Nato is running out of time

Donald Trump yesterday revealed a flash of anger when he was asked about alleged ceasefire violations by Iran and Israel. He said the two countries had been fighting “so long and so hard” that they “don’t know what the fuck they’re doing”.

So what? Trump is impatient, and his impatience has consequences. His desire for quick deals speaks to a broader indiscipline that has led to

• an Israel-Iran ceasefire deal that could break at any moment;
• Russian breakthroughs in Ukraine while Putin dodges peace talks; and
• a Nato summit that is all about Trump.

Flying visit. It was over the whir of Marine One that Trump took Iran and Israel to task over their failure to keep the peace. The presidential helicopter started him on a journey to the Nato summit in The Hague. Organisers have shortened the schedule from two days to 24 hours, and there will be no meeting of the Ukraine council. The narrow focus is on defence spending.

Man in a rush. Nato is trying to learn lessons from last week’s G7 summit, which Trump left early to deal with events in the Middle East. World leaders failed to agree a statement on the war in Ukraine, having issued others on migrant smuggling, AI, critical minerals, wildfires, transnational repression and quantum computing.

The solution is a curtailed summit designed to convince Trump on the key point that Nato is worth America’s time and money. On Tuesday, the US president posted a series of text messages from Nato chief Mark Rutte praising his geopolitical chops. Highlights included:

• “Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran. That was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do.”
• “It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto 5 per cent … You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”
• “Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.”

The number. If Nato commits to spending 5 per cent of its GDP on defence at the summit, as Rutte expects, the hope is that this will keep Trump on board with the alliance – even if the deadline is a distant 2035 and there is some creative accounting to get there.

The problem. Defence targets may help deter a wider war with Russia, but they don’t solve the immediate issue of the conflict in Ukraine. President Zelensky is expected to meet Trump at the summit, but signs are that America’s patience for peace is running out and it wants a quick return to business as usual with Moscow.

• Trump’s administration has dismissed an inter-agency working group tasked with pressuring Russia to speed up talks with Ukraine.
• The US Senate postponed sanctioning Russia to late July.
• Trump’s opposition has prevented the EU lowering the price cap on Russian oil.

Go figure. Kurt Volker, former US ambassador to Nato, said Europe sees support to Ukraine “as integral to our security through Nato. The US simply doesn’t see it that way.”

To this point. Senior US officials tell anyone who’ll listen that Europe has to step up. But…

• The ‘coalition of the willing’ proposed by the UK’s Keir Starmer exists so far only as a series of summits and meetings.
• Starmer has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine after the war without US intelligence, surveillance and satellite communications support.
• Since the US is reluctant to continue providing that, this idea looks likely to be shelved for now.

Arms deficit. Long term defence targets are one thing, but none of Ukraine’s EU allies is filling the weapons hole that Kyiv faces as US support dries up. Russia makes as much ammunition in three months as Nato members make in a year.

‘Deterrence is back.’ That said, the nature of Trump’s intervention in Iran won’t have gone unnoticed by Putin. Bombing a Russian ally with B-2 planes when Moscow’s equivalent was just decimated by homemade Ukrainian drones sends a signal, even if inadvertent.

On the other hand… America’s unilateral attack gives Russia some cover to continue airstrikes on its neighbour. Not that it needs the excuse.