Ahead of NATO’s Ankara summit, probably nobody knew what to expect – Washington’s recent, somewhat unpredictable steps didn’t exactly point at a possible success. Tensions were running high over Greenland, Iran and the dirty monetary details of defence spending.
While it was obvious that the European members have been preparing for a less-America focused-slash-reliant NATO, it was a plan with many “if”-s for the summit itself. Especially not with two big egos – President Erdogan representing a suddenly self-assertive Turkey and a very moody President Trump – in one room.
Eventually, it was not that bad as it could have been after the American president arrived at Ankara with reviving “a host of grievances against NATO”. Not even the fresh re-escalation in Iran and in the Strait of Hormuz could derail the talks.
In the end, Secretary General Mark Rutte could declare that “what this leads to is a NATO which is truly transformed” and even President Trump could boast about a “very successful summit” that proved the “tremendous unity” of the alliance and “a lot of love”. (Though only after he first declared that it was “ridiculous for the USA to continue along this one-sided path when the relationship is not reciprocal”.)
Under immense American pressure, the European leaders reiterated their last year’s commitment to increase defence spending and to develop NATO’s military-industrial capacities. While there’s been some development on this front since the summit in The Hague, still only five members meet the agreed 3.5 percent defence spending requirement.
Which caused some friction between Washington and those who don’t. President Trump was most prominently in dispute with Spain, but the UK, Germany, France and Italy also got their fair share of criticism, albeit only Madrid was labelled a “terrible partner” and threatened with a cut in trade ties. Most European allies were openly confronted about their “attitude” towards the Iran conflict, namely for not providing overflight rights or supporting American military efforts.
“Trump-whisperer” Mark Rutte had a lot to do to maintain cohesion. And he did.
Thus, the alliance could eventually declare its “ironclad commitment” to Article 5 collective defence – and to do it by further increasing defence spending (up to 5 percent by 2035), dedicating about $50 billion to various multinational defence deals across various domains (think surveillance, space, AI, drones and missile technology) and with a focus on modernizing capabilities.
Ukraine also received some much-needed aid – and the promise of long-term military support. A positive development also for Kyiv’s European partners who faced the possibility of bearing the burden with less American involvement.
Now, Ukraine can not only expect a 70 billion euro package of military support for both this year and next, but that Washington will give a license for its Patriot air defence system – hoping that “they can produce them pretty quickly” now that the world is running out of it.
A positive turn of events after Trump’s and Zelensky’s disastrous past meetings – even if the American president still “speaks more to Putin than to Zelensky”.
If that was a plus – bringing the Greenland issue back to the table was a big shock for Europe, forcing several leaders to reiterate the fundamental principles of “territorial integrity, national sovereignty and inviolability of borders”.
Most countries received more or less what they expected from the summit – the odd one out is maybe Turkey. Though President Erdogan said in the end that by hosting a “historic summit”, his country “laid the foundation of a stronger NATO” and that Turkey was “ready to assume more responsibility for fairer burden sharing in NATO” – he still came away somewhat empty handed. President Trump is still undecided whether to sell F-35 jets to Ankara, though his “inclination is to say, look, he’s done everything, he’s helped us in so many different ways”.
As there’s no set date for the next NATO summit – many things can change until then. For better or worse.
