Nato survived the Ankara summit - but it still lacks a second fist

Nato emerged from the Ankara summit intact, defying predictions of collapse despite deep structural imbalances within the alliance. The 2026 summit, held in the Turkish capital, marked a rare moment of stability amid ongoing tensions between the United States and European members, as well as persistent concerns over defense spending and operational dependencies. While the alliance endured, the underlying challenges, particularly the lack of a truly unified European contribution, remained unresolved. The summit took place against a backdrop of geopolitical shifts shaped largely by Russia's actions in Ukraine. Seven years after French President Emmanuel Macron famously described NATO as suffering from "brain death," the alliance stood firm, though its effectiveness in collective defense remained questionable. According to NATO’s latest figures, U.S. defense spending alone reached approximately $1.03 trillion in 2026, accounting for nearly 57% of the alliance’s total. However, the U.S. contributed just 14.9% of NATO’s shared funding, matching the level of Germany, which highlights the disproportionate financial burden placed on European nations. Operational reliance on the U.S. continued to define NATO’s capabilities. European countries still depend heavily on American assets such as strategic intelligence, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense, and airborne electronic warfare. This dependency extended beyond conventional military functions into areas like cybersecurity, maritime surveillance, space awareness, logistics, and secure communication systems. These gaps underscore the challenge of achieving true interoperability and autonomy among NATO members. The conflict in Ukraine played a pivotal role in reshaping NATO’s strategic posture. Initially, Russia appeared to expect a limited escalation akin to the annexation of Crimea, with sanctions and diplomatic efforts aimed at restoring a frozen conflict. Instead, the full-scale invasion led to a dramatic expansion of NATO’s influence, reinforcing its eastern flank and transforming Ukraine into a central element of European security. This shift forced NATO to adapt rapidly, strengthening its commitment to collective defense and increasing its focus on Eastern Europe. Despite this progress, the summit revealed lingering tensions. Former U.S. President Donald Trump resurfaced as a disruptive force, once again pressing claims over Greenland, which he insisted should belong to the United States. This demand created friction with Denmark, a smaller NATO ally, prompting speculation that Danish authorities had considered using explosive charges to block key runways in case of an American incursion. Such scenarios, once dismissed as far-fetched, now posed real security risks to the alliance. The war on Iran further exposed divisions. When European allies hesitated to support the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, Trump expressed frustration. Yet, NATO’s structure allows for flexibility, as Article 5 mandates collective defense in response to an armed attack, not an obligation to participate in all military campaigns. This distinction underscores the complexity of maintaining unity while respecting national sovereignty. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte faced scrutiny for his handling of relations with Trump, particularly his public praise and informal comparisons that some viewed as overly deferential. During his tenure as prime minister, the Netherlands consistently fell short of NATO’s 2% defense spending target, only meeting it in recent years. This pattern raises questions about the alignment of national priorities with broader alliance goals. Turkey played a crucial role in stabilizing the summit. Despite Trump’s initial reluctance to attend due to personal tensions with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Ankara leveraged its position as host to facilitate dialogue. Through bilateral negotiations and defense industry deals, Turkey managed to steer discussions toward consensus. Its military strength, ranked as NATO’s second-largest army, also lent credibility to the alliance’s strategic objectives. Additionally, Turkey pushed for the removal of defense trade restrictions and championed its $24 billion “Steel Dome” program, aiming to enhance regional security through indigenous capabilities. The outcome of the summit reflected continuity rather than transformation. The final declaration reaffirmed Article 5, signaling a renewed commitment to collective defense. Governments pledged additional resources, though the long-term impact of these commitments remains uncertain. As NATO continues to navigate internal discord and external pressures, the path forward will likely remain as complex as ever.