Could this be the most significant Nato since the Cold War?

As the world stops his breath to see what happens further after starting direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites, US President Donald Trump hopes in the Netherlands on Tuesday for the NATO Summit.

It will be Trump’s first NATO meeting since it is re -selected. In the past, he has made an angry comment about the members of the coalition, which are closing the US security guarantee. European colleagues are desperate to prove him wrong. They hope that he persuades him to persuade him or cannot pull America’s abilities out of the continent.

A high -level diplomat – who used to talk in the event of anonymity, “A few weeks ago, relationships with Europe have become so stressful since returning to Trump’s White House – the business tariff and more – we were not even sure that he would turn into this summit.”

“Russia and China were looking for western weakness, it must have been a disaster.”

But Moscow and Beijing may be able to bring out popcorn yet.

NATO general secretary Mark Rute designed the peak around Trump. He aims to flatter it by agreeing to increase in defense spending on a large scale, to show that Europeans will now take more responsibility for their safety.

Rutte also hoped that by focusing the meeting on money, he would avoid any possible clash or outbreak between Trump and his colleagues.

The plan kept with that caution can break.

Now that Iran has launched missiles at Qatar and US Airbase in Iraq in response to Saturday strikes on its nuclear sites, the US Commander-in-Chief may decide to stay in the position room in Washington.

If he comes to Europe, as it was expected, how would it be possible to not talk about the Middle East, given what is at stake? This would present a risk of a decline between the US President and European colleagues, who advocated diplomacy on bombing when coming to Iran.

Trump likes a win and is very thin. He would not want to feel any rejection in the NATO meeting.

Separately, they were assured of a headline -hathanian victory at the summit, European countries committed to spend 5% of the GDP on defense -exactly as they demanded in their first weeks at the White House.

“This summit is about credibility,” how the US Ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitekar, is called it.

But Spain on Sunday claimed that it had obtained the opt -out from the new expense scheme – some Rute later refused.

Other allies from Europe who are struggling to find additional cash are also sharp.

The bottom line is: Europe needs to retain large military and nuclear power. In this way, Rute managed to sign the push that has spent newly spent new big leaders – Bar Spain – Bar Spain. This is a large -scale commitment.

But as an former US ambassador to NATO, Julian Smith told me – yet, there is absolutely no guarantee with Trump.

It is unclear whether the US will sign up for an end-of-sum-committee announcement this week, which recognizes Russia as the main threat to the NATO alliance.

Europe’s belief in the US has been shaken by a soft perspective with Trump’s Moscow as its last protector, and his heavy pressure on Kiv, as he has tried to end the war in Ukraine.

Additionally, on Friday night, you could listen to almost European diplomats grinding their teeth, Trump justified the target of 5% defense spending, while demanding colleagues, while freeing himself and America from commitment.

“I don’t think we need, but I think they need,” he said. “We are supporting NATO … so I don’t think we need, but I think NATO countries need absolutely.”

Then, Europe leaders should have certainly prepared better in terms of self -defense.

He can be blunt and most unexpected, but Trump is not the first US President to transfer military attention and investment in other priority regions from Europe, especially Indo-Pacific, especially Indo-Pacific. President Obama was very clear about that in 2011.

Italy, Belgium, Germany and Netherlands have nuclear weapons stored in the US. It is a 100,000 war-tail soldiers deployed across Europe, of which 20,000 were sent by President Biden after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The continent can reduce the number of contingents, especially with Germany and Poland, planning to build their ground forces over the next few years. The Deputy Director General of the Royal United Services Institute, Malcolm Chalmers, says Europe’s dependence on America.

It has trusted Washington for intelligence, surveillance, Air Force abilities and command and control. The US has played an important leadership role in NATO, bringing its members and forces together.

These are actually abilities that are rare and essential by the US Army in Asia, calling Mr. Chalmers. If removed from Europe, it will take a long time to repeat them.

A long time ago, many NATO countries of Europe used to avoid building continental capabilities, such as extending the French atomic umbrella to other colleagues, can say with the fear of America: “Oh okay, you don’t need us now. We are closed!” We’re closed! “

But now, Europe is being forced into more security responsibility, not only to try to convince Washington – but also if the US President decides to withdraw to a greater or lesser extent from Europe.

Nobody knows what Trump’s intentions are. Europe’s NATO leaders were recently relieved when their administration announced that the US Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grinkvich would traditionally consider the NATO position of the US -occupied NATO of Europe. This contains commitment to the Raksha alliance.

But Washington is doing its own military expenses and defense reviews. Announcements are expected in the autumn. It has not been thought that there will be no new American funding for Ukraine. And there is a great possibility that 20,000 additional military in Eastern Europe will be the first American forces to be evicted from the continent.

Despite this, Poland says that it will participate in a convincing mood at this week’s NATO summit. Unlike Spain, Warsaw believes that it is leading for example – spending on your national income (currently 4.7% GDP) on defense compared to any other NATO member including the US. Its purpose is, it says, building the most powerful land army in Europe.

During the Cold War, Poland lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. Country neighbor Ukraine. It is not difficult to persuade the poles that defense is a top priority.

For politicians in countries far away from Russia, logic is more challenging. The Spanish media has been filled with speculation that disagreement over defense spending can drop the country’s uncertain coalition government.

Agreed on the demands of his defense spending, Trump is trying to calm both, while sweetening the bullet for more cash-stapped European leaders, NATO is proposing to divide the 5% target into two parts: 3.5% of annual national income on defense, 3.5% of the annual national income, to spend on “defense related” issues with another 1.5% of GDP, such as growing cargo-cums, such as growing kargo-cums.

This is an additional bonus to bring Europe with GDP’s 3.4% US military expenses – a vast psychological landmark, former assistant general secretary for defense investment in NATO and now Defense Specialists in European Council of European Foreign Relations, Camily Grand.

But although you play with data, we are talking about governments that they are spending billions on defense. Money has to come from somewhere.

Either new taxes – a method Estonia is trying out – or more borrowing, which will be extremely expensive for countries such as Italy with already a large amount of government debt. Another option is a decrease in welfare expenses – which is known as “gun or butter,” or “tank or pension” economics.

With its strategic defense review, the UK recently emphasized the need for more military expenses to the public, but Mr. Chamers says that neither Downing Street nor other European governments have fully designed their electors for business-bounds that will require new defense investments.

The timetable is important to reach the target 5%. NATO colleagues have called for a 7-10 year window. NATO general secretary has suggested that it may be too late. At the time of war with Moscow’s economy, much more Russia will be able to attack the NATO country within five years, they say.

Defending Europe is not just about how much governments spend. As is important that they spend their money.

A major European weakness is that the entire continent has a lot of duplicate and incompatible capabilities: allegedly 178 different types of weapons systems and 17 separate tanks in the European Union, for example. Keeping the national defense contracts and pride separate, and pooling European resources in the name of efficiency, is yet another prickly debate that will be sidelined at this week’s summit.

So what are the definite results we expect?

It depends much more that he reaches the Air Force one in the Netherlands one.

Trump’s ambassador to NATO says the meeting may be historic.

“A watershed moment” is how another high-level diplomat kept it with me-and possibly the “most important NATO summit since the Cold War”: Europe began to spend more as America on defense and to actually take responsibility for its safety.

BBC industry The best analysis is home on the website and app, with the latest approach that challenges beliefs and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we also demonstrate thought-respective materials from BBC sounds and iPlayer. You can send us your feedback on Inspth Section by clicking on the button below.