Key Points
The upcoming NATO summit in Turkey is expected to shift the focus from financial pledges to practical implementation.
Last year's summit in The Hague was seen as a breakthrough, with allies committing to raise defense spending to 5% of their GDP by 2035.
Ulrike Franke, a researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations, stated: "This NATO summit will mark the alliance's transition from burden-sharing to burden-shifting."
As NATO leaders convene in Turkey this week, the alliance's credibility and future viability face a critical test. Europe's new defense spending targets are under unprecedented scrutiny from the U.S. administration.
The summit, opening Tuesday, centers on two core issues: whether Europe can quickly translate increased budgets into tangible military capabilities to maintain the Trump administration's commitment to NATO, and how to prepare for a future with potentially reduced U.S. influence on European security.
The Hague summit last year achieved a landmark, with allies pledging to reach a defense spending level of 5% of GDP by 2035, of which 3.5% would be for core defense needs and the remaining 1.5% for broader security expenditures.
However, the focus of discussions at this year's Ankara summit will no longer be on verbal promises but on implementation details, covering arms procurement, industrial capacity, aid to Ukraine, and the new political architecture corresponding to what the Trump administration calls "NATO 3.0."
Ulrike Franke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview: "The real watershed of this summit is NATO's shift from 'sharing the defense burden' to 'shifting defense responsibility to Europe.'"
The summit takes place as NATO faces multiple simultaneous pressures: maintaining sustained support for Ukraine, and adapting to the modern battlefield reshaped by rapid technological changes in drones, air defense systems, and industrial capacity.
The following outlines five key issues NATO leaders urgently need to address:
1. Shifting Defense Responsibility to Europe While Keeping the U.S. Deeply Engaged
Under sustained pressure from the U.S. government, European countries have largely reached a consensus: they must increase military spending, expand industrial capacity, and take on greater responsibility for regional security.
Markus Bergmann, director of the Europe-Russia-Eurasia program at the Washington-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, pointed out that NATO has been structured around U.S. military power for 77 years, so adjusting defense responsibilities is not just a military issue but a major political one.
Speaking at a press briefing last week, he told journalists: Even if the U.S. does not withdraw from NATO, a deliberate reduction in its engagement would pose a difficult question for Europe — how to build a defense architecture no longer centered on the United States.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is trying to maintain the Trump administration's willingness to participate while advancing plans to shift defense responsibilities. But Bergmann said there has been little discussion of contingency plans for a scenario where the U.S. significantly reduces its involvement.
Franke stated that another major European demand is for clarity and predictability. If the U.S. plans to withdraw troops and reduce equipment and operational forces, allies need a clear roadmap and timeline. However, given Trump's historically unpredictable approach to allies, reaching a clear agreement will be extremely difficult.
Franke analyzed that European countries will strive to present a unified front on the military spending issue. Spain and France have previously faced criticism for insufficient defense budgets; while the UK and France acknowledge the need for greater investment, they are mired in serious fiscal constraints.
2. Can Europe's Increased Military Spending Translate into Weapons Production, or Will It Remain Just Numbers on a Page?
NATO's push for increased military spending has already begun to transform Europe's defense industrial landscape. Poland, the Baltic states, and Nordic countries have acted most swiftly, directly related to their proximity to Russia; larger economies, constrained by fiscal pressures and domestic politics, are moving at a slower pace.
Franke said: "Now the money is in the national budgets, but the key is to translate that money into actual production capacity. Europe must have the ability to produce its own military equipment."
Europe's defense industry has long suffered from fragmentation, supply chain constraints, cumbersome administrative processes, labor shortages, and years of underinvestment. Theoretically, joint procurement could reduce costs, improve equipment interoperability, and achieve economies of scale. In reality, however, governments still prefer to keep industrial orders, jobs, and tax revenues within their own borders.
Franke cited Franco-German joint defense projects as an example: even when joint production has strategic value, domestic political demands in each country can slow cooperation.
3. With the Evolving Russia-Ukraine War, How Can Allies Sustain Support for Ukraine?
The Ukraine issue will be central to the Ankara summit, with discussions focusing on long-term military assistance, the development of Ukraine's domestic defense industry, and the operational lessons learned by NATO from over four years of full-scale war.
Current Russian forces are suffering heavy battlefield losses. Seth Jones, head of the Defense and Security department at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, citing casualty data and territorial losses, stated: "All indicators show that Russian military performance in 2026 has been very poor."
Ukraine has also intensified long-range drone and missile strikes deep into Russian territory, targeting energy, military, and logistical infrastructure, making significant progress in developing its own long-range strike capabilities.
Franke suggested that NATO can no longer view Ukraine simply as a recipient of Western aid. Ukraine is now a hub of military innovation, having accumulated extensive experience in drones, counter-drone systems, and real-world combat data against Russia.
"Ukraine holds a core technological advantage in drone and counter-drone equipment."
This could shift the direction of NATO discussions: from focusing solely on how NATO can aid Ukraine to exploring how Ukraine can help NATO prepare for modern warfare.
4. During NATO's Transformation, How Can Internal Political Divisions Be Avoided?
In the months leading up to this summit, tensions have flared between the U.S. and its European allies, with Trump expressing strong dissatisfaction over Europe's insufficient support during the Iran conflict.
Franke believes the Iran issue will appear on the Ankara summit agenda, potentially discussing European participation in maritime security patrols and conflict resolution plans (including mine-clearing operations). However, she assesses that Europe's related contributions will be limited in scale, largely symbolic, and that U.S. and European positions on Iran will remain difficult to fully align.
Franke stated that if Trump singles out and criticizes countries not meeting spending targets, European unity will be crucial; but the significant differences among European countries in their perception of external threats make a unified stance highly challenging.
Traditionally, NATO summits were not annual events, only becoming yearly after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Bergmann noted that it remains uncertain whether next year's summit in Albania will proceed as planned. Combined with the 2028 U.S. election cycle, this summit could be the last NATO summit of Trump's potential term.
This possibility greatly increases the importance of this summit. If this is Trump's final NATO summit, the signals he sends there will carry influence far beyond the venue in Turkey.
5. As Host, What Are Turkey's Own Demands?
Turkey's role as host adds a layer of complexity to this summit.
Like previous host nations, Turkey is likely to use the summit to push its own security concerns and domestic defense industrial development onto the core agenda.
For the Erdogan government, a successful summit can highlight Turkey's pivotal geopolitical role, avoid major diplomatic rifts, and, against the backdrop of European countries increasing military spending, secure opportunities for defense procurement cooperation.
Bergmann analyzed: "Securing defense procurement cooperation and consolidating the regime's diplomatic legitimacy are Turkey's two core objectives." He also mentioned the state of democratic backsliding in Turkey under Erdogan.
He added that as the EU increasingly directs its defense procurement budgets towards its own industry, Turkey fears being excluded. As a NATO member but not an EU member, Turkey's ability to participate in future joint defense projects and secure procurement orders will be a key focus for Ankara.
While NATO's current three main goals are retaining U.S. engagement, rapidly arming Europe, and sustaining aid to Ukraine, Turkey will continue to advance its own demand: any new European security architecture must include a seat for Turkey.
Comments