Five takeaways from Hague summit on hiking defence spending

For the Netherlands this was the biggest security operation in its history; for Nato’s 32 member states the Hague summit was historic too.

There were unexpected moments of levity in among the momentous decisions over the looming threat from Russia and raising defence spending to levels not seen since the Cold War.

Here is what we learned from a whirlwind two days in The Hague.

The main takeaway is the allies’ commitment to a 5% defence spending target, to be reached within a decade. It’s a remarkable jump from the current 2% guideline, which currently isn’t even met by eight Nato members out of 32.

Only 3.5% of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons – while the remaining 1.5% can be put towards “defence-related expenditure”.

And that’s a suitably broad concept that can apply to spending even only loosely linked to defence: as long as it is used to “protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base”.

Reaching that 3.5% core defence spending target will still be a significant ask for many Nato countries, many of which currently hover around the 2% line.

Plans to reach the 5% figure will have to be submitted annually and will have to follow a “credible, incremental path”. A review will take place in 2029.

For as long as Nato has existed, its Article Five on collective defence has been a core principle that means an attack against one ally is considered an attack on all.

So when Trump suggested on the way to the summit there were “numerous definitions” of the mutual security guarantee, it was a reminder of comments he made on the campaign trail last year, when he suggested if a country did not pay its way “I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage [Moscow] to do whatever they want”.

This summit agreement appears to put to bed any lingering concerns about Trump’s intentions because it reaffirms “our ironclad commitment to collective defence”. “I stand with [Article Five], that’s why I’m here,” he told reporters afterwards.

That reassurance will be well received by Nato member states seen as under most threat, but then they paid their way anyway. And Trump has gone back to Washington with a deal that means all other member states have agreed to do up their spending too.

The Russia question was always going to be tricky. Most Nato countries – particularly those in close proximity to the Russian border – are in agreement that Moscow could pose a direct threat to them in the near future; Rutte himself has said Russia could use military force against the alliance within five years.

Last year’s end-of-summit declaration referenced – in no uncertain terms – Moscow’s “brutal war of aggression” several times.

But Trump has had a much softer approach to Moscow, and has resisted treating it as an adversary. As such it was always unlikely he was going to approve a declaration that labelled Russia as the clear culprit for the bloody Ukraine war, now more than three years old.

So while the statement mentions the “long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security” and reaffirms the need to provide enduring support to Ukraine, there is no specific condemnation of Russia in the communique.

Ever since Volodymyr Zelensky’s difficult experience in the White House last February, European leaders have sought to avoid getting off on the wrong foot with Donald Trump.

Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez went to The Hague already mired in domestic political scandals and he was expecting a tough time.

Spain props up the bottom of the Nato spending league with 1.24% of economic output on defence. He came to The Hague insisting that 2.1% was plenty, and told reporters after signing the summit declaration that Spain considered the amount “sufficient, realistic and compatible with our social model and welfare state”.

The Spanish PM was noticeably aloof during the “family photo”, preferring to stand on the end away from his Nato colleagues. There were suggestions that he had gone out of his way to avoid Trump too.

But Sánchez had already caught Trump’s eye and the US president was having none of it.

“It’s terrible, what they’ve done,” said Trump, who accused Madrid of seeking “a little bit of a free ride”. “We’re negotiating with Spain on a trade deal but we’re going to make them pay twice.”

Because Spain is a member of the European Union, Trump will find that difficult to do – but Sánchez will go back to Madrid isolated in Nato as well as struggling at home.

No-one would have been more keenly aware of the potential pitfalls of this summit than Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who was involved in a surprising exchange with the US president in which he referred to him as “daddy”.

Rutte had already flattered Trump in a private message for “decisive action in Iran” that “NO American president in decades could have done”. Trump had then posted his words on his social media network and Rutte denied being embarrassed.

But then in a joint appearance with Trump on Wednesday, Rutte reacted to Trump describing the war between Israel and Iran as “like two kids in a schoolyard” who had had a big fight.

“And then daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get them to stop.”

Asked if he had gone too far with his flattery, Rutte said he didn’t think so: “I think he deserves all the praise.”

Trump, flanked by a smirking Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, seemed amused by the whole thing: “I think he likes me, if he doesn’t… I’ll come back and hit him hard. He did it very affectionately: ‘Daddy you’re my daddy,'” he laughed.