Special Program: President Trump's Press Conference After the NATO Summit (Simultaneous Interpretation)

Voice of America's Chinese website's special program reported on the NATO summit held in Ankara, Turkey. The meeting discussed issues such as defense burden-sharing, the direction of the Russia-Ukraine war, and China and Indo-Pacific security. U.S. President Trump held a press conference after the summit, expressing his dissatisfaction with allies' insufficient defense spending and sharing his views on the Iranian attack on merchant ships, relations with Turkey and other allies, and the ownership of Greenland. Experts analyze that NATO is undergoing a transformation, Europe needs to take on more defense responsibilities, and China is increasingly becoming a strategic challenge of concern to NATO.

Video Link:

Full Text:

Hello viewers, and welcome to Voice of America's special program on the NATO summit. I'm Xu Xiangyun. We are broadcasting live to you from Washington D.C. The two-day NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, has concluded. This is the first NATO summit attended by U.S. President Trump since his return to the White House. The summit discussed the defense burden-sharing between the U.S. and its European allies, the future direction of the Russia-Ukraine war, and the position of China and Indo-Pacific security in NATO's strategy. For today's program, we have invited Lin Feng, senior editor of Voice of America's Chinese Service, and Si Yang, a Voice of America reporter reporting live from the summit in Ankara, to bring you analysis and the latest observations. President Trump will also hold a press conference today, which we will broadcast live with simultaneous interpretation. Please continue to follow this press conference with us.

On the first day of the NATO summit, NATO countries attempted to show the United States their determination and concrete steps to defend themselves and increase their defense budgets through large-scale defense industry orders and investments. On the second day of the meeting, NATO leaders discussed various issues concerning Ukraine and European defense, including the latest round of strikes launched by the United States in response to Iran's attack on merchant ships on Tuesday. Please see the report.

NATO Secretary General Rutte and Turkish President Erdogan, the host, personally welcomed leaders to the NATO summit. After taking the group photo, it was time for the most important leaders' summit. An important goal of this NATO summit in Ankara is to win the commitment of the United States to NATO by expressing the organization's determination to enhance its self-defense capabilities to U.S. President Trump. President Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO member states for not supporting the United States in its conflict with Iran. Rutte praised the surge in military spending by many allies over the past year. On Tuesday, he helped announce billions of dollars in new weapons and other military system deals.

While the summit was underway, Iran attacked three merchant ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States immediately launched strikes in response. Iran stated that it attacked U.S. bases in the Middle East in retaliation. U.S. President Trump expressed his dissatisfaction to Rutte about Iran's failure to abide by the ceasefire agreement. "For me, it's all over. I don't want to fight with them anymore. They are useless, they are sick. This country is led by sick people, they are evil and violent. If they had nuclear weapons, they would use them. For me, it's all over."

NATO Secretary General Rutte also emphasized support for the U.S. strikes against Iran. "I think this is absolutely necessary because a ceasefire agreement was reached, and Iran basically violated this agreement. We saw ships attacked yesterday, and I think the strong response from the United States is crucial. I also expect allies to discuss the Iran issue today and confirm that Iran can never have nuclear capabilities. Secondly, the principle of freedom of navigation, the Strait of Hormuz must be fully open, which is crucial for our 32 member states."

In addition to the Iran issue, the NATO summit will also discuss how to end the Russia-Ukraine war. After the leaders' summit, President Trump will hold bilateral talks with Ukrainian President Zelensky and Syrian President Ahmad Salah. Voice of America, Washington report.

US President Donald Trump arrived in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, on Tuesday to attend the NATO leaders summit. This is Trump's first NATO summit since returning to the White House. After arriving, Trump held a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and attended the NATO leaders' dinner. On Wednesday, he met successively with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. We will bring you a live broadcast of the press conference following President Trump's participation in the summit later.

NATO has undergone different stages of transformation in its nearly eighty years of existence. Trump has proposed the so-called NATO 3.0, hoping to usher the alliance into a new era. How will NATO 3.0 change the relationship between the United States and its European allies? Let's hear the analysis from Professor Wang Weizheng of the Political Science Department at Edgewood University in the United States.

"I believe that generally knowledgeable people, including Europeans, understand that over the past seventy or eighty years of history, NATO has indeed relied primarily on the United States, and this is undoubtedly a success. But because of this, European countries devastated by World War II were able to rebuild and achieve great success. However, the United States' actions were not only beneficial to others but also to itself, as the US gained many allies who could help share the burden of global affairs. Although their strength is not great, there are several respectable countries among them, including major industrial nations like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy. So, when Trump talks about the so-called 3.0, NATO 3.0. Version 1.0 refers to NATO as a collective security organization primarily against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Version 2.0 came after the end of the Cold War when NATO suddenly realized that its main adversary had collapsed, and it needed to find a new mission. At that time, it was discovered that NATO played a role in confronting terrorism, The War Against Terrorism. Also, in the early 1990s, Yugoslavia disintegrated, leading to much bloodshed and so-called ethnic cleansing. Therefore, in version 2.0, NATO accepted new missions that were not present in version 1.0. So, what is version 3.0 about? Version 3.0 considers the unimaginable event of openly violating the borders of a sovereign country on the European continent, I'm referring to the war in Russia, which has finally happened. Furthermore, both of NATO's recent secretaries-general have gradually emphasized that in a turbulent geopolitical situation, NATO cannot stand alone. For example, regional challenges occurring in the Indo-Pacific region and the Middle East are also of great concern to NATO. So, I think this is what NATO 3.0 aims to do, to redefine its new mission."

Next, we invite Lin Feng, a senior editor at Voice of America's Chinese Service, to the program to analyze the key issues of this NATO summit and its potential impact on US, European, and global security. Hello, Lin Feng.

Hello, host.

Lin Feng, first, could you tell us what are the key focuses and highlights of this NATO summit?

Thank you. We see three main points of focus for this Ankara summit that are of particular interest. The first is regarding defense spending and burden-sharing. As we heard earlier in the program, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said before the summit that allies had pledged at the Hague summit last year to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. The focus of this Ankara summit is to demand that each country present a clear, specific, and credible plan. Stoltenberg also stated that European allies and Canada have currently increased their investment in defense and security to 4% of GDP. By 2025 and 2026, this will collectively increase by 258 billion US dollars. This figure itself indicates that the pressure from President Trump, who has long urged Europe to contribute more and share more responsibility, is becoming a formal agenda item within NATO. This is the first point.

The second point is how NATO can translate funding into genuine military capability. We saw that at this summit, Stoltenberg not only discussed the budget but also addressed the need for specific solutions in areas such as ammunition, air defense, drones, interceptors, and defense industrial capacity. NATO held a defense industry forum during the summit. Stoltenberg announced plans to convert billions of dollars in new contracts into concrete deterrence and defense capabilities.

So the last point of focus, the third one, is on the war in Ukraine and Russia, as well as China and the Indo-Pacific security agenda. Rutte clearly stated that Ukraine still needs NATO support, especially in air defense capabilities. He also referred to China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia as important supporters of this war, and said that security in the Indo-Pacific and the transatlantic are increasingly interconnected. Therefore, the keywords of this summit can be summarized as Europe needing to increase its investment, the US seeking rebalancing, and NATO expanding its security focus from Europe to the broader Indo-Pacific, including global strategic competition.

We also know that President Trump proposed the concept of NATO 3.0. Does this also mean that the relationship between the US and its European allies has entered a new phase?

We can say it has entered a new phase. However, as I mentioned earlier, this phase will be characterized by the US seeking a rebalancing. As the host also mentioned, this is the first summit President Trump has attended since returning to the White House. His core message, which I believe was discussed by President Trump with NATO leaders, is that the US will no longer accept the past model where the US bears the main security costs, while Europe relatively relies on US protection. We also note that NATO Secretary General Rutte, at this summit, described this change as a successful example of NATO's transformation. He told President Trump that Europe and Canada are now moving towards balanced defense spending with the US, and he described this as a change driven by President Trump.

We have also seen China appearing more frequently in NATO summit discussions in recent years. NATO Secretary General Rutte has previously stated that one cannot harbor naive illusions about China and emphasized that European security and Indo-Pacific security are inseparable. In your opinion, why has China become a topic that NATO cannot avoid? What changes does this represent in Europe's strategic thinking?

Okay, there are three main points and three reasons. First, NATO increasingly believes, as Rutte himself mentioned, that the European theater and the connection between Europe and the Indo-Pacific are inseparable and interconnected. He stated very directly this time that what happens in the Indo-Pacific is relevant to transatlantic security. And China, North Korea, and Iran, he said, are all important supporters of Russia's war against Ukraine. This means NATO views China not just in terms of the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, but sees how China influences overall European security through economic, technological, diplomatic, and military cooperation.

Second, China's current military modernization and long-range power projection capabilities are increasingly pressuring Europe. Notably, on the eve of the NATO summit, China test-fired a ballistic missile that could carry a nuclear warhead from a nuclear submarine. Therefore, NATO Secretary General Rutte said that NATO cannot be naive about China, in his words. This statement actually reflects a shift in Europe's perception of China, moving from prioritizing it as an economic partner to viewing it as a systemic competitor and security challenge.

Finally, the US has been pushing its European allies to adopt a more consistent stance on the China issue. In the past, Europe often emphasized trade, trade risks, trade relations, and risk management. However, the Russia-Ukraine war has now changed Europe's security thinking. Europe now places greater importance on supply chain security, including critical infrastructure, critical minerals like rare earths, cybersecurity, dual-use technologies, the relationship between China and Russia, and its direct impact on the battlefield of the Russia-Ukraine war.

We also know that the US is currently facing multiple challenges, including Russia, China, and the situation in the Middle East. Some believe that the US will shift more strategic resources to the Indo-Pacific in the future, while others argue that European security cannot be neglected. In your view, how will the US balance Europe and the Indo-Pacific in the coming years? And what role will NATO play?

From this summit, including President Trump's statement and the statements of European leaders, my observation is that the United States may adopt a dual-track strategy in the coming years. First, the US will certainly not abandon Europe. This is because Russia remains the most direct military threat to NATO, and the war in Ukraine is still ongoing. NATO's Article 5, the collective defense commitment, remains a core point in the US's global alliance system. An attack on a NATO member state is an attack on the entire alliance. This summit, we see the summit's declaration text also discusses the commitment to Article 5. But on the other hand, the US has indeed proposed that European allies in NATO, and Europe primarily, should share more costs and bear more defense responsibilities, so that the US can shift more strategic attention and resources to the Indo-Pacific to focus on and respond to the challenges posed by China. NATO Secretary General Rutte also admitted that European countries are already taking on more responsibility within NATO's command structure in facing deterrence from China in the Baltic region, the Arctic, and in aiding Ukraine.

NATO's role will have two levels going forward. First, in Europe, NATO must clearly ensure that Russia cannot take further risks. Second, on a global level, NATO may strengthen cooperation with Indo-Pacific partners such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. We are currently observing that this cooperation will likely focus more on political security, technology supply chains, and the defense industry, and it does not necessarily mean that NATO will directly intervene in the military domain of the Indo-Pacific.

In the longer term, in the next five to ten years, what do you think will be NATO's biggest challenge? Will it become stronger and more autonomous, or will internal coordination become the biggest test?

NATO's biggest challenge may not be a single threat. It may be facing both internal and external threats simultaneously. Externally, its biggest direct threat remains Russia. However, China is a long-term strategic challenge. Iran, North Korea, cyber security attacks, drones, missiles, air defense, maritime passage security, including passage security in the Strait of Hormuz, will all be on NATO's security agenda. But these also make NATO's security agenda increasingly complex. Rutte mentioned discussing the Russia-Ukraine war, China, North Korea, and Iran within the same security framework.

Internally, NATO needs to address three issues. First, whether countries can truly maintain increased defense spending at the promised level in the long term. We saw at the press conference just now that President Trump expressed his strong personal dissatisfaction with certain member states, including his view that US support for military actions against Iran by NATO members was insufficient. Second, whether Europe can truly convert funds, such as the 5% of GDP target, into actual production capacity and genuine military strength. Third, we need to pay attention to the impact of the US's future decisions on the further development of NATO. These aspects are worth noting.

Okay, Lin Feng, assuming there were a conflict in the Taiwan Strait one day, what role do you think NATO could play?

I hope, as discussed earlier, that NATO, regarding the Taiwan Strait, may not directly intervene militarily at present. However, as discussed, it might provide more support to Taiwan from a strategic perspective, including early warning and diplomatic support. For now, NATO is more focused on responding to the direct military threat from Russia. In the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan is certainly a very important link in the region. Currently, it is likely to play a role in coordinating with the US...

However, as discussed, it might provide more support to Taiwan from a strategic perspective, including early warning and diplomatic support. For now, NATO is more focused on responding to the direct military threat from Russia. In the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan is certainly a very important link in the region. Currently, it is likely to play a role in coordinating with the US. That is, it plays a supporting role, helping the US maintain the security, peace, and stability of the Taiwan Strait from a global perspective. Thank you, Lin Feng, for your analysis. Thank you. Okay, now let's connect with VOA reporter Si Yang. We know that VOA reporter Si Yang is currently covering the summit in Ankara and participated in related summit activities earlier. So, Si Yang, first, please introduce us. We know the summit has released a summit declaration. Please tell us about its key contents, especially regarding defense spending and support for Ukraine, what new statements are worth noting?

Okay, Xiangyun, it's like this. About an hour ago, the NATO Ankara Summit issued the Ankara Declaration, which has about six points. The first point is to reaffirm NATO's collective defense, which is point five: an attack on one country is considered an attack on all member states. The second point concerns defense, which you just mentioned. It mainly fulfills NATO's commitment at the Hague Summit, as Lin Feng just mentioned, to increase defense spending to 5%. NATO announced about $50 billion in new procurement plans at this meeting. We also said at the time that they hoped to show U.S. President Trump that their defense spending had been converted into real military strength. The third point is about building NATO 3.0. NATO 3.0 means reducing dependence on the United States, and then Europe will bear the conventional responsibilities of NATO. The fourth point is about Ukraine. The treaty states that Ukraine has contributed to transatlantic security.

NATO will unswervingly support Ukraine in defending its freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. The fifth point is that NATO discussed that the alliance will continue to respond to strategic competition and pervasive instability in the broader security environment. This involves Iran. It says NATO does not support or oppose Iran possessing nuclear weapons and calls on Iran to fully respect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The sixth point is to express gratitude to the host, Turkey. This statement did not mention China, just like last year, when China was not mentioned either. However, at the subsequent press conference, Rutte briefly mentioned that China and Russia are entering our north, and all our member states need to act together. Xiangyun, naturally, we know that NATO Secretary General Rutte stated before the summit that at the Ankara Summit, NATO must first show the world that we are fulfilling the commitments made in The Hague last year, and we will revitalize the concept of NATO 3.0, a stronger Europe, a stronger NATO. How did NATO demonstrate this at the summit?

As I just said, on the first day of the summit, it kicked off with a Defense Industry Forum. At this forum, NATO Secretary General Rutte announced a series of defense cooperation agreements worth $50 billion, as mentioned earlier, with the intention of showing the President, the U.S. President, that NATO is serious about enhancing its defense capabilities. The concept of NATO 3.0 has been consistently promoted by Rutte, as I mentioned earlier. NATO 3.0 means that NATO should take the lead in the defense of the European continent, with NATO taking the lead, rather than relying on the United States. This concept was also proposed by the United States, which said we want to establish a partnership, not a dependency. Xiangyun, President Trump arrived at the summit late Tuesday evening. What messages did he convey? President Trump has said many things about NATO today and yesterday. He particularly talked about the issue of Iran during a press conference with NATO Secretary General Rutte this morning.

He said that the deal with Iran is basically over. He said he is unwilling to deal with the Iranians anymore because it is a waste of time. He also criticized the United States and NATO member states, especially Spain. He said he has instructed the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, to cut off all ties with Spain. The reason is that in March of this year, Spain refused to provide two military bases to the United States in its actions against Iran. President Trump also criticized some NATO member states for not supporting U.S. actions against Iran when he met with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan yesterday. The President also mentioned Greenland, which has caused considerable controversy. He reiterated that Greenland should be managed by the United States because Denmark has not provided sufficient defense security, and Greenland is now surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships. The fourth point is about Turkey. He said the United States will consider lifting restrictions on Turkey and providing F-35 fighter jets to Turkey.

The reason for this is that Turkey purchased an air defense system from Russia in 2020, which led the United States to impose restrictions on Turkey. To Xiang Yun and Si Yang, we know that on July 7th, during the Ankara summit, the NATO Secretary General held talks with representatives from four Indo-Pacific countries: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. What did they discuss? And what is the connection with China? Yes, NATO Secretary General Rutte met with representatives from the four Indo-Pacific countries – Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia, as mentioned earlier – on July 7th, which was yesterday. The main topic was what they called an "exchange of views on the international situation." This international situation includes Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's assertive posture in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, and North Korea's policies and actions in Northeast Asia. They believe the most important message is that the security environment in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions is inseparable.

This concept has actually been discussed for the past two years. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, people have been saying, "Today's Ukraine is tomorrow's Indo-Pacific." So this concept has always been present. What's also important is that on July 6th, the day before the NATO summit began, China test-fired a missile from a submarine. This attracted the attention of all countries. According to a statement from the Japanese Ministry of Defense, they discussed this issue during the meeting between NATO leaders and the four Indo-Pacific countries and expressed serious concern about China's missile test. Yes, regarding China and Russia, and as previously mentioned, Iran and North Korea, NATO Secretary General Rutte has previously expressed that each of these countries is troublesome enough on its own, and now they are acting in concert, so NATO should pay close attention. Okay, Xiang Yun, thank you to reporter Si Yang for the report from Ankara. China's missile test on Monday has drawn global attention. NATO Secretary General Rutte stated before the summit that NATO cannot harbor naive illusions about China and emphasized that Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security are increasingly interconnected.

The G7 summit concluded last month, focusing on issues such as overcapacity, dumping of European and Chinese red supply chains, and rare earth elements. What is NATO's focus regarding China? Let's hear the analysis from Wang Weizheng, Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Adelphi University. I think it's more accurate to talk about Europe as a whole rather than just NATO, because Europe had certain illusions about China after the 1970s and 1980s. I can describe them as illusions now. They believed, especially countries like France, that China's market was constantly booming and that Europe had to be able to enter the Chinese market. France, in particular, has a natural tendency to believe that because they were once great powers, and after World War II, if the United States hadn't saved them, they would probably be speaking German today. So they couldn't quite accept that, and they thought that if China rose, it could allow them to have a voice in international affairs, for example, France could speak of strategic independence and autonomy. But now, after so many years, they have found that China's rise has begun to pose a threat to Europe.

This threat is mainly in security and economics. Economically, China is no longer developing labor-intensive or agricultural products, but high-end goods, such as electric vehicles, solar cells, and batteries, etc. These are precisely the areas that Europe wants to develop. So their relationship has shifted from complementarity to competition. And because Europe is a welfare state, its products are inevitably more expensive than those in China. This leads to dumping by China. Therefore, Europe has realized that it must impose restrictions on these Chinese products. In terms of security, Europe has significant trade with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Given China's rapid military advancements in the Asia-Pacific region in recent years, and its increasingly aggressive actions, such as land reclamation in the South China Sea, they have also realized that, coupled with the fact that China, Russia, and Iran are largely coordinating their foreign policies,

So if they coordinate, because if Russia's fighters in Ukraine, without China's civilian or covert support, although it claims neutrality on the surface, but without China's support, I believe Russia could not have fought for so long. And if the war between Iran and the United States basically has no outcome, I believe China will also play a role later. So Europeans are gradually understanding that China's rise is not a positive factor, and their past ideas may need to be revised. In this context, the security of the Asia-Pacific region, European security, and even global security are interconnected. This point has been raised by both the previous Secretary General, including Yan Stoltenberg, and the current one, Mark Reuter. You will also see in more and more diplomatic documents, for example, in joint statements issued by their Secretary General with leaders such as the Prime Minister of Japan or the President of the United States, it is mentioned that the Asia-Pacific region is of paramount importance to Europe. It even mentions the issue of the Taiwan Strait, and that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait region are an indispensable element for global security and prosperity.

This is different from the past when NATO only managed the security and prosperity of the North Atlantic. However, so far, it is only a declaration of foreign policy. As for what actions will be taken, I think it needs to be observed. But at least their thinking has changed. From the messages released by the NATO summit, what is the most important agenda of this summit and what developments are worth paying attention to? Let's listen to Liao Yanfen, Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council's Global China Center, for an analysis. So, from the perspective of our primary concern for China and Taiwan policy, the first thing that needs to be clarified is the difference between NATO and the United States in their views on NATO 3.0. Because there is a gap in their understanding, and neither has made it very clear. Then, regarding the NATO alliance's support for Ukraine, is it possible to reform it within the system to make it more institutionalized? Because this will also affect whether NATO needs to further increase its support for Ukraine or further engage in so-called burden sharing.

So these two aspects are worth observing. This summit is being held against the backdrop of a rapidly changing international security environment, including the US-Iran conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war you just mentioned, and the intensifying US-China competition. What do you think is NATO's biggest challenge in this regard? So I will divide this part into two sections: the strategic part and the tactical and operational level part. Strategically, the biggest problem is how NATO and the United States can coordinate their friction, which arises from the shift in roles, especially the friction caused by some unilateral actions taken by the United States. The impact on operations and tactics is basically related to NATO and its current desire to increase military readiness. Because most of NATO's current focus is on hardware, that is, large amounts of hardware, large amounts of traditional military power, such as tanks and armored vehicles that we can see. However, if we actually consider the problems that NATO may encounter in the next 15 years or even after the end of the Ukraine war, in terms of military issues, the greater threat is actually so-called hybrid warfare, so-called influence operations, and various small-scale actions, like the

If the United States hopes Europe will take on more responsibility in the future, will this change the relationship between NATO member states? It certainly will. Some related issues can already be observed. For example, in the China issue that we are familiar with, if the United States no longer insists that China is a threat, the issue will largely return to what impact China has on NATO member states. It is clear that Eastern European countries and Western European countries, or so-called frontline countries close to Russia and countries on the flank, like France, will have very different roles and opinions on these issues. Without the United States coordinating and appeasing, who will step up to do this will greatly affect, for example, NATO's future attitude towards the China issue. This is not just NATO; in fact, we need to discuss three issues when discussing NATO: the EU, NATO, and the G7, all of which are the same on this issue. Next, let's hear Professor Wang Weizheng's views on the most important issues of the NATO summit and what developments are particularly worth paying attention to. I think the two main issues are, first, the future of NATO, which, in a narrower sense, is the relationship between the United States and other NATO member states. This may involve whether NATO can evolve into what is called...

However, as mentioned earlier, it is more about providing more support to Taiwan from strategic aspects, including early warning and diplomatic aspects. As far as it is now, NATO is still more focused on responding to the direct military threat from Russia. In the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan is certainly a very important link in the Indo-Pacific region. It may be that, at present, it should still play a role in coordinating with the United States. That is to say, it plays a coordinating role and helps the United States maintain the security, peace, and stability of the Taiwan Strait from a global perspective. Thank you, Lin Feng, for your analysis. Thank you. Thank you. Well, now let's connect with Voice of America reporter Si Yang. We know that Voice of America reporter Si Yang is currently covering the summit in Ankara. He participated in related summit activities earlier. So, Si Yang, first, please introduce us. We know that the summit has released a summit declaration. Please introduce us to the key contents of this declaration. What new statements are worth paying attention to, especially on defense spending and support for Ukraine?

Okay, Xiangyun, it's like this. About an hour ago, the NATO Ankara Summit released the Ankara Declaration, which has about six points. The first point reiterates NATO's collective defense, Article 5, an attack on one country is considered an attack on all member states. The second point concerns defense, as you mentioned. The second point is mainly to fulfill the commitment made at the Hague Summit, as Lin Feng mentioned, to increase defense spending to 5%. NATO announced about $50 billion in new procurement plans at this meeting. At that time, we also said that they hoped to show U.S. President Trump that we have converted our defense spending into real military power. The third point is about building NATO 3.0. NATO 3.0 means reducing dependence on the United States, and Europe taking on NATO's conventional responsibilities. The fourth point is about Ukraine, and the treaty states that Ukraine has contributed to transatlantic security.

NATO will unswervingly support Ukraine in defending its freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. The fifth point is that NATO discussed that the alliance will continue to respond to strategic competition and widespread instability in the broader security environment. This involves Iran, stating that NATO does not support Iran's possession of nuclear weapons and calls on Iran to fully respect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The sixth point expresses gratitude to the host country, Turkey. This statement does not mention China, just like last year, when China was not mentioned either. However, at the subsequent press conference, Rutte stated briefly that China and Russia are entering our north, and all our member states need to act together. Xiangyun, naturally, we know that NATO Secretary General Rutte stated before the summit that at the Ankara Summit, NATO must first show the world that we are fulfilling the commitments made in The Hague last year, and we will revitalize the concept of NATO 3.0, a stronger Europe, a stronger NATO. NATO. How did NATO demonstrate this at the summit?

I just said that at the summit, the first display on the first day of the summit was a defense industry forum that kicked off the event. At this forum, NATO Secretary General Rutte announced a series of defense cooperation agreements worth $50 billion, intended to show the US President that NATO is serious about enhancing its defense capabilities. The concept of NATO 3.0, which Rutte has been promoting and I mentioned earlier, means that NATO should take the lead in defending the European continent, with NATO taking the lead rather than relying on the United States. This concept was also proposed by the United States, which said it wants to establish a partnership rather than a dependency. Speaking of Yun, President Trump arrived at the summit later on Tuesday. What messages did he convey? President Trump has said a lot about NATO today and yesterday. In particular, during a press conference with NATO Secretary General Rutte this morning, he discussed the issue of Iran.

He said that the agreement with Iran on nuclear issues is basically over. He said he is unwilling to deal with the Iranians anymore because it is a waste of time. He also criticized the United States and NATO member states, particularly Spain. He said he had instructed the US Treasury Secretary to cut off all ties with Spain. The reason for this is that in March of this year, Spain refused to provide two military bases to the United States for its actions against Iran. The President also criticized some NATO member states for not supporting US actions against Iran when he met with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan yesterday. The President also mentioned the issue of Greenland, which has caused considerable controversy. He reiterated that Greenland should be managed by the United States because Denmark has not provided sufficient defense security, and Greenland is now surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships. Fourth, regarding Turkey, he said that the United States will consider lifting restrictions on Turkey and providing F-35 fighter jets to Turkey.

This is because Turkey purchased an air defense system from Russia in 2020, which led the United States to impose restrictions on Turkey. Speaking of Yun, Si Yang, we know that on July 7th, during the Ankara summit, the NATO Secretary General held talks with representatives from four Indo-Pacific countries: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. What did they discuss, and what is the connection with China? Yes, NATO Secretary General Rutte met with representatives from the four Indo-Pacific countries – Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia – yesterday, July 7th. The main topic was an frank exchange of views on the international situation, including Russia's aggression against Ukraine, China's assertive posture in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, and North Korea's policies and actions in Northeast Asia. They agreed that the security environment in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions is indivisible.

This concept has actually been promoted for the past two years. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it has been said that today's Ukraine is tomorrow's Indo-Pacific. So this concept has always existed. Importantly, on July 6th, the day before the NATO summit began, China test-fired a missile from a submarine, which drew the attention of all countries. According to a statement from the Japanese Ministry of Defense, the NATO leaders and the representatives of the four Indo-Pacific countries discussed this issue during their meeting and expressed serious concern about China's missile test. Regarding China and Russia, as well as Iran and North Korea, NATO Secretary General Rutte has previously expressed that each of these countries is troublesome enough on its own, and now they are acting in concert, so NATO should pay close attention. Thank you, Xiang Yun, for the report from Ankara. China's missile test on Monday has drawn global attention. NATO Secretary General Rutte stated before the summit that NATO cannot harbor naive illusions about China and emphasized that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are increasingly interconnected.

The G7 summit concluded last month, focusing on issues such as overcapacity, dumping into Europe, China's "red supply chain," and rare earth metals. What is NATO's focus on China? Let's hear the analysis from Wang Weizheng, Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Adelphi University. I think it's more appropriate to talk about Europe as a whole rather than NATO, because Europe had some illusions about China after the 1970s and 1980s. I can describe it as an illusion now. They felt, especially in countries like France, that China's market was constantly booming, and Europe had to be able to enter the Chinese market. And countries like France, with their innate sense of grandeur from their past as great nations, felt that if the US hadn't saved them during World War II, they would probably be speaking German today, right? So they couldn't quite accept it and felt that if China rose, it could give them a voice in international affairs, allowing France, for example, to speak of strategic independence and autonomy. But now, after so many years, they have found that China's rise has begun to pose a threat to Europe again.

This threat is mainly in security and economics. Economically, China is no longer developing labor-intensive or agricultural products, but high-end goods, such as electric vehicles, solar cells, solar energy, and batteries, etc. These happen to be areas that Europe wants to develop. So their relationship has shifted from complementarity to competition. And because Europe is a welfare state, its products are inevitably more expensive than those in China. This leads to dumping by China. Therefore, Europe has realized that it must restrict these Chinese products. In terms of security, Europe also has a considerable amount of trade with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In recent years, China has made rapid military advancements in the Asia-Pacific region, and its actions have become increasingly aggressive, such as land reclamation in the South China Sea. So they have also found that, coupled with China's coordination with Russia and Iran on many foreign policy matters.

This coordination means that if Russia's war in Ukraine could not have lasted so long without China's tacit or overt support, even though China officially claims neutrality, I believe Russia could not have sustained the war for so long without China's support. And regarding the unresolved conflict between Iran and the US, I believe China also played a role behind the scenes. Therefore, Europeans are gradually realizing that China's rise is not a positive factor, and their past assumptions may need to be revised. In this context, the security of the Asia-Pacific region, European security, and even global security are interconnected. Both the current and former Secretaries General, including Jens Stoltenberg and now Mark Rutte, have mentioned this. You will also see in more and more diplomatic documents, such as joint statements issued by their Secretary General with leaders like the Prime Minister of Japan or the President of the United States, that the Asia-Pacific region is of great importance to Europe. They even mention the issue of the Taiwan Strait, and that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait region are indispensable elements for global security and prosperity.

This is different from the past when NATO was solely concerned with the security and prosperity of the North Atlantic. However, for now, it is only a declaration of foreign policy. As for what actions will be taken, I think we need to wait and see. But at least their thinking has changed. From the messages released by the NATO summit, what was the most important agenda item of this summit, and what developments are worth paying attention to? Let's hear the analysis from Liao Yanfen, Deputy Director of the Global China Center at the Atlantic Council. So, from the perspective of those of us who are primarily concerned with China and Taiwan policy, the first thing that needs clarification is the difference in views between NATO and the US regarding NATO 3.0. Because there are gaps in their understanding, and neither side has made it very clear. Next, regarding NATO's support for Ukraine, can it be reformed within the system to become more institutionalized? Because this will also affect whether NATO needs to further increase its support for Ukraine or further engage in burden-sharing. This will also affect whether NATO needs to further increase its support for Ukraine or further engage in burden-sharing.

So these two parts are worth observing. This summit is being held against the backdrop of a rapidly changing international security environment, including the US-Iran conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war you just mentioned, and escalating US-China competition. In your opinion, what is NATO's biggest challenge amidst these developments? So I will divide my discussion into two parts: the strategic part and the more tactical and operational level part. Strategically, the biggest issue, of course, is how NATO and the US can coordinate to resolve the friction arising from role transitions, especially friction caused by unilateral actions taken by the US. The impact of this on operations and tactics is basically related to NATO and its current desire to increase military preparedness. This is because most of NATO's current focus is on hardware, that is, large amounts of hardware and traditional military strength, such as tanks and armored vehicles that we can see. However, if we actually consider the problems NATO might face in the next 15 years, or even after the Ukraine war ends, the greater threat in the military realm is so-called hybrid warfare, so-called influence operations, and various small-scale actions, like the

We must discuss three topics: the European Union, NATO, and the G7. All are the same on this issue. Next, let's hear Professor Wang Weizheng's views on the most important issues of the NATO summit and what developments are particularly worth paying attention to. I think the two most important issues are: first, the future of NATO, which, in a narrower sense, refers to the relationship between the United States and other NATO member states. This may involve whether NATO can evolve into what is called NATO 3.0, which I will discuss later. The second issue, I think the most important issue, is that member states should coordinate their policies, because the Russia-Ukraine war has entered its fifth year and can be said to be in a stalemate. But recently, we have seen Russia increase the intensity of its attacks on Ukraine. Regarding this matter with Ukraine, although Trump said that both sides have the intention to stop the war, the pace among member states is not necessarily completely the same. I think this is also a key point to be discussed at this NATO summit. First, the most pressing issue, from Trump's perspective, is that at the NATO summit in The Hague last year, it was agreed that NATO member states would strengthen their investment in their own defense, that is, military investment, and defense spending should reach 5%.

This target is to be reached by 2035, within 10 years. This 5% includes two parts: 3.5% is directly related to weapons and troops, and the remaining 1.5% can be considered other defense-related expenditures. The definition of this is broader, including building bridges and paving roads, etc. So Trump strongly hopes that other Western European countries, most of which are wealthy industrial democracies, will spend more money on defending their own security. He has also continuously accused these member states, saying that the United States has spent a lot of money and effort to protect these European countries. The Russia-Ukraine war has actually had a greater impact on these European countries than on the United States. I think this is from his starting point, so I think this may be a key point of discussion or even debate this time. This summit is being held against the backdrop of a rapidly changing international security environment, including the US-Iran conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war, and escalating US-China competition. What do you think is NATO's biggest challenge currently? I think NATO has been established for nearly 70, 80 years since its founding in 1947, so in human history, it can be considered a quite successful collective security organization during peacetime, i.e., non-war periods.

In the past, many people have been pessimistic about it, believing that it should end or something like that, but in fact, it has not. But it has clearly reached a transitional period. The Cold War ended about 30 years ago, and many people thought that peace would prevail, but that is not the case. In many regions, including Europe and the Indo-Pacific, security challenges are actually increasing. Therefore, the mindset of European countries in the past, where they could not spend much on military expenses during peacetime and instead spent as much as possible on so-called social security and welfare, can no longer continue. As you mentioned, those regional and global challenges are actually related. So I think NATO needs to consider another aspect: encountering a president like Trump, who for many years has accused European countries of not taking their own defense very seriously. Therefore, NATO countries must seriously consider whether NATO will one day be without the United States, or whether the United States will gradually reduce its role, allowing Europeans to support it themselves.

Of course, this does not mean it will happen tomorrow, but I believe that within three to five years, this proportion must be adjusted. And I think the most immediate challenge, as I mentioned, is that the Russia-Ukraine war has reached a stalemate after five years, and there seems to be no progress. However, Russia has clearly increased its attacks on Ukraine recently, hoping to gain some advantages at the negotiating table. So, is it possible that Russia might attack one of the NATO member states, for example, Estonia? Because Estonia was formerly part of the Soviet Union, and there are some ethnic Russians within its territory. Russia has actually used this tactic many times in history, using the excuse of protecting Russian-speaking people to invade and intervene in these regions. For example, in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, this is the case because it is inhabited by Russian speakers. And there are also some Russian speakers in Estonia. The issue is that NATO is a collective security organization, and Article 5 clearly states that an attack on one member state is an attack on all member states.

If Russia were to suddenly make such a move, meaning it's cornered and desperate, hoping for a breakthrough in Ukraine, and suddenly says this to one of the weaker countries in NATO, because Estonia has only a little over a million people and is a relatively new and small member of NATO. Although they are working hard to increase their military spending, their defense ultimately cannot rely on themselves alone. If such an event were to occur, it would truly test whether NATO's Article 5 on collective security would be invoked. I think this is perhaps the biggest challenge. The Russia-Ukraine war has already changed the European security landscape. President Trump told reporters before his departure on Monday that the leaders of both Russia and Ukraine want to end the war, and he shares the same hope. Let's now listen to Liao Yanfen's analysis of how this war might develop in the future. So, predicting wars is indeed difficult, but what I can see at least for now is that certain changes on the battlefield, such as air defense weapons, air defense missiles, or ballistic missiles, might have some impact on the balance of support between Russia and Ukraine, and the countries behind them. However, what is truly worth our attention, from the perspective of Chinese observers, is the bloc formed by Russia, China, and North Korea, and even Iran, the supply chain they form, especially in weapon systems, defense systems supply chains, and related industrial integration. Whether this will continue to consolidate in the future, and even develop further after the Russia-Ukraine war, this part is actually more worth noting. In the past, NATO primarily focused on European security and Russia. Why are there more and more discussions about China now? While increasing defense budgets, do they still have resources to consider China? So, this involves the competition in the defense industry, production industry, and related sectors that we just discussed. Since Russia is now relying heavily on China's production chain for many of the shells, munitions, and drones used on the battlefield, and manpower is largely dependent on North Korea, their integration is becoming increasingly close. So the last question is, since the industrial integration between China and Russia is already so tight, how will Europe refuse this problem? So this is a big issue, involving economics, raw materials, and what you call NATO's responsibility for defense, meaning what we need can be produced by ourselves. As for the Indo-Pacific aspect, this involves the US's own view of NATO 3.0. The US hopes to be able to withdraw some of its forces and increase its troop deployment in the Indo-Pacific, because the challenges in this region are clearly greater. In Europe, their focus on China is also considering how the EU will position itself in future conflicts, or even how they will consider responding, for example, if a crisis occurs in the Indo-Pacific. So these are all issues that cannot avoid discussing China. NATO has been strengthening cooperation with Indo-Pacific partners such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand in recent years. Do you think this trend will further expand in the future? This is what we are currently discussing regarding the interactions between the Indo-Pacific Four and NATO. Personally, I am not optimistic, because if you look at the current mode of interaction between NATO and the Indo-Pacific Four, it is basically country-by-country, bilateral rather than multilateral. The meeting in Ankara this time also did not have many multilateral aspects from the Indo-Pacific Four track, which is worth observing. But the main problem is that the US is not strongly involved and actively promoting this aspect, while Europe is more actively trying to understand the impact of crises in the Indo-Pacific on NATO's future challenges. So I think it might continue in the future, but an expansion is less likely. As NATO increasingly focuses on Indo-Pacific security, how does the Taiwan Strait issue become part of NATO's strategic discussion? So we just mentioned that NATO is responsible for the military aspect, while the G7 is responsible for many aspects of raw materials, economics, and even economic defense, which is handled by the EU. So for NATO, what it considers are the two points we just mentioned: first, what is the impact on our defense industry supply chain? And if this further expands, affecting national production, global industrial economy, transportation, and shipping routes, how will NATO coordinate with, for example, the G7 and the EU to manage itself?

So there are two parts. The first is economic, coordinating with the EU on how to conduct so-called economic decoupling and avoid economic damage caused by a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. The second part is more practical, concerning specific scenarios where NATO might need to intervene and what those scenarios entail. China recently conducted its first submarine-launched ballistic missile test in two years. Does NATO consider China a trans-regional security challenge, not just an Indo-Pacific issue? We now continue with VOA senior editor Lin Feng to analyze. Okay, regarding what we just discussed, on the eve of this NATO summit, China happened to conduct a test of a ballistic missile launched from a nuclear submarine. It is said that this ballistic missile can carry nuclear warheads, which is of great significance. I think it's safe to say that Beijing did not intend for this launch to target the NATO summit, but it coincidentally occurred at such a time. How does NATO view this issue?

NATO might say that China is not currently a direct enemy of NATO. As we discussed, NATO still considers Russia the biggest single challenge to the region. Furthermore, the Russia-Ukraine war continues. However, the Trump administration has repeatedly spoken about China's military modernization, including the expansion of its nuclear arsenal, and has expressed a desire to include China in discussions on strategic nuclear arms reduction with Russia. China's demonstration of such power, precisely on the eve of the NATO summit, has been captured by NATO leaders. From NATO's perspective, while they may not label China an enemy now, China's military modernization, its capability to project power in space, its cyber warfare capabilities, all pose a threat to NATO. Although this threat is not direct, there is another aspect: the close relationship between China and Russia, both economically and in terms of security, and China's support for Russia. I recall a Reuters report not long ago, an exclusive report, which we have not yet been able to verify from the US side, stating that China is assisting Russia in military training. This is the first disclosure of its kind.

Therefore, from this perspective, China poses a very significant indirect threat to European security. NATO also mentioned a challenge from the north this time. What is the

Then in that case, these four countries together, because of course they say that any single one of these four countries is already very troublesome. The combination of the four countries is, of course, a larger, more serious, and more widespread strategic security threat and challenge. So from NATO's perspective, they will continue to focus their main energy and resources on dealing with the direct threat from Russia, including continuing to support Ukraine in resisting Russia's invasion. However, China's military support for Russia, North Korea's provision of weapons to Russia, and Iran's military cooperation with Russia will increasingly link the European war and Indo-Pacific security. NATO has previously referred to China as a decisive enabler of Russia's war, there is such a saying. So we can see that NATO will increasingly emphasize that European security and Indo-Pacific security are inseparable. We know that President Trump is currently meeting with the President of Syria, and we will now take a look at the scene of the meeting. We decided to do this, this is called the denuclearization of Iran, they will not have nuclear weapons, and they admit they will not, but they perform very poorly, they always perform very poorly, they have problems. When we did this, we thought oil prices would become very high, and they did not.

Now they have dropped significantly. You can see that oil prices have fallen very low, maybe we need to do something else to raise them a little, but I don't think they will go very high. I think oil prices will drop significantly, there is a lot of oil. Scott, what do you say? Our production was at a record high during President Trump's first term, and now it is his second term, we can say we are a superpower. And now we have actually seen a lot of oil recently...

Now they have dropped significantly. You can see that oil prices have fallen very low, maybe we need to do something else to raise them a little, but I don't think they will go very high. I think oil prices will drop significantly, there is a lot of oil. Scott, what do you say? Our production was at a record high during President Trump's first term, and now it is his second term, we can say we are a superpower. And now we have actually seen a lot of oil reserves, we can see that US oil in the future may be traded at a premium to other countries. Now Saudi Arabia and Russia are two major oil producers, and we have much more than them. If you add these two countries together, we have more than them, and this does not include Venezuela, which is remarkable. This all happened during my term, it started in my first term, but then Biden messed it up. But now we produce more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined, almost double.

Do you think fighting with the Iranians is a waste of time? Then how will you get the nuclear materials and nuclear safeguards you want? We already have them, in fact, because they are buried very deep underground, others cannot find them. I call it nuclear dust, nuclear materials are buried deep underground, and only machines that we have, and other countries do not have, can dig them out. So, you are not planning to send troops, right? Why would I send troops?

Mr. President, if you don't trade with Spain, will you have to cut off trade with the entire EU? We will have to look at our relationship with the EU again. For many years, our trade with them has been very unfair, they have taken advantage of us. We are now dealing with issues with these countries, and each country in the EU, they have actually taken advantage of the United States, and they have also taken advantage of Syria. I am now allowing Syria to join these discussions, and I also want to allow the United States to participate in these discussions.

We have now invested 19 trillion, we have invested. During Biden's term, they invested no more than 4 trillion, but we invested 19 trillion in 12 months, which is the most we have ever invested in history. That's right, 19 trillion. And they have also built many factories. Yesterday, Toyota announced that it is leaving Mexico and will move its factory to the United States. I think this will be the largest car factory in the world, or at least in the United States.

I would like to ask, a few days ago you mentioned that Walmart reduced the price of beef by half, what impact will this have on the American people? Walmart's reduction in prices will have a great impact on the people. When we took over, prices were very high, the highest in history. During Biden's term, we saw a significant increase in interest rates and inflation. Now, everything is good, and prices are constantly falling. When we took over, prices were very high, now these prices have fallen, and oil prices have also fallen, by 50%. This is what has been seen in the past month. After oil prices fall, all other prices will also fall.

After I took over, I achieved many great accomplishments, for example, affordability. Democrats love to talk about affordability, but look at the price of eggs at the time. Within one day of me taking office, I felt I had to bring down the price of eggs. I told them before that I was going to make adjustments, and a few months later the price dropped. We bought a lot of eggs through the White House, thus providing demand, and later the price went down. Democrats like to talk about the affordability crisis, but we have actually solved this crisis.

Mr. President, on the Iranian front, we see oil prices rising again due to the attacks. Of course, we will definitely see oil prices rise, but they will come down afterwards. It was $135 before, and it will drop to $69. Every time we strike Iran, oil prices go up a little bit, but it doesn't matter. We are currently working on denuclearizing Iran, and they will not have nuclear weapons afterwards.

Mr. President, do you think Iran should withdraw its troops from South Lebanon? I don't think this question should be asked of me, it should be asked of Iran whether they are willing to withdraw their troops. We will also sign an agreement with Lebanon later, this is the first agreement in history. We have an agreement with Lebanon because Lebanon is very concerned about their security. The President plays a very good role as a facilitator, and we have agreements with both Israel and Lebanon. I think it will be very good later.

Syria's position has actually changed, and their speed is very fast. Their past leader was not a very smart leader; the person I dealt with when I took over was also a very unwise leader. You know, before, our borders were open, and 25 million people could enter the United States every day. Now we have tightened our borders. Washington D.C. is now considered the safest city in the country. If you had come to Washington a year and a half ago, you might have been afraid for your life. Although you would normally have security measures when coming to DC, I am joking. Basically, the environment in Washington D.C. was very unsafe a year and a half ago. I also know that there are many threats in the general environment of Syria, so when you come to Washington, you might feel a little safer. However, we have made great efforts in Washington to make it one of the safest cities in the country. We take this issue very seriously. We have 5,000 criminals who entered the United States because our borders were open, and they are now being repatriated. For example, in Louisiana, you will see a 78% decrease in their crime rate. We are doing a very good job. I think the current Syrian leader is doing a very good job. Thank you.

Okay, Lin Feng, we would like to ask you further. We know that Indo-Pacific partners like Japan, South Korea, and Australia are participating in this summit. What about the future of NATO, and how will they deepen cooperation? Will this involve the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea? Yes, just now we saw on the program, and our reporter Siyang also mentioned, that Japan, South Korea, and Australia are four of NATO's so-called Indo-Pacific partners, important partner countries, four important international partner countries. So how will NATO strengthen cooperation with them? Of course, this strengthened cooperation is mainly from the perspective of responding to the threat from China, especially China's increasingly aggressive stance and threat in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea region. China's very rare display of force on the eve of the NATO summit, launching a ballistic missile from a submarine, a nuclear submarine, and one that can carry nuclear warheads. According to our understanding, and this is also reported by Reuters, they said that Australia and New Zealand, these two important countries in the Indo-Pacific region, intend to issue a very strong statement at the Pacific Islands Forum condemning China's missile test. Because we know that this test missile landed in the South Pacific. There was a previous agreement that this region is not allowed to conduct such missile tests or nuclear experiments. From this broader perspective, NATO may strengthen cooperation with the Indo-Pacific region to deal with the situation in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Of course, NATO will not say that it will discuss whether to conduct this cooperation in a military sense, traditional military and security cooperation, but rather focus on areas such as cybersecurity, maritime security, rare minerals, critical minerals, supply chain resilience, and military industry information and production. There is also broader cooperation, including how to deal with the spread of disinformation and propaganda from China and Russia, rather than, at this stage, directly deploying NATO's military forces to the Taiwan Strait or the broader South Pacific region. Of course, according to NATO's official statement, developments in the Indo-Pacific region directly affect European security. Therefore, from this perspective, we will see broader cooperation between NATO and these four countries in other areas besides traditional security and military fields, further deepening their cooperation.

Thank you Lin Feng for your analysis. VOA reporter Si Yang, who is currently on the scene at the Ankara summit and has participated in many related activities earlier, will now connect with Si Yang to introduce the new developments and focus of this NATO summit, as well as his firsthand observations from the scene. Si Yang, tell us about the current situation at the NATO summit and if you have any new information? Regarding the latest information, I just listened to NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg's press conference. Did I ask Si Yang the same question directly at the press conference? U.S. President Trump was asked what he thought of Trump. Because during the press conference with Stoltenberg, President Trump expressed his dissatisfaction with NATO member states. Then Stoltenberg said that this is a dispute among friends, and that such a dispute is a dispute among democratic countries, which will make everyone stronger. He also specifically emphasized that the United States is still committed to NATO, that is, it is still committed to being a part of NATO. And during the meeting, he was also asked, it's not really that during the meeting, but this time, what everyone is paying attention to is that the United States is at war with Iran, so does the United States still have the strength to face the Far East or more? And Stoltenberg said he believes the United States has the ability to do this. This may also be that the United States hopes to return the responsibility of European defense to Europe, letting Europe take the lead. At this summit, and in subsequent press conferences, Stoltenberg specifically emphasized that he particularly agrees with President Trump. He said that European countries in NATO, and they are all wealthy countries, with a total population of 600 million, how can they continue to rely on 350 million Americans? He said that the U.S. President feels it is unfair. Although we are committed to NATO, this approach is unfair. Then, Stoltenberg strongly agrees with this statement, so he said that this is why NATO has expressed its intention to enhance its combat capabilities this time.

Si Yang, we know that China recently conducted its first submarine-launched ballistic missile test in two years. Does NATO consider China a trans-regional security challenge, and not just an Indo-Pacific issue? NATO Secretary General, NATO has paid attention to China since the Madrid Summit in 2022. In fact, before the Madrid Summit, NATO had already identified China as a systemic challenge to its security. Then, in 2024, NATO's Washington Declaration specifically listed China as an enabler and facilitator of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So since then, it has been emphasizing that NATO must have partnerships with the Indo-Pacific and work hand in hand with Indo-Pacific partners. And we have talked about the four Indo-Pacific countries. This time, the defense ministers of the four Indo-Pacific countries were invited to attend, and of course, the President of South Korea also attended. This is also the first time NATO has invited defense ministers from the four Indo-Pacific countries. So as Lin Feng said earlier, NATO's dialogue with the four Indo-Pacific countries was originally just a political dialogue, but now it is gradually transforming into practical cooperation, including in maritime security and strengthening cyber cooperation. So NATO and the four Indo-Pacific countries are strengthening cooperation. However, it is possible that NATO will not directly list China as an enemy, but China's actions will change NATO's risk assessment of China. Then, on July 6, before the summit, Stoltenberg was asked at a press conference how he viewed China's actions, and he said we should abandon naive illusions about China.

We know that NATO is increasingly emphasizing the inseparability of European security and Indo-Pacific security. Is the cooperation between China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran changing NATO's strategic focus? I don't know if the strategic focus is changing, but as we said earlier, NATO's risk assessment of the risks brought by China will definitely have a new assessment. NATO has also strengthened its focus on Russia. And it has always been said that since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO leaders have always said that today's Ukraine is tomorrow's East Asia. So the leaders of East Asia, the then-Prime Minister of Japan, also emphasized this. So since then, including Japan, especially Japan, has been promoting this concept. Including this time, Japanese Defense Minister Koizumi Shinjirō, after attending the summit, said in an interview with reporters that he told them that the security of Europe, the Atlantic, and the Indo-Pacific are inseparable. So Japan has always been promoting this concept. And NATO, their NATO Secretary General has also accepted this concept, and he emphasized this at the press conference. He learned from this that China's actions make NATO more convinced that Indo-Pacific security and the relationship between Europe and the transatlantic are inseparable.

We know that Japan, South Korea, and Australia, our Indo-Pacific partners, are attending this summit. So, how will NATO deepen its cooperation in the future? Will it involve the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea? Regarding NATO's cooperation, as we've already mentioned, they are actually already cooperating, including in cybersecurity and maritime security. As for the issues in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, I'm not entirely sure if NATO as a collective has made any statements, but some NATO member states, such as the UK, France, and Germany, have sent their own vessels to the South China Sea region. Therefore, NATO is actually already participating in activities in the Indo-Pacific region.

Regarding the second point, we know that President Trump announced today that the US will allow Ukraine to produce Patriot missile systems. Does this mean that NATO's support for Ukraine has entered a new phase of long-term commitment? What role does China play in this? President Trump's allowance for Ukraine to produce Patriot missiles is a major theme reported by the surrounding media today, suggesting an improvement in the relationship between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. During his conversation with Zelensky, the President consistently emphasized that while the US can provide Patriot missiles, their supply is limited. Hence, they are allowing Ukraine to produce them. As for NATO, it has consistently urged China not to provide dual-use technology to Russia. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China has supplied Russia with a significant amount of dual-use materials, including electronic equipment and even truck equipment.

That's right, thank you, Siyang, for your report from Ankara. Next, let's look at the argument that the US is currently facing strategic challenges from both Russia and China simultaneously. Can the US and NATO effectively respond to pressure from both the European and Indo-Pacific fronts? Let's continue to hear the analysis from Wang Weizheng, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Edgewood University. I think this is a scenario that they have considered in their war planning, whether the US has the capability to simultaneously engage in two major wars, one in Europe and one in the Indo-Pacific. At that time, it was referring to conventional major wars. Now, of course, one must also consider the issue of nuclear weapons. From this perspective, the US could act alone, but would it be more advantageous to have allies working with them? Therefore, I think the criticism of NATO countries by the US is acceptable, but it should be kept within limits, as you still need their cooperation in many matters.

I think today, for example, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg will do his best to explain to President Trump what has been done since last year and what these countries are doing now to achieve the 5% target. And Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is promoting a new concept called the Defense Security and Resilience Bank, which is essentially a new World Bank, but this bank is intended to raise funds and support the defense industry. Because, you see, if the security challenges are significant, you will immediately find that these European countries, like the US, have been at peace for a long time. Restarting the defense industry and producing ammunition, tanks, etc., is not a matter of one or two days. And if you go to a bank to borrow money, saying you want to borrow to develop the defense industry, the bank will not lend you the money. So, the Canadian Prime Minister said, let's restart and build a new World Bank, which will specifically provide credit guarantees and so on. I find this concept quite interesting, but it's just beginning to be discussed. By the time it becomes a reality, and the money is delivered to arms manufacturers for rapid mass production of weapons, it will likely take several more years.

In the long run, over the next five to ten years, where will NATO's biggest challenges come from? In a nutshell, I believe NATO must retain the United States; I cannot imagine a NATO without the US. Currently, it seems that under President Trump's leadership, the relationship between the US and other NATO member states is facing a critical juncture. Therefore, I believe NATO's biggest challenge in the future will not come from enemies or external forces, but from within itself – whether the US and European countries can persuade the US to continue its involvement. However, European countries must also stand tall and do more themselves, so that this collective security organization, which has maintained peace in Europe for about seventy to eighty years, can continue to exist.

If the United States wants Europe to take on more responsibility in the future, will this change the relationship between NATO member states? We continue to hear Wang Weizheng's analysis. It's possible, because there are some indicators to look at, that is, the NATO countries themselves, and the relationships between them. For example, this ultimately comes down to a Gun vs Butter issue, meaning with your limited resources, will you use them for national defense or for people's livelihood? As I just mentioned, for the past seventy to eighty years in Europe, it has been a state of peace, so most of these Western European countries could put most of their resources into improving people's livelihood, and thus these countries have gradually developed. Then there are some countries that were formerly communist countries, some Eastern European countries, for example, Slovenia, for example, Albania, they are still at the relatively lower end in terms of development among European countries. So at this time, they may wish to invest more resources in people's livelihood rather than national defense. Therefore, they may resist the idea of significantly increasing military spending. Another point is that some countries have very small GNPs, for example, a country like Estonia, if it buys one more F-16 fighter jet, its defense budget may increase by 1%. So I say this is not just about looking at the percentage, but about the priorities each country sets in its domestic affairs. But then again, it is a collective security organization. If some countries are very serious and some countries are seen as not so serious, it will raise the issue of so-called collective action, meaning some people want to freeride. In the past, the United States criticized European countries for freeriding on the US for a long time. For example, now, the US's expenditure in NATO, its military spending is nearly 100 billion, nearly 900-plus billion. The other 31 member states of NATO combined spend more than 600, less than 700 billion. So Trump can say that the US alone spends more than the other 31 countries. But the spending of the other 30 countries has also increased compared to the past. So I think if the US wants to, of course, it has to talk about this matter, but if it pushes too hard, I think it will lead to a phenomenon where perhaps, in the end, if NATO is carried by the Europeans themselves, it will become a stronger organization. But if you say too much and act too quickly, in the short future, it may weaken NATO, especially a NATO without the participation of the United States. So before it becomes stronger, you might weaken it, which is a very paradoxical thing.

The Russia-Ukraine war has reshaped the European security landscape. President Trump told reporters before his departure on Monday that both the leaders of Russia and Ukraine want to end the war, and he shares the same hope. From the current situation, in which direction do you think this war might develop in the future? I just mentioned that the Russia-Ukraine war is basically a stalemate. This means that Russia hopes to achieve several things from this war. First, it wants to have special interests in the eastern regions of Russia, especially among the Russian-speaking people. This may include nearly 20% of Ukraine's territory. Then it may demand that NATO promise not to accept Ukraine's application to join NATO for at least 15 years. I think this is what Russia wants to achieve. Of course, Ukraine hopes that the war can end, because we may not have noticed that Ukraine has never announced the number of direct or indirect deaths in the war, and I believe it is quite large. Russia also has about 1 to 1.4 million deaths, so this war has caused considerable damage to both sides, and it cannot go on any longer. However, Ukraine certainly hopes that such a thing, that is, an invasion of its territory, will absolutely not happen. As for whether it can take back the 20% of its territory in eastern Ukraine, I think Zelensky may have to make a very painful decision. Of course, Ukraine hopes that this will absolutely not happen, and that it can eventually join NATO. If not immediately, then at least after a few years, so that if Russia invades again in the future, it will be an invasion of Northern Europe. I think the goals of both sides have not changed much. Since it is a stalemate on the battlefield, it is also very important that President Trump is going to Ankara to attend a NATO summit this time, hoping to coordinate the steps among the allies. Basically, Trump is not very concerned about how the outcome of this matter is. He just wants the war to end, because he said during his campaign that this matter should be over in one day. However, more than a year has passed, and he has also found that it is not so easy. So he may hope that Europeans can take the lead in the negotiations, as I mentioned, the battlefield is a stalemate, how to proceed at the negotiating table, he may want to hear the opinions of Europeans, and then make it clear to them that you can no longer rely on me, and no matter what, it must be within his term. I believe Trump will absolutely not let this Russia-Ukraine war continue after he leaves office.

Regarding the focus of this NATO summit, we continue to have Lin Feng, a senior editor from Voice of America, to analyze for us. Lin Feng, you just mentioned that NATO has raised the target for housing expenditure to 5% of GDP. Is this feasible in reality? Will European countries face some political pressure from within their own countries? Okay, yes, this target is indeed, how to say, a very ambitious, a very bold statement. Of course, it is also a very realistic problem, which is that European countries indeed need to significantly increase their defense spending and defense capabilities to prove that they are willing to take responsibility for their own security. Of course, this is also what the Trump administration, including President Trump himself, has repeatedly emphasized, that is, they cannot put all the responsibility on the United States alone. Professor Wang Weizheng also spoke very well just now, this is a very realistic issue, that the United States and NATO have been discussing and negotiating this issue, that is, how to share such housing expenses. Of course, this is a very realistic, and I think one of the very difficult issues after this summit, how to implement it. So from a strategic point of view, why is such a goal proposed? It is because the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war has made NATO member states begin to re-recognize that traditional large-scale conventional warfare is a real existence, and it is not a thing of the past, but a real ongoing problem. So how to face such a large-scale conventional war? That is to say, weapons and ammunition, air defense missiles, drones, logistics networks, and defense all require long-term investment, not something that can be solved simply by an administrative order or a simple temporary appropriation. This is a very realistic problem that must be faced. However, from the perspective of domestic politics in European countries, the 5% target is indeed a very big pressure for many European countries. Why do I say this? Because many European countries are already facing considerable fiscal deficits, and we also know that many European countries implement high social welfare, and in terms of energy transition, how to reduce dependence on Russian energy? Because Russia provides relatively cheap energy, such as natural gas, to many European countries, including Germany and many NATO member states. Also, Europe is facing the problem of immigration, which President Trump also mentioned. Europe is also facing the problem of a large number of immigrants from other regions, including illegal immigrants. Also, Europe is facing the problem of aging. How to solve the problem of aging requires fiscal expenditure. Therefore, if the government significantly increases defense spending and military expenditure, it will inevitably increase the debt problem and increase taxes for the public, which will easily cause political and topical disputes within European countries. So I personally believe that the problem facing NATO is not whether to increase defense spending, but whether it can be continuously increased, and how to explain to its own voters that we need to increase such housing expenses and military expenses. Also, as I mentioned earlier, how to effectively convert these funds into actual defense capabilities and especially practical capabilities on the battlefield. Therefore, I believe that the 5% target is indeed a problem that we need to pay close attention to in the next few years, that is, how NATO countries will solve this problem.

Lin Feng, what is the special significance of Turkey as the host country for this summit? Turkey is a very special NATO country. It is not a traditional European country; it is a country straddling both Europe and Asia, situated at a crossroads. We also know that Turkey has many Muslims. Although it is not an extremist Muslim country and is relatively secular, we must note that it is a very special NATO member with significant influence from Muslim and Islamic forces. Geopolitically, its location is quite unique. On one hand, it seeks engagement with Europe, but on the other hand, Turkey has direct relationships with hot-spot regions and issues involving Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Iran. Especially in the Russia-Ukraine war, Turkey, while a NATO member, maintains close communication with Russia and has played a crucial mediating role in issues like the Black Sea Grain Initiative and prisoner exchanges. Therefore, holding this summit in Ankara sends a message to the outside world that NATO's security agenda is not just about the traditional defense of European allies, but also includes Black Sea security, the Middle East situation, energy corridors, especially the current critical issue of free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as immigration pressures and complex interactions with Russia. For Turkey, it is a very special, and at times, a rather tricky ally. We recall that a few years ago, when Sweden and Finland were seeking NATO membership, Turkey raised objections and did not align with traditional NATO members, demanding more concessions. Thus, on the issue of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, two Baltic countries directly threatened by Russia, Turkey took a different stance from other member states. So, Turkey hosting this summit shows that NATO's unity, and perhaps its interests, are not as highly unified or consensus-driven as one might think. NATO member states indeed need more communication, coordination, and better exchange among themselves.

Will China view NATO's increased discussion on China-related issues as a form of containment against China? And what impact will this have on Sino-European relations? From Beijing's perspective, they have always viewed NATO's expansion or its enhancement of its capabilities as a containment strategy by the US and the Western world against China. This is reflected in many official statements from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Beijing has also repeatedly criticized NATO's eastward expansion, claiming NATO is moving into the Asia-Pacific, which reflects their opposition to linking European security with Indo-Pacific security. This is something Beijing has consistently opposed. Therefore, whenever NATO raises China-related issues, including the recent discussion about China's missile capabilities being formidable, China will voice its opposition. However, from NATO's perspective, it states that it is not trying to turn NATO into an Asian NATO, but rather that China's own actions have affected European security. As I mentioned earlier, and as our correspondent Siyang reported from the scene, China's role in the security domain, including providing large amounts of dual-use goods to Russia, especially drones, and recent reports by Reuters stating that China is helping train Russian military personnel, indicate that China's involvement in European security affairs is deepening. From this perspective, NATO has very legitimate reasons to be concerned or to raise its own concerns about China. On the other hand, China plays a very important role in global trade and the global economy. Therefore, for NATO, while China may not be a direct military threat, it represents an indirect, long-term strategic challenge in terms of supply chains and trade. We know that recently, trade conflicts and disputes between Beijing and Brussels, and between China and the EU, have been intensifying.

His own kind of concern. On the other hand, China plays a very important role in global trade and the global economy. Therefore, for NATO, although China is not a direct, not so direct military threat, it is a very indirect, long-term, strategic challenge. In terms of supply chains and trade, we know that recently, the trade conflicts and disputes between Beijing and Brussels and the EU are deepening. What everyone is talking about now is that the trade tensions between the US and China may have stabilized to some extent, but perhaps at the same time, the economic and trade relations between Beijing and Europe, and China and Europe, may further deteriorate. So from these aspects, from these perspectives, the relationship is becoming increasingly complex. On the one hand, Europe is unwilling to completely cut off economic and trade relations with China, but on the other hand, Europe's security concerns and worries about China are clearly rising, especially after the Russia-Ukraine war. Therefore, looking at the future relationship between China and Europe, or China and NATO, it may still present a dual-track state. Economic and trade exchanges will continue, and of course, we know that European leaders have also repeatedly talked about de-risking. But on the other hand, they are also increasingly concerned about China's security and are taking actions to diversify these risks. Thank you, Lin Feng, for your analysis on whether the US and NATO have the ability to simultaneously cope with pressure from both Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Let's continue to hear the analysis from Liao Yanfen, Deputy Director of the Global China Center at the Atlantic Council.

This involves how quickly the current transformation process is happening and what deficiencies will arise in the process. For example, if the US needs to withdraw some of its troops, can NATO make up for it? Previously, a large part of the planning and coordination was done by the US military command. Now, the joint command cannot undertake all these tasks. In the event of future conflicts, this is actually more advantageous to China, meaning China can choose a time when it perceives there are gaps and lack of coordination to make a move. Basically, if this time point is within, say, the next four to five years, then the situation might be more stable. But if it is now, then basically everything is still too variable. In the long run, where will the biggest challenge for NATO come from in the next five to ten years? As Secretary General Stoltenberg said, the biggest challenge is facing the bloc formed by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. A greater challenge is actually hybrid warfare, using economic, informational, and various other hybrid means to continue to expand the threat to Europe. Because with Europe itself, as we can see from the three different organizations that need to be dealt with, they have more coordination problems. So in the future, will it be possible to coordinate independently without US involvement and deal with issues that lie between economic and military matters? Because NATO currently faces a big problem: when they think about what needs to be done in the next five to fifteen years, they realize that if the EU does not define China as a threat or an enemy, then NATO cannot make any relevant assessments or plans, for example, militarily, because you are not acting against your threat. This is a matter of discussion and a matter of topic.

As President Trump's press conference after the NATO summit is about to begin, while we wait, we continue to review the first day of the NATO summit, where NATO countries attempted to demonstrate their determination and concrete steps for self-defense and increasing defense budgets to the United States through large-scale defense industry orders and investments. On the second day of the summit, NATO leaders discussed various issues concerning Ukraine and European defense, including the latest round of strikes launched by the United States in response to Iran's attack on merchant ships on Tuesday. Please see the report.

NATO Secretary General Rutte and host Turkish President Erdogan personally welcomed leaders to the NATO summit. After taking a group photo, they entered the most important leaders' summit. A key objective of this NATO summit in Ankara was to secure US commitment to NATO by expressing the organization's determination to enhance its self-defense capabilities to US President Trump. President Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO member states for not supporting the US in the conflict with Iran. Rutte praised the surge in military spending by many allies over the past year. On Tuesday, he helped announce billions of dollars in new deals for weapons and other military systems. As the summit was underway, Iran attacked three merchant ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, and the US immediately launched strikes in response, while Iran stated it attacked US bases in the Middle East in retaliation. US President Trump expressed his dissatisfaction to Rutte about Iran's failure to abide by the ceasefire agreement.

It's all over for me, I don't want to deal with them anymore. They are scum, they are sick. This country is led by sick people, they are evil and violent. If they had nuclear weapons, they would use them. It's over for me.

NATO Secretary General Rutte also emphasized support for the US in striking Iran. I think this is absolutely necessary because a ceasefire agreement has been reached, and Iran has basically violated this agreement. We saw ships attacked yesterday, and I think a strong response from the US is very crucial. I also expect allies to discuss Iran today and confirm that Iran can never have nuclear capabilities. Secondly, the principle of freedom of navigation, the Strait of Hormuz being completely open, is vital for our 32 member states.

Besides the issue of Iran, the NATO summit will also discuss how to end the Russia-Ukraine war. After the leaders' summit, President Trump will hold bilateral talks with Ukrainian President Zelensky and Syrian President Ahmad Salah. Reported by Voice of America, Washington.

China's missile test on Monday has drawn global attention. NATO Secretary General Rutte stated before the summit that NATO cannot have naive illusions about China and emphasized that Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security are increasingly interconnected. The G7 summit concluded last month, focusing on issues such as overcapacity, dumping in Europe, China's red supply chain, and rare earth elements. What is NATO's focus on China? Let's listen to the analysis of Wang Weizheng, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Adelphi University.

I think this is less about NATO and more about Europe as a whole. Because in Europe, after the 1970s and 1980s, they had some illusions about China, which I can now describe as illusions. They thought, especially countries like France, that China's market was constantly booming, and Europe had to be able to enter the Chinese market. And countries like France, with their innate illusions, always felt that because they were once great nations, and after World War II, they felt that if the US hadn't saved them, they would all be speaking German today, right? So they couldn't swallow their pride and felt that if China rose, it could allow them to have a voice in international affairs. For example, France could say that it is strategically independent and autonomous. But now, after so many years, they have found that China's rise has begun to pose a threat to Europe again. This threat is mainly in security and economics. Economically, China is no longer developing labor-intensive or agricultural products, but high-end products, such as electric vehicles, solar batteries, and batteries, etc. These are precisely the areas that Europe wants to develop. So their relationship has shifted from complementarity to competition. And because Europe is a welfare state, its products will inevitably be more expensive than those in China. This will lead to dumping by China. Therefore, Europe has found that it must impose restrictions on some of China's products. In terms of security, Europe has a lot of trade with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In recent years, China has made rapid and frequent military advancements in the Asia-Pacific region, and they are becoming increasingly aggressive in many actions, such as in the South China Sea, land reclamation, etc. So they have also found that, coupled with the fact that China, Russia, and Iran are basically coordinating their foreign policies. If, for example, Russia's war in Ukraine could not have lasted so long without China's overt or covert support, even though it claims neutrality, I believe Russia could not have fought for so long without China's support. And in the war between Iran and the US, which has basically yielded no results, I believe China also played a role behind the scenes. So Europeans are gradually realizing that China's rise is not a positive factor, and their past ideas may need to be revised. In this context, the security of the Asia-Pacific region, the security of Europe, and even global security are interconnected. This point has been raised by both current and former Secretaries General, including Yan Stoltenberg and the current one, Mark Rutte. You will also see in more and more diplomatic documents, for example, joint statements issued by their Secretaries General with leaders, such as the Prime Minister of Japan or the President of the United States, mentioning that the Asia-Pacific region is of great importance to Europe, and even mentioning the issue of the Taiwan Strait, stating that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait region are indispensable elements for global security and prosperity. This is different from the past when NATO only managed security and response in the North Atlantic. However, so far, it is only a declaration of foreign policy, and what actions will be taken remains to be seen. But at least their thinking has changed.

Based on the messages released by NATO so far, what is the most important agenda item for this summit? What developments are worth paying attention to? Let's listen to the analysis of Liao Yanfen, Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council's Global China Center.

So, from the perspective of our primary concern for China and Taiwan policy, the first thing that needs clarification is the difference in views between NATO and the United States regarding NATO 3.0. Because there is a gap in understanding between the two sides, and neither has explained it very clearly. Next, regarding the support for Ukraine from NATO allies, is it possible to reform the system to make it more institutionalized? This will also affect NATO's ability to further increase its support for Ukraine or to further implement what is called burden sharing. Therefore, these two aspects are worth observing.

This summit is being held against the backdrop of a rapidly changing international security environment, including the US-Iran conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war you just mentioned, and escalating US-China competition. What do you believe is NATO's biggest challenge in this context? I will address this in two parts: the strategic part and the more tactical and operational level part. Strategically, the biggest issue is how NATO and the United States can coordinate their respective frictions arising from role adjustments, especially those caused by unilateral actions taken by the United States. This has implications at the operational and tactical levels, and it is related to NATO's current desire to increase its military preparedness. Because most of NATO's current focus is on hardware, that is, large amounts of hardware and traditional military power, such as tanks and armored vehicles, which are visible. However, if we consider the issues NATO might face in the next 15 years, or even after the Ukraine war ends, the greater threat in the military domain is actually so-called hybrid warfare, so-called influence operations, and various other tactics, like the

The two main issues, in my opinion, are the future of NATO, which in a narrow sense refers to the relationship between the United States and other NATO member states. This may involve whether NATO can evolve into what is called NATO 3.0, which I will discuss later. The second main issue, I believe, is that member states should coordinate their policies. The Russia-Ukraine war has now entered its fifth year and can be described as a stalemate. However, recently we have seen Russia increase the intensity of its attacks on Ukraine. Although Trump has said that both sides are willing to cease fire, the pace among member states is not necessarily entirely consistent. I think this is also a key point to be discussed at this NATO summit. First, the more pressing issue, from Trump's perspective, is that at the NATO summit in The Hague last year, an agreement was reached that NATO member states would strengthen their investment in their own defense. This means that military investment and defense spending should reach 5% by 2035, within 10 years.

This 5% includes two parts: 3.5% is directly related to weapons and troops, and the remaining 1.5% can be considered other defense-related expenses. The definition here is broader, including things like building roads and bridges. Therefore, Trump strongly hopes that other Western European countries, most of which are wealthy industrial democracies, will spend more money on defending their own security. He has also repeatedly accused these member states, saying that the United States has contributed a lot of money and effort to protect these European countries.

This 5% includes two parts: 3.5% is directly related to weapons and troops, and the remaining 1.5% can be considered other defense-related expenses. The definition here is broader, including things like building roads and bridges. Therefore, Trump strongly hopes that other Western European countries, most of which are wealthy industrial democracies, will spend more money on defending their own security. He has also repeatedly accused these member states, saying that the United States has contributed a lot of money and effort to protect these European countries. The Russia-Ukraine war has actually had a greater impact on these European countries than on the United States. I think this is the starting point for him, so I believe this may be a key point of discussion, or even debate, this time.

This summit is being held against the backdrop of a rapidly changing international security environment, including the US-Iran conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war, and intensifying US-China competition. What do you think is NATO's biggest challenge currently? I think NATO, since its establishment in 1947, has been around for nearly 70, almost 80 years. In human history, this can be considered a relatively successful organization for collective security in peacetime, i.e., non-war periods. Many people have been pessimistic about it, believing it should end or something similar, but in reality, it has not. However, it has clearly reached a transitional period. The Cold War ended about 30 years ago, and many people thought peace would prevail, but that is not the case. In many regions, including Europe and the Indo-Pacific, security challenges are actually increasing. Therefore, the mindset of these European countries in the past, where they could afford not to spend on military expenses during peacetime and instead focus on so-called social and welfare issues, can no longer continue.

As you mentioned, those regional and global challenges are indeed related. Therefore, I think NATO needs to think about it. On the other hand, facing a president like Trump for many years, he has been accusing European countries of not taking their own defense seriously. Therefore, NATO countries must seriously consider whether NATO might one day be without the United States, or whether the United States will gradually reduce its role, allowing Europeans to support it themselves. Of course, this is not something that will happen tomorrow, but I believe that within three to five years, this proportion will inevitably be adjusted.

I think the most immediate challenge we face is the Russia-Ukraine war, which has been in a stalemate for five years with no apparent progress. However, Russia has recently intensified its attacks on Ukraine, seemingly hoping to gain an advantage at the negotiating table. This raises the question: could Russia potentially target a NATO member state, such as Estonia? Estonia was formerly part of the Soviet Union and has a significant Russian-speaking population. Russia has a history of using the pretext of protecting Russian speakers to intervene in other regions, as seen in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Similarly, Estonia has a Russian-speaking minority. NATO, as a collective security organization, has Article 5, which clearly states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. If Russia were to escalate, perhaps out of desperation in Ukraine, and suddenly attack a smaller, newer NATO member like Estonia, which has a population of just over a million, it would severely test NATO's commitment to collective security. Estonia, despite increasing its defense spending, cannot defend itself alone. Such an event would be the biggest challenge.

If Europe is expected to take on more responsibility in the future, will this alter the relationships between NATO member states? Let's continue to hear expert analysis. Predicting wars is a thankless task, but I can at least observe some shifts on the battlefield. For instance, the balance of supply for anti-aircraft weapons, missiles, and ballistic missiles between Russia and Ukraine, and the support from their respective backers, could be impacted. However, from a Chinese observer's perspective, what's truly noteworthy is the bloc formed by Russia, China, North Korea, and even Iran, and their supply chain, particularly in weapons and defense systems, and related industrial integration. The question is whether this bloc will continue to strengthen, and even develop further after the Russia-Ukraine war. This is what deserves attention.

NATO has historically focused on European security and Russia. Why is there increasing discussion about China now? With increased defense budgets, will there still be resources to address China? This relates to the competition we just discussed in the defense and production industries. Since Russia is heavily reliant on China's production chain for many of its battlefield needs, such as artillery shells, ammunition, and drones, and also relies significantly on North Korea for manpower, their integration is becoming increasingly tight. So, the final question is: given the close industrial ties between China and Russia, how can Europe refuse this situation? This is a major issue, involving economics, raw materials, and what NATO is responsible for in terms of defense – what we can produce ourselves.

Regarding the Indo-Pacific, this involves the US perspective on NATO 3.0. The US hopes to redeploy some of its forces to increase its presence in the Indo-Pacific, where the challenges are clearly greater. In Europe, their focus on China is also considering how the EU will position itself in future conflicts, or how it will respond to crises in the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, China cannot be ignored.

NATO has been strengthening cooperation with Indo-Pacific partners like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand in recent years. Do you think this trend will further expand? This is what we are discussing regarding the interactions between the four Indo-Pacific nations and NATO. Personally, I am not optimistic. The current model of interaction between NATO and these four countries is largely bilateral, focusing on individual nations rather than multilateral cooperation. The recent talks in Ankara also showed limited multilateral engagement from the IP4 track. The main issue is that the US is not actively intervening or strongly promoting this aspect. Instead, Europe appears more proactive in understanding the impact of Indo-Pacific crises on NATO's future challenges. Therefore, I believe this trend may continue, but significant expansion is unlikely.

As NATO increasingly focuses on Indo-Pacific security, how does the Taiwan Strait issue become part of NATO's strategic discussions? So, as we just mentioned, NATO is partly responsible for the military aspect, while the G7 is responsible for many raw materials. Economic and even so-called economic and economic defense aspects are handled by the EU. Therefore, for NATO, what it considers are the two points we just discussed: First, what is the impact on our defense industry supply chains? Second, if this further expands to affect national industries, global industrial economies, transportation, and shipping routes, how will NATO coordinate with the G7 and the EU to manage itself? So, there are two parts. The first is the economic aspect. How to coordinate with the EU to achieve so-called economic deterrence and avoid economic damage caused by a crisis in the Taiwan Strait? The second part is more practical: under certain specific circumstances, if NATO needs to intervene, what are the scenarios that need to be anticipated?

Concurrently with the NATO summit, the Rim of the Pacific exercise is being hosted in Hawaii. VOA journalists on the ground witnessed US P-8A and Japanese P-1 anti-submarine patrol aircraft and interviewed frontline commanders from the US and Japan. The US commander emphasized that allied forces are ready to share Taiwan Strait data in real-time, while the Japanese commander stated that Asia will never allow a situation similar to Ukraine's invasion to occur. Please watch this report from VOA journalists Wang Yuhe and Jiudao in Hawaii.

I am currently at the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station in Hawaii, participating in the media day for maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft for the 2026 Rim of the Pacific exercise, gaining a close-up understanding of how multiple countries conduct maritime patrols, air power, and joint cooperation. Behind me is a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, specifically designed for anti-submarine, anti-ship, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. At the very moment this exercise is taking place, following China's rare test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a South China Sea submarine into the Pacific on July 6th, how to counter potential threats holds significant practical meaning for the participating countries. VOA interviewed Colonel Matt Reichle, commander of the U.S. Joint Task Force, on-site. He emphasized that the core objective of the RIMPAC exercise is to ensure that participating countries can respond to conflicts in a timely manner. This is precisely the significance of our submarine tracking exercise here. Five submarines are participating in this RIMPAC exercise, allowing all partner nations the opportunity to continuously track submarines in challenging waters, adverse sea conditions, or under strong winds as you see now. And we have to hand off with different partner nations, which perfectly simulates the operations we would take in our duty stations if we had to respond to a conflict in a real mission, giving countries the opportunity to come together, train, build relationships, and truly trust each other.

In March of this year, a U.S. P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft transited the international airspace of the Taiwan Strait. The U.S. at the time emphasized that this action demonstrated America's firm commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The core function of maritime patrol aircraft is to transmit detected underwater enemy intelligence to allies in a timely manner through encrypted data links. If a crisis occurs in the Taiwan Strait, how prepared is your unit to share data with allies? This is also one of the core parts of why we are holding the Rim of the Pacific exercise here. We have integrated allies into all command and control systems. I am the commander of the Joint Task Force, responsible for responding to specific mission assignments, and we have partner nations leading these operations. What we are practicing is precisely how to share data. When we detect a submarine in our operational area, can we transmit intelligence to our commanders, allies, and partners in a timely manner through data links and secure networks? I would say that we are here right now, proving that we can act together to achieve this and are ready to respond.

Facing escalating geopolitical tensions, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces participating in this exercise have become an indispensable key force in maintaining Indo-Pacific security. The aircraft behind me is a Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force P-1 maritime patrol aircraft, also indigenously developed by Japan. It is a large, fixed-wing anti-submarine patrol aircraft primarily used for maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare, and maritime surveillance missions. Regarding Taiwan Strait stability, Lieutenant General Tsutomu Sakamoto, commander of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force Air Wing stationed at Naha Air Base in Okinawa, just one hour's flight from Taiwan, stated in an interview with VOA the day before yesterday that Japan will not allow any actions that undermine regional security. Japan will not allow a situation similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine to occur in the Asian region. Therefore, Japan is doing its utmost to maintain a safe and secure environment. So, I believe our actions in this Rim of the Pacific military exercise will contribute to this.

The Japanese Ministry of Defense recently protested China's frequent military activities, urging China to reconsider ballistic missile tests that could threaten Japan's airspace security.

Our actions in the Rim of the Pacific military exercise will contribute to a free and open ocean, while being closely related to our defense and deterrence capabilities.

P-8A and P-1 patrol aircraft are primarily tasked with highly vigilant anti-submarine and maritime surveillance missions during normal times and are rarely opened to the public. Their appearance in the Rim of the Pacific exercise this time provides a rare opportunity for close-up observation.

Reported by VOA journalists Wang Yuhe and Jiudao in Hawaii.

Next, we invite Lin Feng, a senior editor at VOA Chinese Service, to continue analyzing the important signals released by this NATO summit.

Lin Feng, does this summit show NATO is transforming from a regional defense alliance into a more global security alliance?

Okay, yes, we can see it that way. NATO's agenda is becoming globalized, but its core mission remains the collective defense of Europe and the North Atlantic region, as NATO itself defines it.

So, this summit's discussions are not just about Russia and Ukraine, but also include China, Iran, North Korea, Indo-Pacific security, supply chain security, and maritime passage security, particularly referring to the freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

This indicates that NATO increasingly believes that European security cannot be understood solely from within Europe.

For example, the strategic cooperation between China and Russia, Iran and North Korea's support for Russia's war, and changes in the Indo-Pacific situation are all interconnected and could affect European security.

However, NATO also wants to avoid giving the impression, from our observation, that it is directly entering the Asian-Pacific region or even intervening in military conflicts in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea.

A more realistic approach, which it is currently undertaking, is strengthening ties with four Indo-Pacific countries: Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia.

This includes information sharing, cybersecurity cooperation, military-industrial cooperation, and political-diplomatic coordination with these Indo-Pacific partners.

We did indeed see that before this NATO summit, NATO Secretary General Rutte had a conversation with the defense ministers of these four countries, and there were some specific statements after this conversation.

So, my personal judgment and observation are that NATO will not simply expand its role to become a so-called global police force. However, its perception of threats and its network of partners, beyond the traditional scope in the North Atlantic region and Europe, have clearly expanded.

For China, what do you believe is the biggest signal conveyed by this NATO summit?

China should be closely watching this NATO summit.

I believe the biggest signal for China is that NATO's security concerns and worries about China are clearly becoming institutionalized. It has become a systematic approach.

Every summit now discusses China's issues, and increasingly so. It's no longer just the United States pushing for this; NATO member states themselves have this perception.

In the past, when European countries discussed China, they emphasized economic and trade cooperation, market access, and investment relations.

But now, NATO documents, including discussions at this summit and previous declarations, increasingly frame China within a security context, even without explicitly naming it.

This is especially true regarding the relationship between China and Russia, dual-use technologies (what China calls dual-use items), cybersecurity, critical mineral resources (rare earth elements), and supply chain dependencies on infrastructure.

This means that China faces not only the US strategy in the Indo-Pacific but also a re-evaluation and assessment of its strategic behavior by the transatlantic alliance.

From a European perspective, NATO leaders may not fully align with the US on all China-related issues, but they will also assess their own security posture.

However, we can see that Europe's attitude towards China is more cautious than ten years ago, and its focus is gradually shifting from traditional economic and trade issues to security issues.

Beijing might interpret this as NATO continuing to expand and increase pressure on China.

But from NATO's perspective, it is a response to changes in the real security environment.

What we should pay attention to in the future is whether NATO's statements about China will translate into concrete policies.

For example, in coordinating export controls, in restricting key technologies, such as high-end chips.

Because we know that the Netherlands is the only country in the world that exports lithography machines, and it is also a NATO member.

Additionally, we need to monitor infrastructure security reviews and closer defense cooperation with Indo-Pacific partners, as we discussed earlier.

What does this NATO summit mean for Ukraine? Is NATO any closer to admitting Ukraine?

My feeling is that the significance of this summit for Ukraine, at least from the interaction between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, and based on the latest situation and introduction from our reporter on the ground, is that President Trump's personal relationship with President Zelensky has clearly undergone a significant transformation and thaw.

So, from this broad perspective, I believe that NATO's significance for Ukraine is that it will certainly provide further support, and will continue to provide support, including, as we have also noticed, particularly in terms of financial knowledge, including helping Ukraine purchase necessary weapons, and in the area of drones, we have also seen great progress.

Especially recently on the battlefield, we have seen that Ukraine's use of drones has caused great trouble for Russia. Although the battlefield remains a stalemate, it has indeed made Russia increasingly feel the harm and pressure brought by the war, which may push both sides to sit down at the negotiating table and engage in genuine peace talks.

I believe NATO will continue to emphasize that Ukraine's security is closely related to European security and NATO's security.

However, especially for Kyiv, its most realistic needs remain air defense systems, ammunition, long-range strike capabilities training, and financial aid.

In other words, what Ukraine needs most now is not simply a political commitment, but concrete military capabilities that can play a specific role on the battlefield, real, "true swords and real guns" capabilities.

However, on the issue of joining the alliance, this is still a rather tricky or controversial matter.

Because, how to put it, within NATO, there is still a very cautious stance on whether to accept Ukraine. It needs to consider several issues, two aspects.

One is that if it joins the alliance, it means that if Ukraine officially joins NATO, it will soon involve NATO's Article 5, the commitment to common defense, which could significantly increase the risk of direct military conflict between NATO and Russia.

So NATO may be very cautious about whether to let Ukraine truly join NATO.

But on the other hand, NATO may adopt a compromise approach, emphasizing politically that Ukraine belongs to Europe and is a member of the North Atlantic family.

However, militarily, it will avoid direct commitment to Ukraine's accession, but it will continue to expand aid, training of military personnel, and other aspects.

But on the issue of a timetable for officially joining NATO, it may adopt a relatively vague policy.

From the perspective of Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region, what are the noteworthy aspects of this NATO summit?

I think from the perspective of Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region, the most noteworthy aspect of this summit is that NATO is increasingly discussing European security and Indo-Pacific security within the same strategic framework.

Of course, from the declaration this time, it did not directly name China.

But, so I don't think it necessarily means that NATO will immediately and high-profilely intervene in the Taiwan Strait, nor does it mean that it will extend its military boundaries to the Asia-Pacific region.

However, it indicates that European and American countries are increasingly recognizing that if a major crisis occurs in the Indo-Pacific region, including the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, Europe will also be affected.

Similarly, if Russia gains a strategic advantage in Europe, it will also affect China's judgment of the entire international order and military risks.

Specifically for Taiwan, its indirect impact may be more important than its direct impact.

Why do I say that? Because if NATO promotes Europe to increase defense spending, strengthen military production capacity, and enhance vigilance against authoritarian countries such as Russia, China, and Iran, this will change the strategic resilience of the entire Western alliance system.

In other words, a more capable and self-defending Europe will actually give the United States more strategic space in the Indo-Pacific region.

For Taiwan and many other Indo-Pacific countries, what they are concerned about is not just how NATO talks about China verbally, but whether Europe is truly willing to share more security responsibilities, so that the United States and other countries, including other important countries in the Indo-Pacific region, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, can help the United States deal with threats on two fronts, so-called two fronts.

Thank you, Lin Feng, for your analysis.

U.S. President Trump arrived in Ankara, Turkey on Tuesday to attend the NATO summit.

This is Trump's first NATO summit since returning to the White House.

After arriving, Trump held a meeting with Turkish President Erdogan and attended the NATO leaders' dinner.

On Wednesday, he met successively with NATO Secretary General Rutte, Ukrainian President Zelensky, and Syrian President Ahmed Shar.

We will bring you live coverage of President Trump's press conference after the summit later.

In its nearly eighty years of existence, NATO has undergone transformations in different stages.

Trump has proposed the so-called NATO 3.0, hoping to advance the alliance into a new phase.

How will NATO 3.0 change the relationship between the United States and its European allies? Let's hear the analysis of Wang Weizheng, a political science professor at Adelphi University in the United States.

Then I believe that most sensible people, including Europeans, understand that over the past seventy to eighty years of history, NATO has primarily relied on the United States, and this is an undeniable success.

But it is also because of this that Europe's countries, which were destroyed by World War II, were able to rebuild and do so very successfully.

However, the United States' actions were not solely beneficial to others; the U.S. also benefited, as it suddenly gained many allies who could help share the burden of global affairs.

Although their strength is not immense, there are several countries among them that are quite respectable, including major industrial nations like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy.

Then Trump wants to talk about the so-called 3.0, the so-called NATO 3.0.

1.0 refers to the period during the Cold War when NATO was primarily an organization for collective security against the Soviet Union.

Then came 2.0, right after the end of the Cold War. NATO suddenly found that its past adversary, its sole imagined enemy, had collapsed, and it had to find a new mission.

What was it? At that time, it was discovered that NATO played a role in, for example, confronting so-called terrorism, The War Against Terrorism.

And then, in the early 1990s, Yugoslavia disintegrated, which was very bloody and involved a lot of so-called ethnic cleansing.

So, in its 2.0 phase, NATO accepted new missions that it did not have in 1.0.

What is 3.0 supposed to do? 3.0 considers the previously unimaginable scenario of openly violating the borders of a sovereign nation on the European continent. I am referring to the war with Russia; this has finally happened.

Furthermore, both of NATO's recent Secretaries-General have gradually emphasized that NATO cannot remain aloof in a turbulent situation; it cannot remain aloof.

For example, regional challenges occurring in the Indo-Pacific region or the Middle East will also be of great concern to NATO.

So, I think this is what NATO 3.0 is about: redefining its new mission.

President Trump's press conference following the NATO summit is about to begin. We have simultaneous interpretation prepared and will report on the content of this press conference for you shortly.

While waiting for President Trump, let's continue to look at the argument that some believe the United States is currently facing strategic challenges from both Russia and China simultaneously. Does the U.S. and NATO have the capacity to respond to pressures from both Europe and the Indo-Pacific at the same time?

Let's continue to hear what Wang Weizheng has to say.

I think this is something they have considered in their war planning, this scenario: whether the U.S. has the capability to simultaneously engage in two, what were then considered traditional, major wars in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Now, of course, the issue of nuclear weapons must be considered.

From this perspective, the U.S. could do it alone, but would it be more advantageous if some allies joined them?

So, I think the U.S.'s criticism of these NATO countries is acceptable, but I think it should be kept within limits, because you still need them in many matters.

I think today, for example, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg will do his best to explain to President Trump what we have done since last year, what these countries have done now, and how we will achieve the stated goal of 5%.

And Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is promoting a new concept called the Defense Security and Resilience Bank.

Essentially, it's a new World Bank. But this bank is for raising funds to support the defense industry. Because if the security challenges are indeed great, you will immediately find that these European countries, like the U.S., have been at peace for a long time. Restarting the defense industry and producing ammunition, tanks, etc., is not a matter of one or two days. And if you go to a bank to borrow money to develop the defense industry, the bank won't lend it to you. So, the Canadian Prime Minister says, let's start anew and build a new World Bank. But this World Bank would be specifically for providing credit guarantees and so on. I find this concept quite interesting. However, this is just the beginning of the discussion. For it to become a reality, and then to deliver the money to arms manufacturers for mass and rapid production of weapons, I think it will still take several years.

In the long run, over the next five to ten years, where will NATO's biggest challenge come from? In a word, I think NATO must keep the United States. I cannot imagine a NATO without the United States. As it stands now, it seems that under President Trump, the relationship between the United States and other NATO member states is facing a critical juncture. I believe NATO's biggest challenge in the future will not come from enemies or external forces, but from within itself – whether the United States and European countries can persuade the US to continue its commitment. However, European countries must also stand tall and do more themselves to ensure that this collective security organization, which has maintained peace in the European region for about seventy to eighty years, can continue to exist.

If the United States expects Europe to take on more responsibility in the future, will this change the relationship between NATO member states? Let's continue to listen to the analysis of Wang Weizheng, Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Edgewood University. It's possible, because there are indicators to look at NATO countries, their own situations, and their relationships. For example, in the end, it's a question of guns versus butter. That is, with your limited resources, will you spend them on defense or on people's livelihoods? As I mentioned before, for the past seventy to eighty years, Europe has been in a state of peace, so most of these Western European countries could allocate most of their resources to improving people's livelihoods, and thus these countries have gradually developed. There are also some countries in between that were formerly communist countries, some Eastern European countries like Slovenia, like Albania, which are still relatively less developed among European countries. So at this time, they might want to invest more resources in people's livelihoods rather than defense. Therefore, they might resist the idea of significantly increasing military spending. Another point is that some countries have very small GNPs, for example, a country like Estonia, if it buys one more F-16 fighter jet, its defense budget might increase by 1%. So, I'm saying this is not just about looking at the percentage, but about looking at the internal priorities of each country. But then again, it is, after all, a collective security organization. If some countries are very serious, and some countries are seen as not so serious, it will lead to the so-called problem of collective action, meaning some people want to freeride. In the past, the United States criticized European countries for freeriding on the US for a long time. For example, now, the US's expenditure in NATO, its military spending is nearly 100 billion, almost over 900 billion. The other 31 member states of NATO combined are over 600 to less than 700 billion, still.

So Trump can say that the US alone spends more than the other 31 countries combined. However, the other thirty countries, their spending... President Trump is now preparing to deliver a speech, and we will provide live simultaneous interpretation for you below. Let's watch.

We just had a very successful NATO summit, in Turkey. I want to thank President Erdogan, he is truly a great leader, he has been my friend for a long time. He is also a man of great character and very capable. And the country he runs is run very well, and it is a great country. His army is also very strong, and others do not dare to provoke him. He has done an excellent job. From the moment we landed, we could see the beautiful airport, they specially built a new runway to welcome our arrival. So I am very happy. Thank you President Erdogan for doing a great job. I also want to thank our NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, he is also a remarkable man, he is very smart, a great leader. It is not easy to be such a leader. Because the members he leads are also leaders, and they all have strong personalities. So Stoltenberg has done a very good job, there is no one better than him. There was a lot of mutual admiration in the room, unfortunately the media could not see all of it. Everyone spoke this weekend, I spoke, we all spoke. Everyone tried not to speak too long, but unfortunately, the media could not witness firsthand all the discussions that took place. Because there are many smart people, and many people have good intentions, they are doing excellent work for their countries and for the world. You know, oil prices are falling, let's see if we can keep them at such a low level. In fact, Iran should have been hit like this 47 years ago. In fact, I have been saying this since my first term. In the last 18 months, the United States has led a historic effort to significantly increase defense spending, and our equipment is unlike that of other countries. Look at Venezuela and Iran, we have almost destroyed their military power in a few weeks, and their military power was quite strong before. Iran's 159 warships are now at the bottom of the sea, and hundreds of planes are gone. They all caught fire on the runway, we completely destroyed them. Their radar capabilities have also been destroyed, all gone. Including their leaders, their combat capabilities are also very low. Their missile proportion is also very small now. Their missile launch frequency has also been destroyed more or less. So we have the most powerful military force in the world, and the second strongest cannot even compare to us.

Of course, our meeting in the Netherlands was also very good. We agreed that at the annual defense meeting, defense spending would increase from 2% of GDP to 5%. This was also considered impossible in the past. But it is also because of my efforts that I think some countries may not have achieved it yet, but I think they will catch up soon. In fact, one of them is still very active today. He is also a very good team collaborator. All these leaders understand very clearly that the United States is still the largest contributor to NATO in terms of finances, economy, or other aspects. Our contribution is more than that of other countries. Greece did not respect us two years ago, but it is different now. They used to mock the United States, but now no one dares to mock the United States. We have funded our military with one trillion dollars to enhance our military strength. In addition, many more trillions will be invested in our military and equipment. These will be the best in the world. This morning we also discussed the efforts of member states to increase defense spending to the goal of 5% of GDP. Many countries are working hard, but they are not yet able to adequately protect their own countries. Other member states are now undertaking major reforms and have responded to our call. We will then be able to make substantial investments in defense every year. It was 1%, then 2%, and then we raised the target to 5%. If you were present just now, you would see the admiration for the United States. We also respect each other. Many people think I am arrogant, but you will see that other countries present here, when they see me, they are very respectful and very fond of me. So I try not to let external comments affect me. We are very united internally when we meet. Also, we have plans to try our best to help other member states reach the goal of 5% defense spending. This has been our effort for many years. In the past year, we have seen NATO member states' defense spending increase by 150 billion annually, which is the figure for 2025. A lot of the funds are used to purchase American equipment. Everyone wants to buy American equipment. We are now actively promoting defense industry companies to produce, for example, battle damage repair and other equipment. I hope we can produce this equipment and weapons quickly. For example, American companies like Lockheed Martin, and other defense industry companies. Also Boeing. These companies are great. They have great plans, but their factories are not enough. Their factories are operating 24 hours a day, which is not enough. I said you must build more factories. And I also helped push for laws to reduce taxes on overtime pay. So now if you work overtime, you don't have to pay extra taxes. In short, I have promoted these defense industries, hoping to build more factories. In addition, some countries have good equipment, but they cannot use it. The United States is now producing great equipment for other countries to use. We believe that in a year or a year and a half, we can deliver quickly. Then the waiting period may become very short. Many people are waiting for defense equipment, possibly specific equipment, including offensive and defensive. A large amount of defense spending is now being used to purchase American-made equipment. Europe and Canada want to buy American equipment. Most of the defense spending is used for American-made equipment. Ammunition, weapons. This also supports tens of thousands of American jobs. Most people working in the United States now have very good employment prospects. We have invested 19 trillion, which is unprecedented in our history. If we consider tariffs, if you look at the previous administration, they invested only one trillion, while we invested 19.2 trillion in one year, and I have only been in office for one or two years. So now there are 19.2 trillion invested in factories everywhere, like Eli Lilly, Merck, and other large pharmaceutical companies are building factories. Yesterday, you may have seen that Toyota is withdrawing from Mexico and will build its largest factory in Texas. Why is that? Because of tariffs. We don't mind you building factories in Mexico, but if you build factories in Mexico and sell cars to the US market, you will be subject to tariffs. In fact, if you build factories in China, the tariffs are even higher, 100%. We don't want our workers to lose their jobs. So we protect them through tariffs. We have invested a lot of funds, the most in our history. The factories here include all sorts of cars, pharmaceutical plants, etc., even chips. If you give these companies one or two years to build factories, they may have huge revenues. All sorts of companies are coming to the United States to build factories. This is a prosperity we have never seen before. What is happening in the United States now is something that no country in human history can achieve. It is unprecedented growth, a boom in manufacturing, and factories are constantly being built. Also AI. For example, with AI, we forced these AI companies to build their own power plants because our country does not have enough electricity to support their computing. Now, our country produces the most.

If the United States produced all the energy, and then the AI industry became so powerful that it required more energy than a country could produce, that would be astonishing. So I said I can't provide all the energy for you. We can improve our power grid, but we still can't provide all the energy you need. We want to support our AI industry. We are leading in AI right now. For example, with TikTok, they previously said the TikTok deal was great, and some people said that if you made this deal, your approval rating would drop. But I recently looked at the polls, and my approval rating is still very good. There are these recent figures, and I question these figures very much. I've never heard such ridiculous numbers. They say my approval rating is only 27% or 29%. I don't believe it. I think it's because our country is very successful and very good, and communism is very bad. And the opposition party's candidates are very bad. So I don't think anyone can compare to me. We have something they don't. And I think these emerging figures will disappear quickly. These are all communists. They don't trust God. They don't want to see success. They don't want success to happen in America. I think they are all a bunch of lunatics.

We are also accelerating the development of our military, and with the development of NATO's military strength, our U.S. defense industry will also benefit. Because America makes the best equipment, and NATO certainly wants the best equipment. Canada's leader also provided an update, telling us how they are greatly accelerating their military reforms. They want things that were supposed to be delivered in four or five years to be obtained more quickly. Our current defense planning is tremendous. Lockheed may now be building five, with some having three, four, or five large production bases. Output will also quadruple. These weapons and basic equipment, whether Patriot or other prisoners of war, or other missiles, are used in different situations. Today at the summit, we also announced a new investment of $3 billion in housing. This is to be done by American companies. Lockheed Martin will have a large Patriot missile project in Europe. All of this benefits us. Of course, European Beast Art, and Northrop Grumman, they also have some drone technology. In fact, we are also very competitive in drones. Many people don't know, but we actually have the world's most advanced drone technology. I think we will soon surpass others by many times. Lockheed, Raytheon, and Matteo have also announced cooperation to build tactical missile systems. And Andra has also announced the development of new Spear missiles, which are also very high-precision, high-speed missiles. We are doing this for Poland. Poland's president is actually very capable, so the country is developing very well. All these agreements will benefit the U.S. defense industrial base. This means bringing job opportunities.

I must say, I was not surprised when Toyota made such an announcement yesterday. Everyone thought, everyone thought this might be the largest car manufacturing plant in the world, and they are coming to the United States. They are doing this to avoid tariffs. Because if you produce in the United States, you don't have to pay 35%, or sometimes 100% or even 200% tariffs, depending on the product. For example, we are doing very well in steel because we have tariffs. The steel industry, which was completely dead before, has now been revived and is developing very prosperously. When Biden was in office, they didn't know what to do. I quickly revived the steel industry. I also did it during my term, and the steel business is now very prosperous. We used to not produce aluminum at all. Now there is the world's largest aluminum production plant in Oklahoma, a state I love very much.

77 counties voted for me, 100%. It's a very good state. We built the world's largest aluminum plant in Oklahoma. In the past three days, I have also had very good dialogues with many leaders at the summit, and had good bilateral meetings. And at the dinner last night, everyone attended, including President Erdogan of Turkey and President Zelensky. President Zelensky just arrived, as you may have seen, and there was a press conference. Also, the President of Syria, he has done an excellent job unifying Syria. Syria was a mess before, because the previous government, as you all know, was a very dangerous place. Now it is beginning to develop prosperously. Everyone is talking, and every conversation clearly shows that America is back, stronger and greater than ever before. There are more job opportunities than ever before. We are now respected by all parties in an unprecedented way. I told NATO Secretary General Rutte, it's a shame the media couldn't come in to listen during our talks, it's a real shame. I think they should have been allowed in. The theory is that if the media were present, people might not be able to have such free discussions. Regardless, the room was very united and filled with love. This was a very successful NATO summit. I want to thank President Erdogan again, the President of Turkey, and many other presidents, prime ministers, who were present from NATO countries. I especially want to thank Secretary General Rutte for his excellent organizational work, because he is someone who brings everyone together. I can also answer a few questions. We have actually answered some questions today, so we don't need too many today. Let's not drag it out today, I know some people have to go home, some people are going home with me. Okay, you first.

You come, you speak. Not you, it’s the gentleman over there, the very tall gentleman. He seems very uneasy, he doesn’t want to ask this question yet. He’s very handsome, but he doesn’t seem to have confidence in himself. Are you going to speak? Give him a microphone, or you can just speak louder. The question is about Venezuela. You say Venezuela is very successful, but the war in Iran, to you it seems like a strategic dead end, why do you think there is no way to end the war in Iran? I think it’s actually the opposite, the war in Iran, militarily speaking, is a huge success. I can only reply, I answer this way, because they will not have nuclear weapons. I went there for only one reason, and that is Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. I call it denuclearization, and that has already happened. They will never have nuclear weapons. Because this is at the bottom of the mountain, hidden under granite, and it would take months to get it out. So I think it’s very successful. Now there aren’t that many protests either, people like to say that, but their military has been destroyed, they have no air force, I told you. And 159 warships are gone, now at the bottom of the sea. And the rest are gone, the radars are gone. You say it’s not successful, that’s wrong, it’s very successful, only fake news says it’s not successful. Before the war, they had over 300% inflation, now it has been reduced to just a few percent. And the people they deal with are very outstanding, Witko, and Mark Rubio, and Scott, and others. He’s a little crazy, and they say they all want to attend the funeral, a funeral that commemorates a butcher who killed many people, Khamenei. In the past many years, what we did should have happened 47 years ago. They can be called the bullies of the Middle East, and now Iran is a very different country. In one day, all their anti-aircraft firepower was destroyed. This does not mean that it will not develop again in the future, but in one day, they had nothing. Their leader is gone, and then they had a new set of leaders, and they are gone too, and now there is another new set of leaders, and there may be more in the future. Of course, I may not be in office one day, because I am the number one target, because these people are trash. They should have done this 47 years ago. I think what I did is beneficial to the whole world, because they have hundreds of thousands of lives on their hands, and also their protesters, thousands have been killed. You say we did a bad job, but we actually did a very good job. We did very well militarily, and we have a naval blockade, didn’t you see? You say we did a bad job, but we actually did a very good job. We also did a very good job in Venezuela, that was a war that ended in one day. Actually, Venezuela’s military is also very strong. We have put the worst person in the world, Maduro, waiting for trial in prison. In fact, not only drugs, but they also kept prisoners locked up, and now I have let them all out. Biden and Harris, who should have managed the border, have instead adopted an open border policy, so the border can be said to be a disaster. Actually, I don’t look at these numbers, but in short, we now have zero illegal immigrants coming in at our southern border. And in the past 12 months, these numbers have been updated every month, and each number is zero. You can imagine that compared to the previous month when so many people came in, this is a big contrast. At that time, many people who came in were fugitives, possibly drug traffickers, and so on. And I’m not just talking about South America, there are actually many other places in the world where these terrible murderers or fugitives have entered the United States because our borders are open. You are very lucky that our Republican Party won this election, so now we have closed the border.

First, tell me your name. Thank you. I wanted to ask, you previously mentioned that communism is a threat to America. So now I want to ask, if some people live in communist or socialist countries, what message do you have for them? Communism is actually a very easy concept to sell. If I were to be a communist, I would be a great one. I could stand right next to Lenin, because all you have to do is say, everything is free now, you can provide it freely, and people say I can give you free housing, but this actually causes many problems. Everyone lives in very dirty, very poor housing, and there is a lot of chaos. So I must emphasize that communism is not good. In fact, you see, many of my voters are Latino, and they helped me win by a large margin. These are all Latino voters because they have fled from these socialist or communist countries. Now we see many people in the Democratic Party who are socialist, which sounds good, but it is actually very dangerous. I have also continuously emphasized this point, on Douyin and elsewhere, that communism will never succeed. What is succeeding is the American system, we now have unprecedented employment rates, we have many, many workers, and their wages are higher than ever before, because our country's system is the best. Although this system still has some problems, all systems have their own problems. When I look at what is happening in the world, there are many terrible wastes of space who come out and talk about socialism and communism, and I realize that they are very dangerous. I also continuously emphasize this point, many other Republicans are now realizing that I am right. I think the threat of communism and the potential destruction it brings is more serious than World War II, World War I, or 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. If we become a communist country, that will not do. As soon as you start adopting communism, your country will be in chaos, it will be poor, it will be a terrible situation, and there will be no turning back.

Hello, I am Tiler Pager from the New York Times. You previously said that Iranians are wonderful people, outstanding people, very intelligent people, but today you say otherwise. Why is that? I think Iranians, they used to be rational people, but now it's the third administration. The third administration is more rational, but in the past week, they haven't performed very well either. The more I understand them, the less rational I find them. I don't know now, I don't know if I want to negotiate with them anymore.

Hello, thank you Mr. President. I am a reporter from CNBC. You said today that the memorandum has ended, the ceasefire agreement has ended, so what can we expect afterwards? Will we have to start firing again? I can tell you what to expect. First, Iran will absolutely not have nuclear weapons, because that is the most important goal. Oil prices may rise slightly, but they will quickly fall again. In fact, because our ships have already sailed out of the strait, our oil prices will not rise too much afterwards. I have always been right, and I have always been right, which is why I have been able to be elected president. In fact, I have been elected three times, but the second time, due to election fraud, I did not become president. I want to make sure these lunatics do not have nuclear weapons, they will absolutely not have nuclear weapons. For example, ten months ago, we sent B-2 bombers and bombed their country. Also, we have cameras on rockets in our Space Force, and their cameras in the rocket base will also capture, for example, an employee named Mohammed entering, and this person may come to steal some of our secrets. In short, we bombed Iran, and because we bombed them, they do not have nuclear weapons. If I had not become president, Israel would no longer be a country. Obama's Iran nuclear deal was actually very bad, Iran got all the benefits. A lot of money was invested at the time, Obama thought that money could buy peace with Iran, but that was wrong. I think in the end, you cannot let lunatics have nuclear weapons. This should have stopped long ago, but past administrations did not do so.

So I want to ask you to respond to this: Some people say that because of security concerns, because of Iran, you will not be taking the new Air Force One back to Washington today. Can you respond to that? The President's life is very dangerous. This 5.2 percent, this, this has a 5.2 percent chance that I will not survive. So, of course, I care about my personal safety. I am now Iran's number one enemy, the number one person they want to assassinate. But I don't care, because I am doing my job, and I hope I do this job better than ever before, because this country of mine is great, very successful. But I am on this list, I am number one on this list. I like being number one on the Douyin rankings, but I don't want to be Iran's number one enemy. I don't like that. So why aren't you taking the new Air Force One back? The new Air Force One has to go to a European base first, so everyone can admire it before it returns to normal operation. It will first go to several different bases in Europe for the soldiers to see, because this new military aircraft is truly amazing. After it goes there, it will be truly amazing.

Mr. President, it seems that war with Iran may restart. Actually, I don't think this war will restart, I think it will end very quickly. They hit several of our warships, so we attacked them back tenfold. Someone asked me if I would open fire on Iran tonight, and I said it's possible. We are responding to them in their own way. I think whatever happens will end quickly, it will only make it safer, it will be very free very soon, and it will happen very quickly. The ships in the strait are coming out now, a lot of oil is gushing out, we have a lot of oil now, everything will be very fast. We don't want a long war.

Okay, you in red, who are you with? This is a failed network, why are you still working there? Can you imagine? MNBC probably felt very awkward so they didn't want you to say it. You say that countries like Spain, Italy, and the UK have not helped the United States in dealing with the Iran issue. Let me tell you, first of all, Spain is terrible, Italy is good, almost all countries are pretty good. They just had a weak moment, they didn't help us. But we don't need their help. And if I wanted help, they said we don't want to get involved. I don't like that answer very much. That's how the UK answered. I said, do you want to help us? They said we want to, but we'll wait until the war is over. This is not the spirit of Churchill at the time. Let me tell you, if there is one word, one word for today's summit, it is unity. All countries love us, and they care about each other. This is a very good spirit of unity.

The one in green, are you wearing green? That's right. Thank you, Mr. President. I am a reporter from a TV station in Turkey. After your meeting with President Erdogan, could you tell us if you discussed lifting the restrictions on the F35 aircraft, and do you think the United States and Turkey will enter a new bilateral relationship? In my first term, I had a good relationship with him. Do you remember, President Branson, he was actually a hero of the Christian evangelical sect. I called President Erdogan at the time and asked him to release him. I didn't redeem him with a large sum of money like Obama and Biden did. I just called him and asked him to release him. This time, I didn't do it the second way. I said, look, he is a good person, and he is highly respected in the evangelical church. He was released later, and the next day he came to my office. In fact, what Biden did, many bad things happened at the time, at the border, etc., we all made fun of him. At that time, our relationship with many countries was not good, and Turkey was one of them. But all this changed, it changed on November 5th, the election day, two years ago. So our relationship with Turkey is very good. We also talked about the F35 fighter jets, which are the best fighter jets and everyone wants them. We have to decide who to give them to. My personal inclination is, he doesn't really like Netanyahu, and he doesn't really like Israel, but he didn't get involved, and he could have easily intervened. But at my request, he did not intervene. He is also a good ally of ours. Rubio can tell you all, our relationship with Turkey is very strong. They are also a very powerful country in NATO. He did not intervene. But on the issue of F35, I haven't fully made up my mind. But my inclination is this, they have already given us a lot of help. Who else is good to us? China, China did not intervene. Actually, 50% of their oil comes from the Strait of Hormuz. They never intervened. He didn't say I'll send warships to escort them. President Xi has always been good, everyone has been good. Why? Because there is respect. Because now they respect us Americans again. When they used to mock us, they said we were idiots. They saw a president who couldn't even speak clearly and couldn't walk properly, he was a disaster. They lost all respect for America. Now they have unparalleled respect for the United States.

Thank you all. Thank you all. Today's special program on the NATO summit comes to an end here. Thank you to all the viewers for watching. We will continue to follow up on the latest developments of various related issues of the NATO summit. Please follow Voice of America Chinese website and various social media platforms. I am Xu Xiangyun, thank you for watching. We will see you next time.