The Stage is Set for a High-Stakes NATO Summit
As global tensions mount, particularly following exchanges between the United States and Iran, eyes are fixed on an upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands. This gathering is being framed by many as potentially the most significant alliance meeting since the end of the Cold War. A key figure is US President Donald Trump, expected to attend his first NATO meeting since his re-election. His presence, coupled with recent geopolitical shocks and intense pressure on European allies, sets the stage for critical discussions that could reshape the future of transatlantic security.
Trump’s Influence and European Anxiety
President Trump’s relationship with NATO has been marked by strong criticism. He has repeatedly accused European members of not contributing enough to their collective defence, effectively “freeloading” on US security guarantees. European allies arrive at the summit anxious to prove their commitment and, crucially, to persuade him against any potential withdrawal of US troops or military capabilities from the continent.
The initial plan for the summit, reportedly designed by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, aimed to focus tightly on defence spending increases – a key Trump demand – to appease the US President and avoid broader, potentially contentious debates. However, the recent escalation with Iran, involving missile strikes on US airbases, has complicated this strategy.
Iran Crisis Upends the Agenda
The carefully laid plans are now threatened by the shifting geopolitical landscape. With Iran a major point of tension, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid discussing the Middle East. This introduces a significant risk of friction, as many European allies previously advocated for diplomatic solutions with Iran rather than military action – a stark contrast to the recent US strikes. Discussions around this volatile situation could overshadow the financial agenda and expose underlying disagreements.
The Push for a Bold 5% Defence Spending Target
A central plank of the summit is the push for a new, ambitious defence spending target: 5% of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on security. This figure goes significantly beyond the previous 2% target, which only 23 out of 32 members met last year. President Trump had reportedly been pushing allies forcefully for this higher commitment.
The proposed 5% target is cleverly split: 3.5% is designated for core defence spending, while the remaining 1.5% can be allocated to broader defence-related areas such as national resilience, energy security, strengthening critical infrastructure (like ports and digital networks), and countering “grey zone” threats like cyber attacks and sabotage. This flexibility in the 1.5% portion is intended to make the target more palatable for cash-strapped countries and allows nations like the UK to include areas like tackling smuggling gangs or enhancing energy independence under the security umbrella.
Commitments and Funding Challenges
Several nations are grappling with how to meet this demanding target. The UK, under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, has pledged to reach the 5% national security target by 2035. This includes aiming for 3.5% in core defence spending by that date, a target Germany is reportedly aiming to hit sooner, by 2029. However, meeting the core defence figure alone could require billions in additional annual spending.
Financing this significant increase presents difficult choices. Governments face the prospect of implementing new taxes, taking on more national debt (a particular challenge for countries like Italy already burdened by deficits), or potentially making cuts to welfare spending – often referred to as the “guns or butter” dilemma. While leaders stress the necessity of increased security investment, many governments have yet to fully prepare their electorates for the trade-offs required.
Not all allies are readily signing up. Spain reportedly sought an opt-out from the new spending plan, though this was later denied by Secretary General Rutte. Other nations, including Portugal and Belgium, also face significant hurdles in reaching even the previous 2% target, let alone the new 5%.
Deeper Dependencies and Strategic Shifts
The challenge extends beyond financial contributions. Europe remains heavily dependent on the US for critical military capabilities – including intelligence gathering, surveillance, advanced air force power, and command and control infrastructure. The US also maintains a significant troop presence in Europe, with 100,000 personnel stationed across the continent, including 20,000 deployed to Eastern Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
While European nations are looking to build up their own forces, replicating the full spectrum of US capabilities would take considerable time and investment. The need for Europe to shoulder more security responsibility is now paramount, not only to reassure the US but also to prepare for potential future US drawdowns, regardless of who is in the White House. Despite this, trust in the US as the ultimate guarantor of European security has been shaken for some, partly due to perceived inconsistencies in US policy towards Russia and Ukraine under previous administrations.
Beyond the Budget: The Strategic Impasse
Yet, for some analysts, the focus on the 5% spending target, while crucial, might obscure the alliance’s most pressing challenge: the war in Ukraine and the lack of a clear strategy to end it. Russia continues to wage a war of attrition, making incremental gains and devastating Ukrainian infrastructure, betting on outlasting both Ukraine and its Western supporters.
While NATO allies have provided significant support, including increasingly advanced weaponry, questions remain about whether current aid levels are sufficient for Ukraine to regain occupied territory or even avoid defeat. Some experts view expecting current support levels to be open-ended as “magical thinking,” especially given political uncertainties in key supporting nations. Unlike Cold War proxy conflicts fought in distant theaters, the current situation involves Ukraine striking into the Russian heartland, raising different, potentially more precarious, stakes. The alliance faces an impasse: how to support Ukraine effectively and find a path to ending the war without either sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty or entering direct conflict with Russia.
A Watershed Moment?
Ultimately, the outcomes of this NATO summit hinge significantly on the dynamics surrounding President Trump and the ability of allies to navigate complex financial, geopolitical, and strategic challenges. Will Europe’s commitment to higher spending be enough to solidify US engagement? Can the alliance effectively manage disagreements over issues like Iran? And can NATO move beyond budget debates to forge a more coherent and effective strategy for the war in Ukraine and its future security environment?
Diplomats have described the summit as potentially “historic” and a “watershed moment.” It could mark a pivotal point where Europe truly begins to match US defence investment and assume greater responsibility for its own security. However, achieving this vision will require overcoming deep-seated dependencies, significant financial hurdles, and navigating the unpredictable currents of global politics. The true test for the alliance may be just beginning.
