Latest news with #militaryAlliance
Russia Today
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
NATO circles 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
02-07-2025
- Politics
- 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.
Daily Mail
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Nato's charm wins over 'daddy' Trump: U.S. will stand by its allies, he says… as they pledge extra defence spending
Donald Trump yesterday said he no longer believed Nato is a 'rip-off' and that 'of course' he would help defend Europe if it came under attack. Leaders breathed a sigh of relief as the US President hailed the military alliance and didn't throw a grenade into its summit – as he has done at previous gatherings. In what was largely an exercise in taming the leader of Nato's biggest spender, the alliance's boss Mark Rutte even appeared to joke that Mr Trump was 'Daddy'. There had been growing jitters before the two-day summit after Mr Trump suggested, while travelling to the gathering in The Hague, that he could dismiss Article 5 of the Nato treaty in future. This states that an attack on one Nato country is an attack on all and that member nations will help defend that ally. Asked on Air Force One about whether he would abide by Article 5, he said it 'depends on your definition', adding: 'There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?' But yesterday, asked if he stood by the mutual defence clause, he said: 'I stand with it, that's why I'm here. If I didn't stand with it, I wouldn't be here.' Pressed on whether he would jump to the defence of Nato allies if they came under attack, Mr Trump replied: 'Yeah, of course, why would I be here?' In a post-summit press conference, he added that he had a new view of Nato after seeing how intent leaders were on defending their countries. 'I left here [feeling] differently,' he said. 'These people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them protect their country. They want to protect their country, and they need the United States.' Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez was the only leader to refuse to agree to a new target of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence and security by 2035. All of Nato's 31 other leaders signed up to the target, a long-held demand of Mr Trump. Some still spend less than the current 2 per cent target. Mr Trump has previously suggested he could quit the alliance because of the vast sums America pours into it compared to other countries. In February last year, before being elected President for a second time, he even suggested he would 'encourage' Russia to attack any Nato member that fails to pay its way. Mr Trump reacted angrily to Spain's stance yesterday, saying: 'They want to stay at 2 per cent. I think it's terrible. We're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal. We're going to make them pay twice as much.' Earlier yesterday, Mr Trump met with Mr Rutte on the sidelines of the two-day summit, where they discussed the conflict between Israel and Iran in front of the cameras. Mr Trump said: 'They've had a big fight, like two kids in the schoolyard, you know. 'They fight like hell. You can't stop them. Let them fight for about two or three minutes then it's easier to stop them.' Mr Rutte then joked: 'And then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language'. This was a reference to Mr Trump on Tuesday saying Israel and Iran 'don't know what the f*** they're doing' when asked about the two nations initially breaking a ceasefire brokered by the US President this week. However later, Mr Rutte tried to clarify his comments, saying Mr Trump's description of Iran and Israel as two children fighting 'sounds a little bit like a small child asking his daddy, 'hey, are you still staying with the family?'.So, in that sense, I use 'Daddy,' not that I was calling President Trump Daddy,' he told Reuters. Mr Rutte, known as the 'Trump whisperer' due to his ability to sweet-talk the US premier, denied that his campaign of flattery was 'demeaning'. The Nato secretary-general told a post-summit conference: 'When it comes to making more investments [in defence], would that have been the result of this summit if he would have not been re-elected president?' It came after Mr Rutte also love-bombed the US President in a message which Mr Trump posted on social media. In the private message the Nato boss congratulated Mr Trump for his 'extraordinary' intervention in bombing Iran. 'You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening,' it continued, saying other member states had agreed to increase defence spending. It added: 'You will achieve something NO American President in decades could get done.'
Al Arabiya
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
US strikes on Iran did not violate international law, NATO's Rutte says
US strikes on Iran over the weekend did not violate international law, NATO chief Mark Rutte told reporters on Monday ahead of a summit for the military alliance.
Associated Press
22-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Spain reaches deal with NATO ahead of summit to be excluded from 5% defense spending goal
MADRID (AP) — Spain reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from a 5% of GDP defense spending target, days before the military alliance's leaders will gather at a summit, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said on Sunday. 'Spain will, therefore, not spend 5% of its GDP on defense, but its participation, weight and legitimacy in NATO remain intact,' Sánchez said in a televised address. Sánchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. In letters exchanged on Sunday between NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Sánchez, Spain was granted the exemption and the language around the 5% spending target was made to no longer include 'all allies,' Sánchez said. On Thursday, Sánchez told Rutte in a separate letter that Spain could not commit to the spending target. The move threatened to derail the upcoming summit at The Hague, which U.S. President Donald Trump is due to attend, since any new spending guidelines have to made with the consensus of all 32 NATO member states. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% per NATO estimates on military expenditure, making it the alliance's lowest spender. In April, Sánchez announced that the government would raise defense spending to 2% this year, a move that he received pushback for at home including from some allies. On Friday, Trump said Spain 'has to pay what everybody else has to pay,' calling the eurozone's fourth-largest economy 'a very low payer.' 'They were either good negotiators or they weren't doing the right thing,' Trump told reporters. On Sunday, Sánchez said Spain 'believes that Europe should take charge of its own defense, an idea aligned with opinions such as those expressed by President Trump.' But he called reaching a 5% spending target 'incompatible with our worldview.'
