Author: Nata Koridze, UGSPN Senior Research Fellow
Introduction
The NATO Summit in Ankara, scheduled for July 7–8, comes at a turbulent moment for Euro-Atlantic security. The Alliance must respond not only to the war in Ukraine, but also to growing strains in transatlantic relations and transformation of the international security environment. Despite these challenges, NATO remains the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security. Once viewed as an organization searching for a post-Cold War purpose, the Alliance has regained strategic relevance through its support for Ukraine and its adaptation to a rapidly evolving security environment.
At the same time, NATO is undergoing profound internal transformation. Russia’s war against Ukraine has accelerated European defense spending and reinforced the need for greater military preparedness, while longstanding debates over burden-sharing have evolved into broader questions about the future distribution of responsibilities within the Alliance. Against this backdrop, the Ankara Summit offers an opportunity to demonstrate Allied unity while addressing NATO’s principal strategic challenges and defining the Alliance’s direction for the years ahead.
Transatlantic Relations Under Strain
Unity has always been NATO’s greatest strength and the foundation of its credibility. Yet in recent years, disagreements between the United States and its European allies have increasingly shaped the Alliance’s agenda. The Ankara Summit is particularly significant because it takes place amid growing uncertainty in transatlantic relations.
These tensions are not new. During President Donald Trump’s first administration, disputes centered largely on burden-sharing, with Washington arguing that European allies were not contributing their fair share to collective defense. More recently, relations have been further strained by increasingly confrontational rhetoric toward European allies, including disputes over Greenland and continued ambiguity over the future U.S. military posture in Europe.
Debates in the United States over defense spending, alliance commitments, and strategic priorities, together with President Trump’s repeated questioning of NATO’s value, have further fueled uncertainty about Washington’s future role within and commitment to the Alliance. His administration has challenged NATO’s relevance, questioned the credibility of collective defense commitments, and at times suggested that the United States could reconsider its participation in the Alliance.
Relations deteriorated further following disagreements over the conflict with Iran. President Trump criticized several European allies for refusing to participate in military operations or allow U.S. strikes to be launched from their territory. At the same time, Washington began reassessing its military posture in Europe. The United States announced reductions to several elements of its force presence, including the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany-partly offset by a decision on redeployment to Poland, the cancellation of plans to deploy conventional cruise missiles in Germany, and a permanent reduction in Brigade Combat Teams assigned to Europe from four to three. Washington is apparently further going to scale down the number of fighter jets, drones, strategic bombers, submarines and warships dedicated to NATO. Together, these measures have raised questions about the Alliance’s ability to reinforce its eastern flank rapidly during a crisis.
At the June meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, held ahead of the Ankara Summit, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described European reluctance to support the Iran campaign as “shameful.” He announced a six-month review of U.S. military deployments in Europe and warned that countries failing to meet agreed defense spending targets could face cuts in U.S. contributions to NATO.
Recent media reports have suggested that the communiqué expected at the conclusion of the Ankara Summit may omit a commitment to hold another leaders’ meeting in 2027. According to these reports, NATO officials are reassessing the future format of annual summits to reduce the risk of renewed political tensions with Washington. Whether or not these reports prove accurate, they illustrate the broader tension surrounding transatlantic relations.
Ankara Summit Priorities
Against this backdrop, two weeks before the Ankara Summit, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte outlined the Alliance’s three interrelated priorities of the summit. These are increasing defense investment, strengthening the Alliance’s defense industrial base and innovation, and reaffirming NATO’s enduring support for Ukraine. He emphasized that the Summit would build on the commitments adopted at the 2025 Hague Summit and advance the concept of “NATO 3.0”- a stronger Europe within a stronger Alliance. As he put it, the goal is to demonstrate “just how powerful NATO is.”
Defense Investment
Defense spending has long been one of the Alliance’s principal sources of friction. For years, successive U.S. administrations criticized European allies for failing to shoulder a fair share of the collective defense burden. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine fundamentally changed that debate. Faced with the most serious security crisis in Europe since the end of the Cold War, virtually all Allies have increased defense spending.
At the 2025 Hague Summit, NATO members agreed to raise defense expenditure to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% allocated to core military capabilities and an additional 1.5% to defense- and security-related investments, including critical infrastructure and resilience.
Moreover, President Trump’s recent statements have reinforced concerns that future U.S. support for NATO could become increasingly conditional on reaching this target. Against this backdrop, his decision to attend the Ankara Summit alongside the other Allied leaders carries considerable political weight.
Ahead of the Summit, Rutte met President Trump in Washington to review Allied progress toward the new spending targets and help prepare the ground for a successful meeting.
Describing the commitments adopted at The Hague as “historic,” Rutte noted that several Allies, including Poland and the Baltic states, already spend well above previous NATO targets, while others, particularly Germany, are making significant progress in expanding their defense budgets. In response to the deteriorating security environment and sustained U.S. pressure for greater European defense spending in Ankara, Allies are expected to present concrete plans for implementing the new commitments, marking a decisive shift after decades of underinvestment.
Industry and Innovation
Strengthening NATO’s defense industrial base has become central to the Alliance’s adaptation. Military credibility depends not only on force structure but also on the ability to produce, replenish, and innovate at speed and scale.
Industrial resilience, technological innovation, and expanded defense cooperation-including joint production with Ukraine have therefore become key priorities. NATO also seeks greater participation from small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups, and emerging technology companies to accelerate innovation and diversify the defense industrial ecosystem.
These issues will feature prominently at NATO’s second Defence Industry Forum, held alongside the Summit and bringing together government officials, defense companies, partner countries, and technology firms.
According to the Secretary General, the Alliance is entering the early stages of a defense-industrial revolution. While Allies have already expanded production capacity, long-term success will depend not only on larger inventories but also on sustained technological innovation. According to Rutte, this transformation will strengthen deterrence while supporting economic growth and hundreds of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the Alliance. The Defence Industry Forum slated for July 7 is also expected to produce tens of billions of dollars in new defense contracts.
Ukraine
Continued support for Ukraine will remain one of the Ankara Summit’s defining priorities. More than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion, the war continues to shape Europe’s security environment. At the same time, developments in 2026 have altered the dynamics of the conflict, with Ukraine gaining a growing technological advantage in drone warfare and demonstrating an increasing ability to strike deep behind Russian lines.
While Ukrainian resistance and Western assistance have prevented Russia from achieving its initial objectives, the conflict has evolved into a prolonged war of attrition. Meanwhile European allies have progressively assumed a larger share of military assistance, surpassing the United States in overall support to Ukraine.
Although NATO is not a party to the conflict, the Alliance has played a decisive role in enabling Ukraine’s defense. The Ankara Summit may revisit burden-sharing under the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), where Germany, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands currently shoulder much of the responsibility. Last year, European Allies and partners allocated over USD 4 billion to procure U.S.-made military equipment, including Patriot interceptors for Ukraine. Looking ahead, however, concerns are growing over the depletion of U.S. stockpiles following recent military operations against Iran.
Ahead of the Summit, Rutte reaffirmed NATO’s long-term commitment to Ukraine, arguing that the country continues to demonstrate that “freedom is worth fighting for.” He also emphasized that the Alliance is drawing valuable operational lessons from Ukraine’s extensive use of drone warfare. Continued support for Kyiv, he stressed, remains inseparable from NATO’s own long-term security.
Other Issues
While defense investment, industrial capacity, and support for Ukraine will dominate the formal agenda, the Ankara Summit will also take place against a broader strategic backdrop. Several wider security challenges, though not headline agenda items, are likely to shape the discussions among Allied leaders.
From a strategic perspective, the prolonged war in Ukraine presents both opportunities and risks for NATO. On the one hand, it continues to drain Russian military resources, limiting Moscow’s capacity to launch additional large-scale conventional operations. On the other, a prolonged conflict may encourage the Kremlin to intensify hybrid activities aimed at weakening Western unity and undermining support for Ukraine.
Although a direct conventional attack against a NATO member would carry significant risks for Moscow, hybrid threats have become an increasingly important challenge. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, infrastructure sabotage, election interference, and economic coercion enable Russia to exert pressure while remaining below the threshold of open military confrontation. Strengthening resilience against such activities has therefore become an essential element of NATO’s deterrence strategy.
The Baltic region remains particularly important in this context. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania occupy NATO’s most exposed eastern flank because of their geographic location and historical experience. Russia has repeatedly employed hybrid tactics across the wider region with varying degrees of success, underscoring the need for continued vigilance and stronger resilience among frontline Allies.
Maintaining credible deterrence across the full spectrum of conflict, from hybrid activities to conventional military threats, will remain one of NATO’s principal long-term challenges. These issues shape the strategic environment in which Allied leaders take decisions in Ankara.
The War in Iran
The conflict in the Middle East is also expected to feature in discussions in Ankara. Although it falls outside NATO’s core mission, it has exposed further differences between the United States and several European allies over strategic priorities and the use of military force.
President Trump’s criticism of European governments that declined to participate in military operations against Iran or permit U.S. strikes from their territory has added another source of friction to an already strained transatlantic relationship. While these disagreements should not be overstated, they highlight the challenge of maintaining Allied cohesion as NATO confronts multiple security crises simultaneously.
The conflict also carries broader economic and strategic implications. Any disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz affects global energy markets and, consequently, Allied economies. Although NATO is unlikely to play a direct role in the conflict, developments in the Middle East will inevitably influence the broader strategic environment and are therefore likely to form part of the discussions in Ankara.
The Strategic Significance of the Ankara Summit
The Ankara Summit comes at a pivotal moment for NATO. Allied leaders must address Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine, defense spending targets, evolving military requirements on the eastern flank, strengthening deterrence, enhancing defense-industrial production and innovation, and uncertainty concerning future U.S. engagement..
The Summit may also clarify how NATO and emerging European defense initiatives will complement one another in the years ahead. In this sense, Ankara is more than a routine gathering of Allied leaders. It offers an opportunity to reaffirm Allied unity while defining NATO’s priorities for an increasingly demanding security environment.
Russia will remain NATO’s principal long-term security challenge. The Alliance’s task is therefore not only to deter Russian aggression but also to adapt to an era of prolonged strategic competition, rapid technological change, and evolving political realities. Meeting that challenge will require stronger European defense capabilities, sustained American engagement, closer NATO-EU cooperation, and greater resilience against hybrid threats.
Ultimately, the significance of the Ankara Summit will be measured not only by the decisions taken in Ankara but by the Allies’ ability to implement them. Political declarations matter, but NATO’s credibility will depend on sustained investment, military readiness, and continued Allied cohesion amid domestic political pressures and differing views on strategic priorities. As the Euro-Atlantic security environment grows more complex, the decisions taken in Ankara may prove significant in determining whether the Alliance remains capable of meeting the most serious security challenge it has faced since the end of the Cold War.