NATO would be better off urgently rebuilding military forces capable of deterring threats with or without US support
It is clearly bad for NATO security that the potential next president of the United States has said he would encourage attacks on allies that fail to meet a core defence spending target.
But it is surely as much – or even greater – a challenge for the alliance that two-thirds of its 31 member states still have not increased the amount of national income dedicated to defence to a minimum of 2% (and experts deem that level to be woefully inadequate).
This is despite Russia’s war in Ukraine, Iran-linked conflict in the Middle East and the risk posed by an increasingly powerful China.
Donald Trump revived alarm bells across NATO capitals over the weekend when he claimed during a campaign rally that a leader “of a big country” once said to him “if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?”
Mr Trump, who is the frontrunner to be the Republican candidate for president, said he responded by warning: “You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent. Yes, let’s say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”
If his remarks are to be taken at face value, then some comfort may be drawn from a quick glance at a map of Europe. It will show that the nations most vulnerable to any Russian invasion – the Baltic states and Poland – all comfortably pass the NATO spending test.
Yet, comments made by Mr Trump when he was commander-in-chief repeatedly raised doubts as to whether he would go to war with Moscow whichever NATO ally is targeted.
This stance fundamentally eroded the alliance’s founding principle of collective defence – an attack on one is an attack on all.
But each NATO ally that fails to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence is just as culpable of undermining the deterrent effect of Article 5.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘I would encourage them to do whatever they want’
Which countries are falling short?
Europe’s biggest economic power – Germany – remains one of the main offenders even though all allies pledged at a summit led by then prime minister David Cameron in Wales back in 2014 to “move towards” the 2% baseline within a decade – ie by this year.
Even nuclear-armed France is falling short, along with Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Belgium, and the list goes on.
Britain should not rest easy.
It just about meets the spending pledge – though official NATO data shows the percentage spent on defence has dropped rather than risen over the past nine years from 2.14% in 2014 to an estimated 2.07% in 2023 despite the escalating threats.
Read more:
Turkey approves Sweden’s bid to join NATO
‘Critical’ for NATO allies to grow defence budgets, says Shapps
Women jailed for sending threats to judge in Trump case
In addition, a damning report by MPs earlier this month found the UK military’s readiness for war to be “in doubt”, with limited stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, and more service personnel leaving the armed forces than being recruited.
Trump could still halt meaningful support to allies
Mr Trump’s primary criticism about NATO is over what he rightly sees as freeloading by a majority of allies that have for decades relied on the protective shield provided by the much more powerful US military rather than ensuring their own defences are credible and capable.
It was a stick he beat the alliance with during his four years as president, dangling the threat of withdrawing the US from NATO – a move that would deal a near-death blow to an organisation created after the Second World War as the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security.
Donald Trump and NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg in 2019. Pic: Reuters
Last December, legislation was passed in Washington that prevents a sitting president from unilaterally exiting the alliance without the approval of lawmakers.
While this means Mr Trump may not physically be able to make good on such a threat should he win a second term, he could still halt meaningful support to allies, which would be almost as damaging.
US will remain ‘strong and committed NATO ally’, alliance chief says
Responding to his latest anti-NATO outburst, Jens Stoltenberg, the veteran alliance chief, who navigated allies through the first Trump presidency, issued an unusually blunt retort.
“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,” he said. “I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the US will remain a strong and committed NATO ally.”
It is a sentiment all allies in Europe will be clinging to.
But they would be far better off focusing their energy on fixing the problems closer to home by urgently rebuilding credible military forces capable of deterring threats with or without US support.
As the two most powerful countries in the world, the relationship between the United States and China is the most consequential of all bilateral ties.
Any change in interactions and behaviour by either side does not just impact security, economic activity and trade in Washington and Beijing, but also affects the rest of the planet.
President Xi Jinping chose to make this point publicly as he said hello – and presumably goodbye – to Joe Biden when the two men met on the sidelines of an economic forum in Peru in what was likely their last face-to-face sit down before the US leader hands the keys to the White House over to Donald Trump.
Joe Biden and Xi Jinping shaking hands in Peru earlier this week. Pic: Reuters
“As two major countries, China and the United States should bear in mind the interest of the whole world and inject more certainty and positive energy into the turbulent world,” Mr Xi said, speaking through a translator.
“It is my consistent belief that as the world’s most important bilateral relationship, a stable China-US relationship is critical not only to the interests of the Chinese and American peoples but also to the future and destiny of the entire humanity.”
Mr Biden, whose relationship with his opposite number does not just span his four years as president but also when he previously served as vice president under Barack Obama, also focused on the importance of dialogue.
“We haven’t always agreed, but our conversations have always been candid and always been frank,” he said, sitting at a long table, surrounded by aides, with Mr Xi opposite him.
Read more:
Analysis: Trump building a very controversial cabinet
Could Barron Trump run for president in 2044?
“I think that’s vital. These conversations prevent miscalculations, and they ensure the competition between our two countries will not veer into conflict. Be competition, not conflict.”
While clearly directed at him, it is doubtful that Mr Trump will heed the advice.
He has consistently criticised the Biden administration for being too soft on Beijing and has vowed to be much tougher – even saying he would impose 60% tariffs on Chinese imports.
The president-elect’s picks for top jobs in the White House, such as with China hawks Senator Marco Rubio as his desired secretary of state, and Representative Mike Walz as national security adviser, also point to a hardening in the US’ position on Beijing – which is on a trajectory to overtake Washington as the world’s number one superpower.
This moment of re-ordering in global dominance – something the UK was once forced to absorb when the sun set on the British Empire – is on course to happen regardless of who is in the White House.
But a more hostile and combative commander-in-chief in the White House makes it an increasingly perilous time for everyone.
It is perhaps why the current leaders in Beijing and Washington are so keen to stress that while their feelings towards one another go up and down, the ability to keep talking is critical.
Joe Biden has met with Xi Jinping for the last time as US president, where the Chinese leader said he is “ready to work” with Donald Trump.
Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Lima, Peru, Mr Biden said the US and China’s relationship should be about “competition, not conflict”.
“We haven’t always agreed, but our conversations have always been candid and always been frank,” he said.
“We’ve never kidded one another. These conversations prevent miscalculations, and they ensure the competition between our two countries will not veer into conflict.
“We’ve been level with one another. I think that’s vital.”
Their last-ever meeting comes as president-elect Donald Trump vows to introduce blanket 60% tariffs on US imports of Chinese goods as part of a series of “America First” trade measures.
Pic: Reuters
But despite Mr Trump’s proposed measures, Mr Xi said his country’s goal “of a stable, healthy and sustainable China-US relationship remains unchanged”.
“Our commitment to mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and… cooperation as principles for handling China-US relations remains unchanged,” he added.
The Chinese president then said the country is “ready to work with the new US administration to maintain communication, expand cooperation and manage differences, so as to strive for a steady transition”.
Read more from Sky News:
Davina McCall out of surgery
Eight dead in China school stabbing
Neither Mr Xi nor Mr Biden responded to a question about whether there were concerns about Mr Trump’s proposed tariffs.
The president-elect has also named several China hawks to his transition team, such as Senator Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Representative Mike Waltz as national security adviser.
Read more:
Team Trump: Who is in and out?
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Under Mr Biden, Washington has introduced restrictions on US investment in Chinese artificial intelligence, quantum computing and semiconductors.
Former house speaker Nancy Pelosi also visited the island of Taiwan – which China views as a breakaway province – in April 2022.
In their meeting at this time last year – which followed a surge in tensions when an alleged Chinese spy balloon was shot down over the US – both leaders said direct communication between American and Chinese military forces would be restored.
Former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson says the health scare in June, which forced the postponement of his boxing match with Jake Paul, almost cost him his life.
“I almost died in June,” Tyson wrote on X, adding that he “had 8 blood transfusions. Lost half my blood and 25lbs in hospital”.
The 58-year-old, who lost to the YouTuber-turned-boxer in a unanimous points decision in Texas, tweeted that the situation was far worse than people had realised.
Following Tyson’s recovery, after reportedly suffering an ulcer flareup, he reflected on the result of the fight.
“This is one of those situations when you lost but still won… no regrets to get in the ring one last time,” he said.
That contrasts with Tyson’s comments after the match in which he refused to confirm whether it would be his last fight.
“It depends on the situation,” Tyson said before suggesting a fight with Paul’s older brother, Logan Paul, who was standing near him in the ring.
Critics argued that the revised match – which involved fewer and shortened rounds, as well as heavier gloves – fell short of entertaining.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Paul beats Tyson by unanimous decision
Some claimed it appeared more like a glorified sparring session.
It was Tyson’s first sanctioned pro bout since 2005, when he lost to Kevin McBride and then went into retirement – only briefly reappearing for an exhibition match in 2020 against Roy Jones Jr.
Jake Paul believes he can fight for a championship belt within two years. Pic: AP
Paul has plenty to prove
Paul, 27, still has plenty to prove. The social media influencer wants to be a championship fighter and compete for a championship belt within two years. “I think it could happen in the next 24 months,” Paul said.
“I truly, truly believe in my skills and my ability and my power. And the cruiserweight division is seemingly open for the taking on that timeline,” he added.
The only professional match he has lost so far has been to Tommy Fury, the less-accomplished brother of former heavyweight champion Tyson Fury.
But there are questions about when Paul will fight a contender in his prime, as opposed to former champions or mixed martial artists.
Read more from Sky News:
Murdered woman found in car boot named
Cold health alerts begin ahead of snow and ice
Culture of fear stopped calls for Archbishop to resign
Could Paul really take on Alvarez?
Intriguingly, in the days before his fight with Tyson, Paul mentioned super middleweight champion Canelo Alvarez, considered one of the best boxers in the world.
According to reports, the Texas bout earned Paul $40m (£31.7m) versus $20m (£15.8m) for Tyson.
Netflix said 60 million households worldwide viewed the contest on its streaming platform, and nearly 50 million tuned in to watch the undercard which saw Ireland’s Katie Taylor beat Puerto Rico’s Amanda Serrano.
Even so there were some technical glitches. More than 90,000 users reported problems on Netflix at its peak, according to the website Downdetector, which tracks outages.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway