What was going on with Trump at the NATO summit? | Power & Politics

The NATO summit in Turkey has come to an end, and after two days of trying to project a unified front against Russia, the alliance was forced to confront another conflict, as the US and Iran exchanged airstrikes, suggesting the peace deal they agreed to has collapsed.

To me, I think it's over.I don't want to deal with them anymore.They're scum.You know what scum is?They're scum.They're sick people.

If I make a deal with him, we have a deal.And he goes out, he talks.We make a deal.Everyone's agreed.No nuclear weapon.We make a deal.

They go outside, talk to the press.They say, we never even talked about it.There's something wrong with them.They're cuckoo.As far as I'm concerned, it's over.

Now, Trump's fury was not reserved for Iran alone.He also went after allies who refused to join his war against Iran.And Trump revived a familiar but controversial territorial demand.

Greenland is a big problem for us.And the other big problem is the fact that when we wanted them, we didn't want them badly.But we did say, if you want to join us, and they all said no.But when they could have, they weren't there for us.And Spain is a wasted cause.We don't want to do any trade business with Spain anymore, by the way.

I'd like you to cut it off.Spain is a terrible partner in NATO.

Joining me now is Ivo Daalder, the former U .S.ambassador to NATO.Ambassador Daalder, it's good to see you, sir.Thank you for being here today.

My pleasure.Glad to be here.

I don't imagine the summits had language quite like that between the allies when you were the U .S.ambassador to NATO.I mean, what do you make of what we saw there from the president despite Mark Rutte's overwhelming attempts to appease him at every opportunity?

Well, what's apparently the case was that inside the room, both at the dinner last night and then during the three hour meeting today, the president was genial.He was he said it was a lovely meeting.Everybody was loved each other.And he was actually surprised.how much the leaders themselves were good leaders of their country, which is kind of interesting for him to say that.But then when he sees, when the cameras open up, he just has to do what he tends to do.

He has to belittle people.He has to go after them.He has to find a way to become stronger by making other people look weaker.It's just the way he is.He's always been this way.I think most of the leaders, most of the 31 sitting there were just sitting, you know, let's get this meeting over with.

The Lithuanian foreign minister said, let's hope it's a boring meeting.Turned out to be a boring meeting.from that perspective, and they agreed not to do this again, which was the interesting thing.They finally decided not to have annual summits anymore, but to do so presumably after Donald Trump's no longer president, so they can actually do some real work.

See, this is interesting because the G7 has also been very disrupted, right?The lack of joint communiques, it's about political management of the U .S.leader when there's tremendous overlap, obviously, with NATO.Where do you think this leaves the U .S.

-NATO relationship, though, after something like this?Because, you know, the G7 was a bit like that.It was tough behind closed doors, but then they found common ground on Ukraine.He was friendly with Zelensky today.They're going to let them make the Patriot missiles.So moving in the direction Europe and NATO wants, but then at the same time trash -talking them.

Yeah, I think it's just basically this is the way he is.And people are getting used to it.They finally figured out that, you know, you just ignored.I think the Italian prime minister said, I tried to play nice with him.He doesn't want to play nice with me.That's fine.

Let's just move on and focus on the things that matter.They haven't.The NATO leaders haven't.Mark Ritter, somebody who who has made it his his task to keep the president sufficiently engaged, then he is engaged.He you know, he didn't walk away from NATO.He didn't say that that he was going to withdraw all the troops.

Yeah, he did mention Greenland once again and said that we, quote, need Greenland in a way that Denmark does not.That, of course, is not only upsetting, it's just factually wrong.He also said that we, quote, gave back Greenland after World War II, which, of course, wasn't the case either.But I think most people are just starting to acknowledge you know, to ignore him.I think that's true for for folks in Iran who are looking at actions, not words, which is why the actions speak louder than the words these days.It just is the way it is.

And people are getting, you know, they're getting used to it and they're just moving on.And that's the right way to do it.There's a lot of business to be done.Russia remains a threat.Ukraine needs to be supported.NATO needs to build up its military capability.

Canada is doing that.The Europeans are doing it.And one day, we'll figure out what to do with Donald Trump.

It is a remarkable thing, though, to see that shift, not internally and intellectually, but so publicly from so many of the European leaders now.Because, you know, we obviously experienced a rupture in Canada pretty abruptly with what's going on with the trade situation and the attempt to strip mine some of our core industries for parts.But the Europeans are now verbally, vocally, distancing themselves from Trump in a way they have been fearful to do.I mean, what does that tell you about just the overall place the United States finds itself in now almost halfway through President Trump's second term?

Very unfortunately, the United States has become an unreliable ally.It used to be that the U .S.worried about European allies being unreliable.Now the tables have turned.And the consequence of that is in an era in which Russia has turned its economy into a war economy.

All it produces is war material.It is trying to achieve its objectives in Ukraine, failing by doing so, but still has the capacityto threaten NATO territory.The Europeans have decided that they need to increase their own capabilities, they need to reduce their dependence on the United States, hope that the United States remains engaged in some form, but no longer counting on that.And that's true not only on the military side, it's true on the digital side, it's true on AI, it's true increasingly on trade, where people are looking to trading and investment relationships.with Canada, first and foremost in North America, but also to Asia.

There is a set of networks that are occurring underneath the relationship that allows Europeans, the Canadians, the Japanese, the Koreans, Australians to work together to knit what they have long had together in a better and stronger relationship that is no longer dependent on the United States.In the end, that's not a bad thing.certainly even for the United States.Having strong allies is what matters.It'd be better if we get strong allies in a positive relationship than if we have it in a negative relationship, but getting them in the end is what matters most.

Yeah, Europe is going through this remarkable transition because they sort of bet on Russia for energy, China for markets, and the U .S.for security, and they've all kind of gone bust, right?And there's some pretty extensive reporting in the Wall Street Journal of sort of the post -Davos moment, Europe moving away from WhatsApp and Starlink, the U .S.companies, but also the defense expansion Canada's going through and Europe is going through, but moving away from American options in a lot of cases.

So I think that is not what the president wanted, that he wanted everybody to spend more on military, but maybe to buy American kit, and instead people are looking at the Swedish options and they're building out their own domestic capacity.So is that going to be strong enough, do you think, for NATO to persist in the face of what's happening with the U .

S.?Well, there's certain there's still certain capabilities that only do that.States produces.So for example, NATO agreed at this meeting to buy some maritime surveillance drones that can be bought from the United States.But then there are other situations, and most importantly, the replacement of the so -called AWACS airborne early warning systems.

Those used to be produced by Boeing.There's now an agreement to buy planes that are actually produced by Airbus, but particularly by Saab.So a more European option.And there's this balance.On the one hand, you want to make sure that you continue to have the kind of capabilities you need in order to defend yourself and, frankly, to be interoperable with the United States.But on the other hand, you don't want to be fully dependent on the United States in case something happens where the U .

S.is no longer willing to support you.That's the balancing act.It used to be that buying American was a good thing, that having F -16s and F -18s and F -35s as fighter planes would provide you with the ammunition and the command and control and communications capabilities that that makes you more useful to the United States and the United States more useful to you, that's changing because you're worried that the United States, as an unreliable ally, in one form or another, decide that they are no longer willing to support that.So that's the balancing act.Hopefully, we can get back to a situation where a transatlantic defense industrial base remains the foundational core of security and cooperation.

But that depends on transatlantic relations being in a positive direction that allows people to support each other in a way that Some people are in Europe, in particular, and you in Canada, of course, on a daily basis, are doubting.

Yeah, well, those AWACS, those surveillance planes you talked about, that's the global eye, and Canada has partnered with Saab, and some of that work's going to be done here.is a war economy, but Ukraine is striking deeper and deeper and deeper into their territory with the drones, to the point that Zelensky, when Trump asked him today, will you meet with Putin in Moscow, he goes, it's hard to do that, there's so many Ukrainian drones there.So the war is clearly in a better place, but what are your thoughts on where this leaves Ukraine at this moment?

So I do think you're right.The war is Ukraine is in a better place and only striking deep inside of inside of Russia to bring the war home to the Russian people.They're affecting the refining capacity of of Russia.Russia is now importing oil refined petroleum products from India because it no longer is able to find it itself.It's also targeting Crimea and making real inroads in in the ability of of Russia to continue to provide logistical support for Crimea.But it has one big vulnerability.

And the vulnerability is that it can no longer defend itself against ballistic missiles that Russians are firing at Ukrainian cities each and every day.And if you look at the number of casualties, they used to be, you could count them on the fingers of one hand, two, three, four casualties if you had a major attack.Now it's 10, 20, 30.killed, and the reason is they don't have Patriot interceptors.And while President Trump has now said he will allow—or will allow something to happen.would have to agree to, to have Ukraine produce those insights, it's going to take two years to do that.

Ukraine doesn't have two years.It doesn't have two months.It doesn't have two weeks.And frankly, it doesn't even have two days.So, you haven't solved the fundamental problem, which is how do you help Ukraine protect itself against the daily barrage of 10s and 20s and 30s number of ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones that are killing Ukrainian civilians each and every day.That hasn't been answered by the President of the United States.

Yeah, the cautious incrementalism of the alliance in supporting Ukraine throughout this conflict has cost a lot of lives.Ivo Daalder, former U .S.Ambassador to NATO, we appreciate the time, sir.Thank you for joining us today.

My pleasure.Glad to be here.