NATO at the Crossroads: The Ankara Summit and the Fight for the Alliance's Soul

The Pivotal Test in Ankara

This week, the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) convene in Ankara, Turkey, for a summit that may well determine the alliance’s credibility and future viability. The gathering occurs under unprecedented scrutiny from the White House and against a backdrop of relentless war in Europe. The core agenda is brutally clear: to move from the ambitious defense spending pledges made at last year’s summit in The Hague to the tangible implementation of what the current U.S. administration has termed “NATO 3.0.” As Ulrike Franke of the European Council on Foreign Relations starkly noted, “This is really the NATO summit where NATO goes from burden sharing to burden shifting.” The alliance is being forced to prove it can transform larger national budgets into genuine military power with the urgency required by the moment.

The American Question and European Realities

The summit’s most profound challenge is encapsulated in a single, daunting question: Can NATO keep the United States engaged while successfully shifting more responsibility to Europe? For 77 years, the alliance has been structured around American power. European governments have broadly accepted the need to spend more, produce more, and assume greater responsibility, a recognition driven by persistent pressure from Washington. However, as Max Bergmann of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) points out, this is as much a political question as a military one. The specter of a U.S. withdrawal—or even a significant pullback—forces Europe to confront the terrifying prospect of organizing its defense without America at the center. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is focused on keeping President Donald Trump engaged while advancing burden-shifting plans, but Bergmann warns there has been little discussion of a “plan B.” The lack of a clear roadmap or timeline from Washington, given its often unpredictable approach to allies, injects a dangerous element of uncertainty into the alliance’s foundational planning.

From Budgets to Bullets: Europe’s Industrial Hurdle

The second major test is whether Europe’s much-touted defense spending boom will actually deliver weapons or merely inflate budgets. While momentum has shifted in the defense sector, particularly in frontline states like Poland and the Baltics, larger economies have moved more slowly, constrained by fiscal pressures and domestic politics. As Franke succinctly stated, “Now there’s money in the system, but we need to be able to spend it. Europe needs to be able to produce things.” Europe’s defense industry remains hamstrung by fragmentation, supply chain issues, bureaucratic red tape, labor shortages, and decades of underinvestment. The ideal of joint procurement—to lower costs and improve interoperability—bumps against the hard reality of national political incentives, where governments seek contracts, jobs, and tax revenue for their domestic industries. The slow progress on Franco-German defense projects serves as a prime example of how strategic logic can be undermined by parochial interests.

Ukraine: From Recipient to Innovator

Ukraine’s fight for survival remains central to the Ankara agenda, but the conversation is evolving. The debate now encompasses long-term military support, bolstering Kyiv’s own defense industry, and, crucially, what NATO can learn from a nation that has been engaged in full-scale war with Russia for over four years. Kyiv has demonstrated remarkable progress in developing domestic strike capabilities, including long-range drones and missiles. Franke argues that NATO must stop seeing Ukraine merely as a recipient of Western aid; it is now a vital source of military innovation, particularly in drone warfare, counter-drone systems, and battlefield data. “Ukraine has the cards in drones and counter-drone systems,” she notes. This reality could—and should—fundamentally shift the NATO dialogue from how the alliance helps Ukraine to how Ukraine helps NATO prepare for the realities of modern, technologically driven conflict.

Navigating Political Fractures and Turkey’s Agenda

The summit also unfolds against months of transatlantic tension, including disagreements over the Iran conflict. European unity will be critically tested, especially if individual nations are singled out over defense spending. Furthermore, the very future of the summit schedule is in question, with Bergmann suggesting this could be the last NATO summit of Trump’s presidency, raising the stakes for the messages sent in Ankara. Adding another layer of complexity is Turkey’s role as host. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is likely to use the platform to advance Turkey’s security concerns and its defense industry. Analysts like Bergmann suggest Ankara’s core goals are access to European defense procurement and the legitimization of Erdogan’s regime, even as it has overseen significant democratic backsliding. Turkey will be pressing its case that any new European security architecture must still include Ankara at the table.

A Stark Warning for Democratic Solidarity

This moment is nothing less than an existential stress test for the democratic world’s most successful military alliance. The principles enshrined in NATO’s founding treaty—collective defense, democratic solidarity, and the preservation of peace and security—are not abstract concepts; they are the very pillars that have allowed freedom to flourish on both sides of the Atlantic for generations. The forced transition from “burden sharing” to “burden shifting” is not merely a bureaucratic recalculation; it is a fundamental renegotiation of the social contract that has bound North America and Europe together since the ashes of World War II.

The profound danger lies not in the necessity of Europe taking on more responsibility—that necessity is undeniable and overdue. The peril lies in the manner of this transition. A haphazard, politically fragmented, and nationally selfish approach, driven by fear of an unreliable American partner rather than by a shared, positive vision for common defense, is a recipe for catastrophic weakness. The fragmentation of Europe’s defense industrial base is a physical manifestation of a deeper political malady: the failure to fully internalize that sovereignty in the 21st century is strengthened, not diminished, by deep cooperation among democracies.

The Path Forward: Unity, Resolve, and Principle

The lesson from Ukraine must be the guiding star for Ankara. Ukraine’s resilience has shown that innovation, courage, and the will to fight for liberty can blunt the advance of authoritarian aggression. NATO must now embody that same spirit of innovation and unwavering resolve internally. This requires more than meeting spending targets. It demands a conscious, courageous political decision to prioritize alliance capability over national pork-barrel politics. It requires treating Ukraine not as a permanent charity case but as a de facto member of the defense technological and strategic community, whose hard-won lessons are integrated into NATO’s very DNA.

Furthermore, the alliance’s engagement with Turkey presents a critical test of its values. While Turkey’s strategic position is undeniable, NATO cannot and must not allow its summit agenda or its procurement processes to become tools for legitimizing authoritarian backsliding. The alliance was founded by democracies, for the defense of democracies. Its strength derives from its principles, and those principles must not be bartered away for short-term tactical convenience. A successful summit in Ankara will be measured not by vague statements of unity, but by concrete, actionable plans for integrated European defense production, a clear and enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security, and a reaffirmation that the alliance’s strength is inseparable from its members’ shared commitment to liberty and the rule of law.

The world’s authoritarians are watching Ankara closely, hoping to see hesitation, division, and a wavering commitment. We must demand that our leaders show them instead a united, determined, and principled front. The future of free peoples depends on it. Failure is not an option we can afford.