EditNATO’s flattery of Trump at The Hague summit sidesteps critical issues
The Netherlands charm offensive contrasts sharply with Europe’s anxiety about Trump’s reliability
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s effusive praise of U.S. President Donald Trump set the tone for a summit in The Hague designed to secure his approval, but at the cost of sidestepping pressing challenges like Ukraine’s war, Russia’s threat, and a potential U.S. troop drawdown in Europe.
Rutte’s leaked message, publicised by Trump en route, lauded him for achieving “something NO American president in decades could get done,” promising Europe would “pay in a BIG way.”
This overt flattery, echoed by leaders adopting Trump’s “Make NATO Great Again” slogan and hosting him at King Willem-Alexander’s opulent Huis ten Bosch palace, underscores a summit tailored to cement Trump’s dominance while exposing Europe’s diminished strategic clout. The 5% GDP defence spending pledge, a triumph for Trump, masks underlying tensions and economic strains, leaving NATO’s future unity uncertain.
Rutte’s strategy yielded immediate results: NATO’s 32 members endorsed a 5% GDP defence spending target by 2035, with 3.5% for core military capabilities and 1.5% for broader security measures, a significant leap from the 2% guideline.
Trump, who once threatened to abandon NATO, softened his rhetoric, praising allies’ patriotism and criticising only Spain for resisting the target, suggesting it would compensate via trade concessions. The summit’s brevity – its five-paragraph statement a stark contrast to last year’s 38 – avoided divisive issues, omitting explicit references to Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine or Kyiv’s NATO membership aspirations.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, relegated to a pre-summit dinner, secured a separate meeting with Trump, but his marginal role reflected Trump’s ambivalence toward Kyiv compared to his predecessor, Joe Biden.
Misplaced flattery and European subservience
Rutte’s pandering, including his comment that Trump’s berating of Iran and Israel showed “daddy has to use strong language,” paints a troubling image of European allies as overly deferential, prioritizing Trump’s ego over strategic clarity.
This charm offensive, complete with a royal banquet served by 18 footmen, contrasts sharply with Europe’s anxiety about Trump’s reliability. His refusal to directly endorse Article 5, NATO’s mutual defence clause, aboard Air Force One – claiming it has “numerous definitions” – reignited fears of U.S. disengagement, especially as Russia’s aggression looms.
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda’s adoption of “Make NATO Great Again” further underscores Europe’s willingness to mirror Trump’s branding, risking perceptions of subservience.
The EU’s muted influence exacerbates this dynamic. Unlike the U.S., which drives NATO’s agenda, the EU’s fragmented defence policy – spending just 1.7% of GDP in 2024 – limits its sway. The EU’s tardy response to U.S. strikes on Iran, with vague calls for restraint from Kaja Kallas and António Costa, highlighted its diplomatic hesitancy. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, once sceptical of NATO’s survival, now endorses the spending hike, but EU divisions, exemplified by Spain’s fiscal objections, weaken Europe’s collective voice.
Economic and strategic costs
The 5% target, while a diplomatic win for Trump, poses daunting economic challenges. EU nations, with debt exceeding 80% of GDP, would need to nearly triple their €325 billion defence spending to over €900 billion annually.
Britain, grappling with 100% debt-to-GDP, faces an additional £30 billion burden. Creative accounting may inflate reported spending, but as Nick Witney of the European Council on Foreign Relations warns, “disgruntled populations” already strained since 2008 risk fuelling populist unrest.
Spain’s exemption, secured by Rutte’s compromise with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, highlights the target’s uneven feasibility, potentially undermining alliance cohesion.
NATO secures Spain’s agreement on 5% GDP defence spending goal, overcoming resistance
Strategically, the summit’s avoidance of Russia and Ukraine is a glaring omission. Julianne Smith, former U.S. NATO ambassador, called ignoring Ukraine’s war “worrying,” while Slovakia’s Peter Bator lamented a missed chance to signal resolve to Moscow.
Trump’s conciliatory tone toward Russia and reluctance to arm Ukraine contrast with Europe’s hawkish stance, papering over a rift that could paralyze NATO if unresolved. The Kremlin’s claim that NATO portrays Russia as a “fiend of hell” to justify militarization adds pressure, as does uncertainty over Trump’s review of U.S. troop levels in Europe, which European leaders fear could be abrupt.
Trump’s Iran narrative and summit optics
Trump’s summit remarks, comparing U.S. strikes on Iran to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, aimed to bolster his image as a decisive leader, but drew scrutiny. His claim of “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program was contradicted by a Defence Intelligence Agency assessment, reported by The Washington Post, suggesting a mere months-long setback.
Trump’s testy dismissal of the report as “inconclusive” and his accusation of media bias reflect his sensitivity to challenges, a dynamic NATO leaders navigated carefully. The summit’s focus on his spending victory and Iran ceasefire claim – despite ongoing missile exchanges – reinforced his narrative of global supremacy, overshadowing NATO’s broader mission.
As NATO buys time with flattery, the summit’s success hinges on Trump’s sustained commitment. Europe’s deference may preserve alliance unity for now, but avoiding tough questions about Russia, Ukraine, and U.S. troops risks long-term fragility, leaving NATO vulnerable to both external threats and internal discord.
With Reuters, edited by g.g.
NATO chief Mark Rutte speaks during a press conference following the NATO summit at the World Forum in The Hague, Netherlands, 25 June 2025. The Netherlands, for the first time in NATO’s history of existence, is hosting a NATO summit. EPA/ROBIN VAN LONKHUIJSEN
Updated: June 26, 2025 - 06:14
