Italy could classify $13.5 billion bridge as NATO spending
The idea of creating an overpass to the largest island in the Mediterranean had been discussed in Italy for many decades, but its realization has been hampered by high costs, the difficulty of operating in a seismic zone and other issues. If built by the current government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the 3.6-km-long suspension bridge across the Strait of Messina will become the longest in the world.
In its article on Monday, Politico described Italy as 'one of NATO's lowest military spenders,' with Rome investing only 1.49% of its GDP in defense last year, a far cry from the 5% goal approved at the bloc's summit in The Hague in June.
Marking the $13.5 billion bridge as a NATO spending could help Meloni meet the bloc's 5% target and, at the same time, 'convince a war-wary public of the need for major defense outlays at a time when Italy is already inching toward austerity,' the article read.
An unnamed Italian government official told the outlet that no formal decision has yet been made by Rome on classifying the bridge as a security project, but further talks would likely be held soon to 'see how feasible this feels.'
According to another official from the Italian Treasury, who also talked to Politico, the new designation of the project would make raising money for it easier and would also 'override bureaucratic obstacles, litigation with local authorities that could challenge the government in court claiming that the bridge will disproportionately damage their land.'
The problem for Rome is that the Strait of Messina lies outside of Italy's only designated NATO military mobility corridor, the article pointed out.
However, the Italian case is backed by the fact that only 3.5% from the NATO spending target must be allocated for core military needs, while the remaining 1.5% could be steered toward broader strategic resilience projects, including infrastructure.
'Whether NATO — and more importantly, US President Donald Trump, who loves a big building project — will buy into that logic is another matter,' Politico noted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Germany announces deployment of warships to Arctic
Germany will send navy ships to patrol Arctic waters in response to Russia's growing military presence in the region, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced on Monday. Russia has insisted that it is mirroring NATO moves in the far north to maintain balance. Earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that Moscow is closely monitoring the situation in the region and is implementing an appropriate response strategy to potential encroachments on the country's sovereignty. Russia's Arctic coastline stretches over 24,000km. 'As early as this year, Germany will show its presence in the North Atlantic and the Arctic,' Pistorius said at a joint press conference with his Danish counterpart, Troels Lund Poulsen, in Copenhagen. The minister added that the deployment operation, dubbed 'Atlantic Bear', would come in response to mounting maritime threats, claiming 'Russia is militarizing the Arctic.' Pistorius specified that one of Germany's support ships would 'go from Iceland to Greenland and then on to Canada' to take part in joint military drills with NATO allies, including Denmark, Norway, and Canada. 'In addition, we will deploy our maritime patrol aircraft, submarines, and frigates to demonstrate our commitment to that region,' he added. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said in April that members of the US-led military bloc are 'working together' in the Arctic to 'defend this part of NATO territory.' The Kremlin has insisted that NATO's continuing militarization of the region is unwarranted, and that Russia will mirror the moves taken by the bloc. In March, Putin reiterated that Moscow is 'concerned by the fact that NATO countries as a whole are more frequently designating the far north as a bridgehead for possible conflicts.' 'I would like to emphasize that Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,' the Russian president said. He stressed, however, that Moscow would 'reliably protect' its interests in the region by reinforcing its military contingent in response to Western actions.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
NATO circles around China in more ways than one
The June NATO summit, held in The Hague, ended with a significant headline: a collective pledge to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold target, far exceeding the current 2% benchmark, signals a new era of militarization in the West, reflecting anxieties about a rapidly changing world order. While China was notably absent from the summit's final declaration, the specter of the Asian giant loomed large over the event. The omission appears tactical rather than strategic – a thinly veiled attempt to avoid escalating tensions, even as NATO members ramp up rhetoric and military preparations clearly aimed at containing Beijing. Though the summit declaration remained silent on China, the alliance's leadership left little doubt about their true concerns. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, used the summit sidelines to sound alarm bells over China's 'massive military build-up'. Echoing the now-familiar Western narrative, Rutte linked China – alongside Iran and North Korea – to Russia's military operations in Ukraine, accusing Beijing of supporting Moscow's war efforts. These remarks followed Rutte's June address at London's Chatham House, where he described China's military expansion as happening 'at breakneck speed' and labeled Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, and Moscow as an 'awful foursome.' This framing makes clear that the NATO establishment and US leadership regard China not as a partner or even a rival, but a threat. The perception of China as an imminent danger was also echoed at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in May, where US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned of a potential Chinese military move against Taiwan and reiterated Washington's commitment to regional allies – albeit while pressing them to increase their own defense budgets. His remarks left no doubt: the US strategic focus is firmly on the Indo-Pacific, even at the expense of its traditional European commitments. In a notable diplomatic snub, the leaders of Australia, Japan, and South Korea – the so-called 'Indo-Pacific partners' of NATO – cancelled their plans to attend the summit in The Hague. This decision, viewed by observers as a pointed message, undermined NATO's aspiration to consolidate its influence in the region. Since the 2022 Madrid summit, when NATO adopted its 'Strategic Compass' and for the first time classified China as a 'systemic challenge,' the alliance has moved steadily to incorporate the Asia-Pacific into its strategic thinking. It now considers developments in East Asia as directly relevant to Euro-Atlantic security. As such, NATO seeks deeper cooperation with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand to uphold what it calls the 'rules-based order' – a euphemism for Western hegemony. However, the absence of these Indo-Pacific leaders suggests a growing discomfort with NATO's expanding footprint. For many regional actors, NATO's presence in Asia represents not stability, but the risk of being drawn into geopolitical conflicts under the guise of shared security. Further adding to regional unease, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a controversial message at the Shangri-La Dialogue, warning Beijing that NATO could be involved in Southeast Asia unless China convinces North Korea to withdraw its troops from Russia. This statement not only mischaracterized Beijing's independent foreign policy and its complex relations with Pyongyang but also marked a sharp departure from France's previous resistance to NATO's involvement in Asia-Pacific matters. Such remarks, however, are increasingly aligned with the alliance's real trajectory: NATO is no longer content with transatlantic defense. Its strategic horizon is now global, and its compass points East. NATO-China relations, once limited and mostly symbolic, are now strained to the point of near-hostility. The first Chinese representative visited NATO headquarters in 2002, and both sides cooperated on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden after 2008. Since then, however, the relationship has eroded amid intensifying geopolitical competition and diverging security philosophies. Beijing has become increasingly vocal in its criticism. Chinese authorities responded sharply to Rutte's remarks at The Hague, accusing NATO of spreading disinformation about China's stance on Ukraine and conflating the Taiwan question – which Beijing insists is a purely domestic matter – with a war between states. Chinese officials emphasized that NATO's role in the Asia-Pacific is unwelcome and destabilizing, viewing the alliance as a Cold War relic now repurposed to uphold US dominance and contain China's rise. For China, NATO is not just a military alliance, but a political tool used by Washington to limit Europe's engagement with Beijing. From this perspective, NATO's eastward ambitions threaten to derail the potential for constructive China-Europe cooperation, replacing it with division and distrust. China's concerns are not limited to NATO. The revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), the emergence of the 'Squad,' and the 2021 formation of AUKUS – a trilateral pact between the US, UK, and Australia – have only deepened Beijing's fears of encirclement. The AUKUS agreement, under which Australia is to receive nuclear-powered submarines from the US worth $240 billion, has introduced a new and dangerous element into regional security dynamics. Canberra will gain long-range strike capability for the first time and become only the second nation – after the UK – to receive access to US nuclear propulsion technology. Though the Trump administration has initiated a formal review of AUKUS, few expect significant changes. On the contrary, the pact is likely to reinforce the militarization of the region and increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. In contrast to NATO's bloc-based approach, China promotes a regional security framework rooted in multilateralism, inclusiveness, and dialogue. Beijing advocates for an ASEAN-centered architecture and supports institutions like the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES), and the East Asia Summit. It also backs the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and has launched the Global Security Initiative to advance regional stability. Most significantly, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as a key platform for Eurasian states to coordinate on security, with the June meeting of defense ministers in Qingdao underscoring its role in promoting collective peace without resorting to confrontation or hegemonism. The NATO summit may have avoided naming China, but it failed to conceal the reality of growing confrontation. While the alliance doubles down on military spending and expands its strategic reach into Asia, the Global South and a number of key Asia-Pacific states appear increasingly wary of NATO's global ambitions. As the world stands at a strategic crossroads, two competing visions of international security are on display. On one side, NATO and its partners advocate a 'rules-based order' backed by military alliances and deterrence. On the other, China offers a model grounded in multipolarity, multilateral cooperation, consensus-building, and mutual respect. The choice, increasingly, is not between East vs. West – but between confrontation and coexistence.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine presses US for weapons
Ukraine has summoned the US chargé d'affaires in Kiev, John Ginkel, following reports that Washington had suspended deliveries of key weapons systems. Military experts and Western officials have repeatedly stressed that the country wouldn't last without foreign aid. Previously, several American media outlets, including The New York Times, Politico, and NBC News, reported that the US has paused shipments of Patriot missile interceptors, GMLRS rockets, Hellfire missiles, and thousands of 155mm artillery shells. NBC reported that some of these shipments had already arrived in Europe but were withheld from being transferred to Ukrainian forces. According to a statement issued by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Ginkel was 'invited' to a discussion by Foreign Minister Andrey Sybiga on Wednesday. During the talks, the Ukrainians emphasized 'the critical importance of continuing the deliveries of previously allocated defense packages,' particularly air defense systems. The US envoy was informed that any 'delay or procrastination in supporting Ukraine's defense capabilities' would prolong the conflict. Ukraine's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, has not confirmed the pause in weapon deliveries from the US. In a statement on Wednesday, it said that it is 'clarifying the current factual circumstances of the supplies,' stressing that Kiev has not received any official notifications about the suspension. According to media reports, the Pentagon halted the deliveries after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a review of available weapons stockpiles, citing concerns over munitions depletion. White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly has confirmed that some transfers had been paused following a Department of Defense assessment of global commitments, stating that 'this decision was made to put America's interests first.' The latest reported suspension marks the second time that US President Donald Trump's administration has withheld munitions from Kiev since he entered office in January. Kiev has repeatedly voiced frustration over what it sees as dwindling support from Washington. Throughout the conflict, multiple military experts and senior Western officials, including Vladimir Zelensky, have repeatedly acknowledged that without foreign munitions, Ukraine would lose the conflict in fairly short order. Last week, Zelensky met with US President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague to demand more Patriot air defense systems but received no firm promises. Trump said the systems were 'very hard to get' and that the US needed them for its own defense and for Israel. Russia has consistently condemned Western arm shipments to Ukraine, arguing that they only serve to prolong hostilities and lead to more bloodshed without affecting the inevitable outcome of the conflict.
