For the latest updates visit the NATO Summit Wales 2014 homepage and @NATOWales on Twitter. 
 
 When NATO last met in Britain in 1990 the Cold War was ending. As Margaret Thatcher and President George H.W. Bush pledged to continue to stand together, many might have thought - even hoped - that a new era of peace and prosperity would make this great security alliance less relevant and less needed. But the truth is that today NATO is as vital to our future as it has ever been in our past. 
 
 We meet at a time when the world faces many dangerous and evolving challenges. To the east, Russia has ripped up the rulebook with its illegal, self-declared annexation of Crimea and its troops on Ukrainian soil threatening and undermining a sovereign nation state. To the South, there is an arc of instability that spreads from North Africa and the Sahel, to the Middle East. The growth of technology and globalisation, for all its great benefits and opportunities, has put power once reserved for States in the hands of the individual, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. The utterly despicable murders of two American journalists by ISIL are but the latest evidence of a brutal and poisonous extremism that murders indiscriminately and risks exporting terrorism abroad. 
 
 Of course there are some who say that we shouldn’t get involved in addressing these threats, that in Britain and America we have done our bit for the world and we should leave today’s problems for others to sort out. There are others who doubt whether an institution such as NATO can ever really adapt to meet the challenges of the new threats we face. These are vital questions that go to the heart of how we keep our people safe and it is crucial that we address them head on. 
 
 First, those who believe in stepping back and adopting an isolationist approach misunderstand the nature of security in the 21st century. Developments in other parts of the world, particularly in Iraq and Syria threaten our security at home. And NATO is not just an alliance of friends who come to the aid of each other in times of need, it is also an alliance based on national self-interest. Whether it is regional aggression going unchecked or the prospect that foreign fighters could return from Iraq and Syria to pose a threat in our countries, the problems we face today threaten the security of British and American people, and the wider world. Our nations have always believed that our children and grandchildren are more prosperous and secure when the world is more prosperous and secure. So we have a real stake in making sure they grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped, women are not raped in conflict and families aren’t slaughtered because of their faith or political beliefs. That is why we have decimated core al Qaeda and supported the Afghan people. And it is why we will not waver in our determination to confront ISIL. If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats they could not be more wrong. Countries like Britain and America will not be cowed by barbaric killers. We will be more forthright in the defence of our values, not least because a world of greater freedom is a fundamental part of how we keep our own people safe. 
 
 Second, we believe that NATO can adapt to meet the new challenges we face and that this summit can be a landmark in shaping this transition. The changes we need are clear. With Russia trying to force a sovereign state to abandon its right to democracy and determining the course of its future at the barrel of a gun, we should support Ukraine’s right to determine its own democratic future and continue our efforts to enhance Ukrainian capabilities. We must use our military to ensure a persistent presence in Eastern Europe, reassuring NATO members in Eastern Europe and making clear to Russia that we will always uphold our Article 5 commitments to collective self-defence. And we must back this up with a multi-national rapid response force, composed of land, air, maritime and special forces, that could deploy anywhere in the world at very short notice. All this will also require investment from NATO countries in the necessary capabilities. Britain and America are two of only four NATO members to meet the target of spending 2% of our GDP on defence and other states must urgently step up their efforts to meet this too. This would send a powerful message to those that threaten us that our collective resolve is as strong as ever. 
 
 But while a strong security response is essential, we cannot rely on our military strength alone. We must use all the resources at our disposal – military, economic and political. 
 
 We know that terrorist organisations thrive where there is political instability and weak or dysfunctional political institutions. So we must invest in the building blocks of free and open societies, including the creation of a new genuinely inclusive Government in Iraq that can unite all Iraqis, including Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Christian and other minority populations. When the threats to our security increasingly emanate from outside the borders of our Alliance, we must do more to build partnerships with others around the globe who share our values and want to build a safe, tolerant and peaceful world - that includes supporting the partners who are taking the fight to ISIL on the ground, as we have done by stepping up support for Kurdish and Iraqi Security Forces. And we should use our expertise to provide training and mentoring to forces elsewhere, whether in Georgia or the Middle East, strengthening the capacity of forces there to tackle local threats. 
 
 We must also work with international organisations like the OSCE to ensure a comprehensive approach to upholding democratic norms, which is why they have been invited to attend this Summit. And we must recognise that we can and should use all our levers, including those outside of the Alliance, like the economic pressure that is being brought to bear on Russia’s economy. 
 
 Ultimately by working together we are stronger, whether in standing up to Russia or confronting ISIL. So in Newport today we must summon up the shared resolve that inspired NATO’s founding fathers. With more than sixty countries represented at the Summit, we can build this proud alliance of transatlantic nations into a more effective security network that fosters stability around the world. A network that Britain and America will continue to lead not just because it is morally right to do so, but fundamentally because it is only by supporting peace, democracy and human rights around the globe that we will keep British and American families safe today. ||||| When President Obama and other leaders belonging to the NATO coalition meet this week in Newport, Wales, they'll have plenty on their plate to discuss, between Russia's hostility toward Ukraine and the growing threat from ISIS. Before tackling those subjects, however, they'll have to address the unexpectedly complicated situation in Afghanistan. 
 
 After 13 years of war in Afghanistan, NATO allies expected that this week's summit would mark the smooth withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. NATO countries are expected to keep troops there past this year with the mission of training and advising Afghan security forces. Now, however, with the results of Afghanistan's presidential elections unclear, it's unclear what role the U.S. and NATO will play there. 
 
 "When the summit was announced a year ago, everyone thought this would be a meeting in which NATO... would celebrate the end of the mission," Ivo Daalder, former U.S. permanent representative to NATO and president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, told reporters Wednesday. "The developments in Afghanistan have put a monkey wrench in that part of the conversation." 
 
 The United States and its allies have been waiting for months for Afghan leadership to sign a bilateral security agreement (BSA) that would provide the legal framework for the U.S. to keep troops in Afghanistan past this year -- critically, that would include immunity for troops. However, outgoing President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign the agreement. The two candidates competing to replace Karzai, Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, have agreed to sign it, but both are contesting the election results. 
 
 Without a signed agreement protecting U.S. troops, the U.S. would pull all troops out of Afghanistan, and NATO allies would follow. 
 
 "I think there's a lot of nervousness... particularly on the military side, in terms of the timelines," Kathleen Hicks, director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told reporters last week. "If there's not a BSA for the U.S. -- and ergo, not a BSA for NATO with Afghanistan -- that there would have to be a very stressful timeline to pull out troops." 
 
 Yet with no political agreement in sight, no head of state from Afghanistan will be present at the NATO summit. 
 
 Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Kabul last week that the Pentagon would let U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan even if the political stalemate is drawn out "a little further than we hoped it would." 
 
 Hicks that "we're playing a little bit of a game of chicken here." 
 
 "I do think... we are being respectful, perhaps, is the way to put it, to the Afghan political process," she added. 
 
 Under all of this uncertainty, the U.S. this week is seeking to secure the financial and troop commitments needed from NATO countries to maintain the advising and training mission in Afghanistan. 
 
 "The main effort there is really, number one, the resources, and two, getting the warm bodies ready," Charles Kupchan, senior director for Europe at the National Security Council, told reporters over the weekend. 
 
 Meanwhile, the growing threat of Islamic extremists in Iraq is expected to loom over the Afghanistan discussions. Extremists gained a foothold in Iraq after the United States withdrew from there in 2011, and already, the Taliban is attempting to exploit the political weaknesses in Afghanistan. 
 
 Hicks said it's unclear whether that will "change the calculus with regard to the timeline commitment in Afghanistan." 
 
 "The United States and certainly NATO allies, as best we can tell, are holding the line in terms of their decisions to ramp down on a timetable," she said. "But there is also time... for a change of position on that, should the Afghan political process stall." ||||| NEWPORT, Wales—As dozens of world leaders gathered here for a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the alliance's civilian head said Thursday that Russian forces continue to destabilize Ukraine even as Moscow pushes a cease-fire deal in the east of the country. 
 
 Speaking ahead of the summit, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that NATO welcomes "all efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Ukraine." 
 
 ... ||||| CARDIFF, Wales — President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain have called on NATO to reject “isolationist” impulses and confront the rising terrorist threat posed by Sunni militants in the Middle East, saying the United States and Britain “will not be cowed by barbaric killers.” 
 
 “We will not waver in our determination to confront” the militant group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the two leaders wrote in a joint opinion piece published in Thursday’s editions of The Times of London. “If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats they could not be more wrong.” 
 
 Their pointed words came as leaders gathered in Wales for a NATO summit meeting that was intended to focus on responding to Russia’s escalating military intervention in Ukraine. On the sidelines of the meeting, however, American and British efforts to assemble and lead an international coalition against ISIS are expected to predominate. 
 
 “The international community as a whole has an obligation to stop the Islamic State from advancing further,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, said at a news conference on Thursday. But he noted that there had been no request from Iraq for NATO assistance in confronting the group. 
 
 Continue reading the main story Video 
 
 Mr. Obama and the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy will meet with President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine to discuss the crisis in his country, which will also be the topic of an afternoon meeting where allies will consider sending additional assistance to Kiev. 
 
 Before they met, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, warned that Ukraine’s efforts to form an alliance with NATO threatened to short-circuit talks to end the fighting between pro-Russian separatists and government forces in eastern Ukraine. 
 
 Mr. Lavrov, in televised remarks in Moscow, said that discussions between top Ukrainian officials and NATO leaders were “a blatant attempt to derail all the efforts” to reach a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, The Associated Press reported. 
 
 NATO leaders will also discuss winding down the alliance’s combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of the year and shifting it to a training and assistance mission, although details of the transition cannot be finalized until Afghans resolve a disputed presidential election. 
 
 In their joint editorial, Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron argued that ISIS is as immediate a threat to the security of NATO members as is the behavior of Russia, which they wrote had “ripped up the rule book” by annexing Crimea and sending its troops into Ukraine. Russia has denied any military involvement in Ukraine. 
 
 “Whether it is regional aggression going unchecked or the prospect that foreign fighters could return from Iraq and Syria to pose a threat in our countries, the problems we face today threaten the security of British and American people, and the wider world,” they wrote. 
 
 Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron argued that NATO must transition to a “more effective security network that fosters stability around the world,” urging member nations to bolster military spending. 
 
 They also called for keeping a “persistent” NATO defensive presence in Eastern Europe to make clear to Russia that the alliance is serious about the defense of all of its members, and expressed support for a rapid-response force — expected to be endorsed by NATO allies this week — including land, air, maritime and special forces “that could deploy anywhere in the world at very short notice.”
– A NATO summit today in Wales originally meant to focus on the ongoing Ukraine crisis will shift gears to include high-level discussions on the American- and British-led push to address ISIS, reports the New York Times. President Obama and British PM David Cameron penned a joint letter in the Times of London today, and they don't mince words, writing, "If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats, they could not be more wrong. Countries like Britain and America will not be cowed by barbaric killers." Other highlights and expected topics during today's summit, said to be the "largest gathering of foreign leaders on British soil," reports the Washington Post: Obama and other ally leaders convened with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko to discuss his country's crisis, as well as the possibility of the allies sending assistance to the embattled country, reports the Times. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said beforehand that he embraces "all efforts to fund a peaceful solution to the crisis in Ukraine," despite Russia's continued involvement "on the ground in destabilizing the situation," reports the Wall Street Journal. Ukraine is interested in joining NATO, which spooks other members who don't want to fire Russia up, reports the Post. It might be too late, however: The Russian foreign minister blasted the idea as "a blatant attempt to derail" a peace deal, reports the AP as per the Times. NATO allies will also discuss setting up a "rapid response" contingent made up of a few thousand troops who could swoop in within two days' time if a crisis should arise, reports the Journal. The current combat mission in Afghanistan, now going on 13 years, is also on the table, and talks are expected to hash out more details about the mission's switchover to a training-and-assistance initiative, reports CBS News. One thing that's holding up plans: the results of the Afghan elections. "Everyone thought this would be a meeting in which NATO would celebrate the end of the mission," a former NATO rep said yesterday. "The developments in Afghanistan have put a monkey wrench in that part of the conversation."