number of years. But a senior government official says they truly plan to increase defence spending by $9 billion before April. That said, the government continues to describe both the amount and the deadline as targets, not certainties.
Winnipeg Free Press
12 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Smithsonian denies White House pressure to remove Trump impeachment references
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House did not pressure the Smithsonian to remove references to President Donald Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit and will include him in an updated presentation 'in the coming weeks,' the museum said Saturday. The revelation that Trump was no longer listed among impeached presidents sparked concern that history was being whitewashed to appease the president. 'We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit,' the Smithsonian statement said. A museum spokesperson, Phillip Zimmerman, had previously pledged that 'a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments,' but it was not clear when the new exhibit would be installed. The museum on Saturday did not say when in the coming weeks the new exhibit will be ready. A label referring to Trump's impeachments had been added in 2021 to the National Museum for American History's exhibit on the American presidency, in a section called 'Limits of Presidential Power.' The section includes materials on the impeachment of Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson and the Watergate scandal that helped lead to President Richard Nixon's resignation. 'The placard, which was meant to be a temporary addition to a twenty-five year-old exhibition, did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation,' the statement said. 'It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case. For these reasons, we removed the placard.' Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice — in 2019, for pushing Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden, who would later defeat Trump in the 2020 presidential election; and in 2021 for 'incitement of insurrection,' a reference to the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters attempting to halt congressional certification of Biden's victory. The Democratic majority in the House voted each time for impeachment. The Republican-led Senate each time acquitted Trump.
Winnipeg Free Press
20 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariffs – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded – dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' – April 2 – when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year — but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks … your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. ____ AP Economics Writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this story.
