Could this be the most significant NATO after the Cold War?

As the world has been breathless to see what happens after the United States has started direct attacks on Iran's nuclear sites, US President Donald Trump is expected in the Netherlands for a NATO summit.

This will be the first NATO Trump meeting since it was re -elected. In the past, he made angry comments about Alliance members, releasing security guarantees in the United States. European allies are desperate to prove it wrong. They hope to persuade him not to pull the troops or opportunities of the United States from the continent.

“Relations with Europe were so strained as Trump returned to the White House – above trade rates and others – that a few weeks ago we were not even sure that he would turn to this summit,” I told me a high -level diplomat – who was talking to anonymity, “he told me.

“Since Russia and China are watching for Western weakness, it would be a disaster.”

But Moscow and Beijing may still be able to remove the popcorn.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rute designs this meeting around Trump. He aims to flatter him by agreeing with huge campaigns to the costs of defense to show that Europeans will now take more responsibility for their own security.

Ruth also hoped that by maintaining the meeting closely focused on money, he would avoid potential clashes or outbursts between Trump and his allies.

This carefully laid plan can be crumbling.

Now that Iran has launched rockets at US airbases in Qatar and Iraq in response to strikes on Saturday at its nuclear sites, the US chief commander may decide to stay in the Washington situational hall.

If he comes to Europe as expected, how will it be not possible not to mention the Middle East, given what is set? This would impose the risk of falling between the US president and European allies who are advocating for diplomacy about bombing when it comes to Iran.

Trump loves victory and he is very thin. He will not want to feel disapproval at the NATO meeting.

Separately, he was confident in a victory, grabbing the title of the summit, with European countries being committed to spending a huge 5% of GDP for defense – just as he wanted in his first weeks back in the White House.

“This summit is about trust,” is the way of NATO's US Ambassador, Matthew Whitaker, says it.

But Spain claims on Sunday that it secured a rejection of the new cost plan – something that it later denied.

Other allies in Europe, who are struggling to find extra money, also grieve.

The bottom line is: Europe must keep the large military and nuclear power aside. Here's how Rute managed to deal with Corral leaders – Bar Spain – to register with the new big impulse of costs. This is a large -scale commitment.

But as the former US ambassador told me, Julian Smith told me – even then there is absolutely no guarantee with Trump.

It is unclear whether the US will register in the Summer End Declaration this week, identifying Russia as a major threat to NATO Alliance.

Europe's confidence in the United States as an ultimate defender is shaken by a seemingly soft approach of Trump with Moscow and by his heavy pressure on Kiev as he tries to end the war in Ukraine.

In addition, on Friday night, you can almost hear European diplomats that grind your teeth after Trump grossly justified the huge 5% of the defense costs that allies wants from allies while releasing himself and the US from his commitment.

“I don't think I should, but I think I should,” he said. “We support NATO for so long … So I don't think I have to, but I think NATO countries have absolutely.”

Then again European leaders may be better prepared so far in terms of self-defense.

He may be the dumbest and most unpredictable, but Trump is by no means the first US president to move to military attention and investment from Europe to other priority areas, especially in the Indo-Ocean. President Obama was very clear about it in 2011.

The United States has nuclear weapons stored in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It has 100,000 ready -to -battle troops across Europe, 20,000 of them in Eastern European NATO countries sent there by President Biden after the full -scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine.

The continent may draw a shortage of the number of troops, especially with Germany and Poland, who plan to significantly accumulate their main forces over the next few years. But Europe's dependence on the United States goes deeper, says Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director of the Institute of Royal United Services.

He relies on Washington to collect intelligence, observation, air force and command and control. The United States has played a major leadership role in NATO, uniting its members and forces.

These are precisely the opportunities that are scarce and needed by the US military in Asia, says G -N Chalmers. If they are removed from Europe, they will take a very long time to repeat.

Not long ago, many NATO countries in Europe avoid building continental capabilities, such as expanding France's nuclear umbrella to other allies, to fear that the United States can say, “Oh, well, you no longer need us. We are on the way!”

But now Europe is forced to take more responsibility for security, not only to try to persuade Washington to remain -but also in case the US president decides to withdraw from Europe to a greater or less degree.

Nobody knows what Trump's intentions are. Europe NATO leaders were extremely eased recently when his administration announced that US Air Force Lieutenant Alexa Grinkevich would take NATO's traditionally ranked NATO Supreme ally, Europe position. This implied commitment to the Alliance for Defense.

But Washington performs its own military expenses and a defense review. Messages are expected in the fall. It is estimated that there will be new funding in the United States for Ukraine. And it is very likely that 20,000 additional troops in Eastern Europe will be the first forces of the United States to be drawn from the continent.

However, Poland says he will attend the NATO summit this week in a confident mood. Unlike Spain, Warsaw believes that she is a leader with an example – she spends more from her national defense income (currently 4.7% of GDP) from any other NATO member, including the United States. It aims to build the most powerful ground army in Europe.

During the Cold War, Poland lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. The country of the neighbors Ukraine. It is not difficult to convince the Poles that protection is a top priority.

For politicians in countries further than Russia, the argument is more difficult. Spanish media are full of speculation that disagreements on defense costs can reduce the uncertain coalition government of the country.

Trying to put up as Trump, agreeing with his defense demands, while sweetening the pill for more European money leaders, NATO proposes to divide 5% of the purpose into two parts: 3.5% of the annual national defense income, with another 1.5% of GDP.

This has the additional bonus for bringing Europe in line with the US military spending of 3.4% of GDP – a huge psychological landmark, says Camille Grand, a former Secretary -General for NATO Defense Secretary General and now a defense expert at the European Council for Foreign Relations.

But as much as you play with the figures, we are talking about governments that have to spend billions more on defense. The money should come from somewhere.

Or new taxes – the Estonia method is trying – or more loans, which will be extremely expensive for countries like Italy, which already has large quantities of government debt. Another option is to reduce well -being costs – known as “weapons or oil” or “tanks or pensions” economy.

With his strategic defense review, the United Kingdom has recently stressed the need for more military spending on the public, but Mr Chalmers says that neither Downing Street nor most other European governments have fully prepared their compromise electorates that will require huge new defensive investment.

The schedule to reach 5% target is key. NATO allies called for a 7-10-year window. NATO Secretary General suggested that this could be too late. As Moscow's economy is much on a military basis, Russia will be able to attack a NATO country within five years, he says.

The protection of Europe is not just about how many governments spend. As important as they spend their money.

A big European weakness is that there are many duplicate and incompatible capabilities of the entire continent: according to messages, 178 different types of weapons and 17 different tanks brands in the EU alone, for example. Putting aside national defense and pride contracts and the unification of European resources for the sake of efficiency, is another thorny debate that is likely to be away at the summit of this week.

So, what definite results can we expect?

It depends a lot on the fact that the man arrives in the Netherlands at Airforce One.

Trump's Ambassador to NATO says the meeting can be historical.

The “water moment” is how another high-level diplomat put it to me-and possibly the “most significant NATO summit after the Cold War”: the moment Europe began to spend as much as the US for defense and really take responsibility for its own security.

BBC Indepth Whether it is the home of the website and the application for the best analysis, with new perspectives that dispute the assumptions and the deep reporting of the most large problems of the day. And we show content that provokes the thought of All BBC Sounds and Iplayer. You can send us your feedback to the Indepth section by clicking the button below.