Overview
NATO’s summit in Ankara successfully avoided major blowups and ended with a generally positive summit communique, but it also struggled in its overarching aim to demonstrate the alliance’s unity. NATO is attempting to adapt to a new strategic environment in which the US redirects attention to Asia and Europe takes on operational management. Simultaneously, NATO is reckoning with elevated levels of internal tension and unpredictability brought on by conflicts between Washington and other members of the alliance, which are challenging transatlantic cohesion.
In Ankara, European leaders confronted American leadership still focused on Iran, Greenland, and Europe’s perceived lack of progress on defense investment. At the same time, allies successfully reaffirmed support for Ukraine and announced new defense procurement deals. These dual outcomes reaffirm downside risks in NATO’s predictability and planning, as well as a lack of common vision about where the transatlantic relationship is going. However, some upside risks are also present, such as industrial projects enabled by increasing defense spending across Europe, and warming towards Türkiye, the summit’s host.
Managing Tension and Projecting Unity
Since US President Donald Trump returned to office in 2025, NATO has undergone a period of heightened internal tension and disunity over the alliance’s strategic outlook and future. The US has continually demanded higher defense spending from allies, and although many countries have made significant progress, the administration has continued to sharply criticize allies for perceived failures to live up to their obligations. The larger American push for a new distribution of responsibility inside the alliance reflects the administration’s “NATO 3.0” doctrine. NATO 3.0 envisions “burden-shifting” of responsibility for conventional defense to European allies, while the US continues to provide the nuclear umbrella and strategic enabler capabilities, like space-based intelligence, in addition to determining NATO’s overall strategic direction.
Over the past 18 months, NATO has also experienced a series of escalating political crises that have rattled the alliance. These include the disastrous meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in February 2025, Trump’s August 2025 meeting with Putin in Anchorage, Washington’s aggressive pursuit of acquiring Greenland, and the war in Iran. Simultaneously, Washington has taken a series of sudden bureaucratic-level steps to realize NATO 3.0 that have caught other allies flat-footed. These have included unexpected reductions of US forces in Germany and Poland (although the Poland decision was reversed), the US decision to remove some American capabilities reserved for NATO operations, and the announcement of a six-month review of US forces in Europe.
Despite the growing transatlantic friction, most Europeans view NATO as the core structuring element of regional security with no alternatives in sight. The US plays a currently irreplaceable role in European defense in areas like intelligence and nuclear capabilities. Against the backdrop of internal tensions, NATO’s primary objective for the summit was to project a picture of unity and progress by European allies on defense spending and readiness. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has been a pivotal figure in maintaining Trump’s engagement with NATO, went into the summit expressing how beneficial the Trump administration has been for the alliance. Likewise, European NATO allies wanted to secure Trump’s backing for priority issues like support for Ukraine against Russia and to demonstrate NATO’s continued value for American national security. Support for Ukraine specifically is the topline security issue for many NATO members, but it is also an area where Washington and allies have diverged.
Defense industrial projects occupied a central place at the summit as NATO countries tried to prove both their own forward movement on defense capabilities and NATO’s value for the US defense industrial base. On July 7, NATO held a NATO Summit Defense Industry Forum, at which countries signed several deals with US companies for the production or maintenance of US-designed missiles in Europe, including Stinger air-defense missiles, Patriot PAC-3 interceptors, and ATACMS missiles. This approach covers both defense industrial cooperation with the US and allays concerns in some European countries about failing to benefit from their own defense spending. Moreover, the defense industrial deals help actualize the US’ goal of “NATO 3.0,” in which European allies take on conventional leadership while still buying American weapons.
Outcomes From the Summit
The summit itself walked a line between conflict and unity as public disunity underlined a more constructive atmosphere behind the scenes. Trump reiterated his belief that the US should take control of Greenland, and he directed criticism towards Britain, France, Germany and Italy for failing to sufficiently support US military actions against Iran. Trump also renewed his ongoing spat with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and he alluded to cutting off all trade with Spain over Madrid’s approach to defense spending. The summit declaration also did not announce the date of the next NATO summit, which differs from NATO’s normal procedure in recent years.
On the other hand, Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy went smoothly. Ukraine received US permission to produce Patriot missile interceptors, and the summit communique reaffirmed commitment to NATO’s collective defense and pledged $70 billion in Europe-led assistance to Ukraine. Trump also reportedly adopted a significantly more positive approach to other allies in private and during his closing speech on the second day, praising several for their contributions and expressing his desire to stay close to others.
Tensions did not result in a break-up, but the summit reinforced the increasing difficulty of managing conflicts within the alliance and insulating security alignment from political infighting. Moreover, Trump’s continued focus on Greenland and Iran appears to have captured US attention, undermining relationship repair through defense industrial deals, progress on defense investment, and European efforts to move towards the administration’s NATO 3.0 vision. In turn, the Trump administration’s unpredictable decision-making on NATO and European security issues like Ukraine makes it more difficult for European allies to plan security around cooperation with the US.
The overall takeaway for many allies is that even though NATO’s underlying foundation remains stable, Washington will be less reliable, that the way NATO operates must change, and that, as of now, there is no roadmap for how that change needs to happen. Despite tensions, Washington and European capitals largely want America to remain engaged in Europe and see potential for US-Europe cooperation in other areas, like on critical minerals and on some areas of China policy. Moreover, allies have made significant progress on meeting the goals agreed to with Washington in areas like defense spending. Going forward, managing Washington’s relationship with NATO will continue to be a high priority for NATO’s leadership and for allied political leaders.
One major winner from the summit was the host: Türkiye. Türkiye’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, used his personal relationship with Trump to secure his in-person attendance. Türkiye also obtained a commitment from the US to remove sanctions stemming from the purchase of a Russian S-400 air defense system in 2019. Additionally, Trump commented that Washington will consider reversing the ban on Turkey’s participation in the F-35 program, although that will require congressional input. In recent years, Ankara has asserted itself as a strong partner for Washington in Europe and the Middle East and has worked to boost its prominence as a defense exporter. Türkiye’s pronounced role at the summit underlines Ankara’s increasingly strong strategic position inside NATO through its significant defense industry, strategic geography, and relationship with Washington.
Risks and Opportunities
The summit largely underlines and cements the current instability in which NATO is operating. This has several consequences. First, it creates a lack of planning security for NATO members for at least the next three years, which comes while allies are raising defense spending and investing in new projects. Second, considering American unpredictability, NATO allies could be more wary of reliance on the US, driving them to prioritize domestic or European alternative defense and tech ecosystems. The EU has pushed for this approach in the past. Third, while the Ankara summit did not bring about any major shifts, it also did little to prevent the emergence of new crises or solve preexisting issues.
On the upside, defense spending across the alliance will continue to grow due to American pressure, the threat posed by Russia, and increasing European focus on developing strong conventional defense capabilities. Defense industrial collaboration saw significant achievements, especially agreements involving licensed production and maintenance of American-designed equipment. The Europeans could also expand defense industrial tie-ups with Türkiye, given the country’s fast-growing defense industry, its success in positioning itself as a central player in regional security cooperation, and Ankara’s ability to maneuver inside the shifting sands of transatlantic politics. Finally, the fact that NATO’s underlying foundation remains stable means that even as the alliance struggles to implement its new strategic orientation, transatlantic cooperation will fundamentally remain resilient to outside shocks.
