Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe nonetheless at odds over Putin’s ambitions

US, NATO allies disagree on Putin’s final goals

*

Rubio says Russia needs Ukrainian territories; Rutte warns of assault on Europe

*

Lack of Russia technique a blot on in any other case profitable summit

By Gram Slattery

THE HAGUE, – For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a person on the lookout for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine.

But in line with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian chief could also be simply getting began. If the alliance doesn’t put money into its protection capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia might assault an alliance nation inside three years.

By most measures, this 12 months’s NATO summit in The Hague was successful. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to spice up protection spending to five% of gross home product. Trump, who as soon as derided the alliance as a “rip-off,” mentioned his view had modified, whereas a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who in contrast the U.S. president to a stern “daddy” managing his geopolitical underlings.

But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, additionally highlighted the widening hole between how the U.S. and Europe see the army ambitions of Russia, the bloc’s foremost foil. That is regardless of some lawmakers in Trump’s personal Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in latest weeks, arguing that whereas the president’s ambition to barter an finish to Russia’s warfare in Ukraine is laudable, it’s now clear that Putin will not be critical about coming to the desk.

In a Wednesday press convention, Trump conceded that it was “possible” Putin had territorial ambitions past Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian chief – buffeted by manpower and materiel losses – wished the warfare to finish rapidly.

“I know one thing: He’d like to settle,” Trump mentioned. “He’d like to get out of this thing. It’s a mess for him.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on increasing its sanctions towards Moscow, partly to maintain talks going.

“If we did what everybody here wants us to do – and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions – we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire,” he mentioned.

The message from others on the summit was starkly totally different.

A senior NATO official instructed reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not actually excited about a ceasefire – or in partaking in good-faith talks in any respect.

“Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations,” the official mentioned.

Russia’s ambitions, the senior official mentioned, transcend management of “certain territories at their administrative lines,” as Rubio put it. Putin is as a substitute bent on imposing his “political will” on neighboring states.

Rutte put the Russian risk in existential phrases.

“If we do not invest now,” he mentioned on Tuesday, “we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years.”

RUSSIA STRATEGY REMAINS ELUSIVE

The U.S. will not be the one NATO member with a extra optimistic view of Russia.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European establishments, mentioned Russia was “not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO.”

Still, because the alliance’s largest contributor and strongest member, Washington’s place is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals.

The White House, requested for remark, referred to Trump’s feedback on the Wednesday press convention.

In response to a request for remark, a separate NATO official, additionally talking on situation of anonymity, disputed that there have been differing assessments throughout the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the “long-term threat posed by Russia.”

The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday feedback by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for losing cash on protection.

“It seems that only by invoking the fabricated ‘Russian threat’ will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again,” she mentioned.

The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington didn’t reply to requests for remark.

The lack of a standard understanding about Putin’s targets will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the warfare, mentioned Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative on the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat.

“To reach a peace agreement, it’s not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves,” Dickinson mentioned.

“There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve.”

European leaders probably haven’t given up on attempting to alter Trump’s views on Russia, Dickinson mentioned. But they have been at all times unlikely carry up thorny conversations on the NATO summit. The alliance’s foremost purpose was to easily get by means of it with out main blowups, he mentioned, an intention that was achieved. Still, peace got here at a price – the dearth of substantive dialogue round Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous.

“The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced,” Dickinson mentioned.

This article was generated from an automatic information company feed with out modifications to textual content.