Trying to satisfy Trump, NATO is running into difficulties
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dätwyler Holding AG (VTX:DAE) Interim Results: Here's What Analysts Are Forecasting For This Year
Shareholders of Dätwyler Holding AG (VTX:DAE) will be pleased this week, given that the stock price is up 18% to CHF147 following its latest half-year results. Dätwyler Holding reported in line with analyst predictions, delivering revenues of CHF563m and statutory earnings per share of CHF1.83, suggesting the business is executing well and in line with its plan. Earnings are an important time for investors, as they can track a company's performance, look at what the analysts are forecasting for next year, and see if there's been a change in sentiment towards the company. So we gathered the latest post-earnings forecasts to see what estimates suggest is in store for next year. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Following last week's earnings report, Dätwyler Holding's five analysts are forecasting 2025 revenues to be CHF1.11b, approximately in line with the last 12 months. Statutory earnings per share are predicted to shoot up 179% to CHF4.98. Before this earnings report, the analysts had been forecasting revenues of CHF1.13b and earnings per share (EPS) of CHF4.52 in 2025. Although the revenue estimates have not really changed, we can see there's been a nice gain to earnings per share expectations, suggesting that the analysts have become more bullish after the latest result. Check out our latest analysis for Dätwyler Holding The consensus price target was unchanged at CHF153, implying that the improved earnings outlook is not expected to have a long term impact on value creation for shareholders. Fixating on a single price target can be unwise though, since the consensus target is effectively the average of analyst price targets. As a result, some investors like to look at the range of estimates to see if there are any diverging opinions on the company's valuation. Currently, the most bullish analyst values Dätwyler Holding at CHF219 per share, while the most bearish prices it at CHF125. This is a fairly broad spread of estimates, suggesting that analysts are forecasting a wide range of possible outcomes for the business. Looking at the bigger picture now, one of the ways we can make sense of these forecasts is to see how they measure up against both past performance and industry growth estimates. It's pretty clear that there is an expectation that Dätwyler Holding's revenue growth will slow down substantially, with revenues to the end of 2025 expected to display 2.4% growth on an annualised basis. This is compared to a historical growth rate of 5.9% over the past five years. By way of comparison, the other companies in this industry with analyst coverage are forecast to grow their revenue at 4.7% per year. Factoring in the forecast slowdown in growth, it seems obvious that Dätwyler Holding is also expected to grow slower than other industry participants. The Bottom Line The biggest takeaway for us is the consensus earnings per share upgrade, which suggests a clear improvement in sentiment around Dätwyler Holding's earnings potential next year. Fortunately, the analysts also reconfirmed their revenue estimates, suggesting that it's tracking in line with expectations. Although our data does suggest that Dätwyler Holding's revenue is expected to perform worse than the wider industry. There was no real change to the consensus price target, suggesting that the intrinsic value of the business has not undergone any major changes with the latest estimates. Following on from that line of thought, we think that the long-term prospects of the business are much more relevant than next year's earnings. We have estimates - from multiple Dätwyler Holding analysts - going out to 2027, and you can see them free on our platform here. We don't want to rain on the parade too much, but we did also find 5 warning signs for Dätwyler Holding that you need to be mindful of. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
9 minutes ago
- Business Insider
I left the US after being laid off from Amazon. Living in the Netherlands is more affordable, and my small business is thriving.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Denise Segler, 54, who moved from Seattle to Haarlem, a city in North Holland, the Netherlands, in 2024. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I fell in love with Europe at 18 during a school trip and promised to live abroad someday. I didn't know when or where, but I would make it happen. Later in life, I found myself divorced, with grown children, and recently laid off from my job. I'm a project manager in Information Technology (IT), and I used to work for Amazon. In January 2023, the company laid off my entire team. After that, I asked myself: What do I want to do with my life? I also questioned what was keeping me in the US. A lot of different things were pulling me toward Europe. I wanted to be my own boss and work as a freelancer. But health insurance in the US is incredibly expensive, and that's not the case in much of Europe. I also think Europeans have a better quality of life and work-life balance. In addition, the political climate in the US added a sense of urgency. Europe was calling my name When 2024 came around, I knew it was finally a good time to take a chance abroad. I had earned higher-level project management credentials and started actively promoting my own business as an IT project manager. I had also taken a trip to Ireland. I spent three weeks there — two on my own, and then my 27-year-old joined me for the last week. During that trip, I realized: OK, I can do this. I can go somewhere unfamiliar and be just fine. I researched different European visas and discovered the Dutch American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) visa. It allows Americans to live in the Netherlands as independent business owners. They just need to maintain a minimum of €4,500 ($5,278) in a business bank account. The visa was attractive to me. I also found out that the Netherlands had more affordable health insurance. Then I looked around, and other things were cheaper: cellphone and internet services. I thought, "Why not give that a try?" While you can do it yourself, I used a Dutch legal professional to file my visa paperwork. The legal office submitted my visa application and documents to the Dutch government on my behalf in August 2024 and let me know the visa was approved in September. I landed in Amsterdam on November 5. The Netherlands is the perfect place for me Before I moved to the Netherlands, I had never visited. But I received a lot of advice from people who had. Everyone had wonderful things to say — it was beautiful, and the people were fantastic. I live just south of Haarlem, the capital of North Holland, in a really cute neighborhood with shops, restaurants, and cafés. I feel very lucky, there's a train station just an eight-minute walk away from my apartment, and I'm right near a shopping area with all kinds of grocery stores. In some ways, the area reminds me of parts of Seattle, like the South Lake Union neighborhood. Before moving to the area, I hired a makelaar, a real estate agent, who helped me find a place to live. There's a housing shortage in the Netherlands, so you have to be either very flexible about where you live or be prepared to spend a lot of money. I was very lucky and ended up getting the first apartment I looked at. I had to pay six months' rent in advance because, as someone new to the country, I didn't have any local rental history. My apartment has a bedroom, a bathroom, and a small second room that I use as an office. There's also a combined living and dining area that leads past the kitchen. I spend more on housing but less on everything else I am self-employed, and I am withdrawing from my retirement account for now, which I do not recommend. So budgeting is important. I am paying more for housing in the Netherlands, about €1,735 ($2,041) for my apartment, but all my other bills are significantly cheaper than in the US. I pay €38 ($45) a month for internet and TV, whereas in the US, I paid over $100. My health insurance is also much cheaper here. Legally, you must have health insurance in the Netherlands, and there are a variety of insurance companies to choose from. In the US, I was on COBRA, which cost over $800 a month. Here, I pay €190 ($224) a month. It could be cheaper, but I added dental coverage and extra benefits for chiropractic care. Since I've been here, I've had my teeth cleaned once by a dentist, and that was about €150 ($176). The insurance paid half, and I paid the other half. I worried that food would be more expensive in the Netherlands, but it's not that bad. Produce is pretty cheap. For example, eggs usually come in packs of 10, costing between $3 and $4, depending on the type. The produce here is fantastic. There are farmers markets all over. I go to one every Wednesday, and I have to be careful because I always come back with all kinds of potatoes and cheeses. I think the bread is better here, too; many stores have in-house bakeries. There are pros and cons to living here English isn't an official language of the Netherlands, though most people speak it fluently. French is also commonly spoken, which works well for me. While I wasn't fully immersed in French, I practiced it five days a week for over a decade, starting when I was about nine years old. The locals are generally welcoming. I have seen someone shouting at people speaking a language other than Dutch or English, but only once or twice in the several months that I've been here. No one has been angry with me for speaking English. I think they take me as a tourist and are glad that I have a few words of Dutch. The people here are kind of direct, but I don't mind that much. Once, I went to get my hair cut, and the hairdresser commented, "Oh, you have to color your gray." I said, "No, I like my gray."' It can be hard to make friends, but there are meetup groups and Tinder, if you want to date. I do miss my chosen friends and family, and I have standing phone calls with them every Sunday night. Moving to the Netherlands was the right decision for me My life is more relaxed in the Netherlands because, honestly, I feel safer here. There aren't nearly as many guns, and I'm living in a safer neighborhood than I was in the US. I'm also not worried that a medical emergency is going to bankrupt me. I'm paying significantly less in bills, and the money I am saving every month on health insurance is going toward my savings and my business. My business is also about ready to take off. I joined two networking organizations of business owners, one based in the Netherlands and one based in the UK. I am working with a business coach, and I will be hiring a branding expert next month. My visa expires in July next year. I can request an extension, which I believe would grant me an additional three years. At that point, I would have been here five years, and I can apply for permanent residency, or, after taking Dutch classes, citizenship. I don't know if I want to become a citizen of the Netherlands, but for now, I'm just happy to be here because I can support myself.
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Social Security COLA for 2026 and Beyond: What Seniors Want
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. American seniors are frustrated with how Social Security adjusts for inflation, and they want change. A new report from The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) shows a clear demand among retirees to improve the way the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is calculated. According to the group's latest survey of 1,92 individuals over the age of 62, 34 percent of respondents identified updating the COLA formula as their top policy priority for enhancing Social Security benefits. And when presented with specific policy options to raise future COLAs, seniors overwhelmingly supported a shift to a more targeted inflation measure. Currently, the Social Security Administration (SSA) calculates COLA based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). This index tracks inflation using the spending habits of younger, urban workers, not retirees. Since 1975, COLAs have been applied annually based on CPI-W data gathered during the third quarter of the year (July through September), with the goal of ensuring benefits rise in line with everyday costs, such as housing, food, and medical care. This year, benefits rose by 2.5 percent. The TSCL, based on current CPI-W readings, expects the 2026 COLA to increase slightly to 2.6 percent. However, regardless of the boost, for many retirees, that formula no longer works. According to the TSCL survey, 68 percent of seniors support replacing the current CPI-W model with the CPI-E, or Consumer Price Index for the Elderly. Developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPI-E is an index that tracks the spending habits of Americans aged 62 and older, focusing on the types of goods and services seniors typically use, such as health care, housing, and prescription drugs. "CPI-E is designed to better reflect the spending habits of people aged 62 and older," Colin Ruggiero, co-founder at told Newsweek. "It gives more weight to health care and housing costs which are two of the fastest-growing expenses for seniors. Switching to CPI-E would make COLAs more relevant and responsive to the real financial pressures seniors face." Chris Motola, a financial analyst at told Newsweek: "The main advantage of CPI-E would be to more heavily weight health care and housing costs in COLA calculations, both of which tend to disproportionately eat into seniors' budgets." Another popular idea is making up for what's already been lost. The TSCL survey found that 57 percent of respondents support a one-time "catch-up" COLA payment to compensate for years when benefits failed to keep pace with actual living costs. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva "A catch-up COLA would be a recognition that past adjustments haven't kept pace with reality," Ruggiero said. "While it's feasible, it would require congressional approval and carry a hefty budgetary cost. Politically, it could gain traction as a way to restore fairness, especially if framed as a correction rather than a new ongoing expense." Still, the limits of these proposals are clear. While COLA reforms could help stabilize seniors' purchasing power, experts caution that they won't fix everything. "Adjusting the COLA is a great start, but it's not the cure-all," said Ruggiero. "We also need broader reforms to strengthen the entire retirement system, including benefit adequacy, solvency, and support for low-income seniors." Motola agreed: "It would go a long way, but again, a major problem is that Social Security isn't really meant to carry the burden alone. We've made it very difficult for people to save money for retirement, and the loss of pensions has placed enormous stress on the system."
