Heads of state of NATO member countries met at a major Summit held in Ankara on July 7-8, 2026, to discuss the future direction of the Alliance and to undertake concrete steps to increase its effectiveness. On the surface, the Summit displayed a sense of unity, solidarity and coherence. Allied leaders arrived in Ankara to display progress in line with the agreements reached in the previous Hague Summit to expand their defence and defense- related spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035. Last year alone, European and Canadian defense spending increased by 20 per cent. The allies also reaffirmed their commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty involving \u201can ironclad commitment to our collective defense\u201d. Furthermore, member states committed themselves to 50 billion dollars in defense industry deals, which would involve a major increase in their military capabilities over time. Another striking feature of the Summit was the \u201cunequivocal\u201d support for Ukraine\u2019s defense, and concrete steps were agreed upon in line with this objective. Indeed, on the margins of the Summit, Trump held a separate meeting with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during which the two leaders discussed the war in Ukraine and further US military support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beyond these important steps and signs of unity, however, the fractured nature of the alliance was highly visible. US President Donald Trump was inevitably at the center of the proceedings and dominated the show in Ankara. Trump was highly critical and contemptuous of his European allies for failing to support the United States during the War on Iran. The issue of US control over Greenland once again came onto the agenda, a move that was strongly resented by the European powers. Individual countries, such as Spain, were subjected to vigorous criticism. Trump\u2019s criticism was based specifically on Spain\u2019s reluctance to expand its military expenditures in line with the 5 percent of GDP target and its failure to allow the use of NATO bases during the War on Iran. The substance, however, was that Trump was critical of the more progressive voices in Europe, such as the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, who explicitly criticized US support for Israel and the US-Israel War on Iran. Indeed, Sanchez had labeled the War on Iran as a \u201cdisaster\u201d due to enormous hostilities ending with thousands of deaths, even though he is openly critical of the oppressive regime in Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem with NATO as it stands is that the United States, given its military capabilities, remains the key driving force in the Alliance. At the same time, the United States\u2019 commitment in the Trumpian era not only to European defence, but also to European values, appears rather weak. Trump\u2019s aggressive unilateral actions, coupled with his erratic political style, have generated a deep underlying tension and problem of trust between the United States, on the one hand, and the European countries and Canada, on the other, which may be hard to overcome in the coming years. It is quite striking in this context that no follow-up summit has been planned for next year. Although there is a pledge of significant support for Ukraine at the Ankara Summit, there appears to be a significant dividing line between the European concerns for Ukraine and those of the United States. The lukewarm attitude was clearly observed in the very first days of the second Trump era during the dramatic meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in the White House. The divisions between the United States and the European \u201callies\u201d over financial and military support for Ukraine have persisted ever since. The divide on the Ukraine issue creates serious disagreements on the prospective vision and mission of NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Europeans are unambiguously and single-mindedly focused on the Russian threat and the need to support Ukraine at all costs. In contrast, Trump\u2019s NATO vision is driven much more by a strong orientation toward the Middle East and the global challenges posed by the need to contain China. Hence, given these deep divisions, we are likely to witness a more European NATO, with the European countries taking greater responsibility for their collective defense, but at the same time a weaker NATO, with the US taking a lukewarm attitude and displaying limited commitment to European defense priorities and imperatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most interesting features of the Ankara Summit, which attracted significant attention, involved the friendship and affection that Trump displayed toward Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan. In contrast to the frequent criticisms levelled against the European allies, often framed in highly negative terms, Trump was quite generous in praising Erdo\u011fan and in stressing the special bonds that seem to unite these two leaders. Trump\u2019s strong praise and affection for Erdo\u011fan arguably reflected his broader global strategy of dealing with like-minded political actors and \u201ccutting deals\u201d on a bilateral basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It could be argued that T\u00fcrkiye, at least in the short run, could be considered one of the winners of the Ankara Summit. Trump made promises regarding the sale of F-35 fighter jets to T\u00fcrkiye and the removal of CAATSA sanctions. The joint Trump-Erdo\u011fan show also proved to be a powerful instrument in terms of Turkish domestic politics. The Turkish president was effectively shielded from criticism for his handling of domestic politics in terms of monopolization of power and the repressive measures imposed on the main opposition party, the CHP. The Europeans, largely passive actors in a Summit dominated by Trump, were also largely silent in this respect. During the Summit, T\u00fcrkiye was projected to the domestic and international audiences as a strong country and a central rather than peripheral power within NATO, which undoubtedly helped bolster President Erdo\u011fan\u2019s image.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In concrete terms, T\u00fcrkiye, with its booming defense sector, is likely to benefit from the various defense deals envisaged during the NATO Summit. Access to F-35 fighter jets and removal of CAATSA sanctions would no doubt be important gains for T\u00fcrkiye. Yet, the argument that T\u00fcrkiye is a major gainer from the Summit deserves some qualification due to the presence of multiple uncertainties. First, there is considerable ambiguity concerning the future access to the F-35 program. Although Trump has expressed his desire to activate the sale of F-35 jets to T\u00fcrkiye, these promises may not automatically translate into concrete action, given that they depend on Congressional approval and consent on the part of some of the key US allies, who may provide strong opposition. The outcome will also depend on how T\u00fcrkiye will deal with its S-400 missiles previously acquired from Russia. There is an even greater risk if T\u00fcrkiye becomes overinvolved in NATO, which, according to Trump\u2019s vision, is likely to play a greater role in the highly unstable Middle Eastern context. Overextension in the Middle East, with an ongoing war between Iran and Israel, and its aggressive hegemonic ambitions, is likely to present significant security challenges for T\u00fcrkiye in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Heads of state of NATO member countries met at a major Summit held in Ankara on July 7-8, 2026, to discuss the future direction of the Alliance and to undertake concrete steps to increase its effectiveness. On the surface, the Summit displayed a sense of unity, solidarity and coherence. Allied leaders arrived in Ankara to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":275,"featured_media":17025,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[486],"tags":[612],"class_list":["post-17024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-security-strategy-geopolitics"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/275"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17024"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17024\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17027,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17024\/revisions\/17027"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}