NATO's Ankara Summit Exposes an Alliance Redefining the Price of Protection
The NATO summit in Ankara opened under extraordinary pressure and ended with a declaration that appeared, at first glance, to reaffirm the alliance's central purpose. Russia was again identified as the principal threat to Euro-Atlantic security, while member states formally committed to providing Ukraine with €70 billion in annual military assistance through 2027.
Instead, the meeting quickly became a showcase for the tensions running through the alliance itself. Donald Trump used the opening day to criticize Germany, France, and Italy for failing to support the United States during the US-Israel confrontation with Iran. Spain openly rejected calls to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP. Outside the summit venue, Turkish authorities detained more than one hundred activists while protests against NATO spread through Istanbul.
The official message spoke of unity. The political reality looked considerably more complicated.
More than any other argument over defence budgets
Disputes over military spending are hardly new inside NATO. Washington has pressed European governments for years to invest more in their own defence, and burden-sharing has become a familiar feature of almost every summit.
What happened in Ankara felt different.
Trump's criticism was not limited to how much Europe spends. He questioned why the United States should continue carrying the main responsibility for Europe's security when several allies had refused to back Washington during its confrontation with Iran.
That is a much broader demand than asking governments to increase defence budgets.
It links American security guarantees to support for US foreign policy outside Europe, effectively widening the definition of what it means to be a reliable ally. Under that logic, military protection is no longer based solely on treaty obligations. It also depends on political alignment.
For many European governments, that represents a significant shift in the way the alliance operates.
Ukraine secured stability, even as NATO showed its uncertainty
Lost amid the political drama was an important achievement for Kyiv.
The summit formalized a €70 billion annual military support package for both 2026 and 2027 through the Ukraine-NATO Council. That mechanism is designed to make assistance less vulnerable to changes of government or shifting political moods inside individual member states.
For Ukraine, the value of the agreement lies not only in the amount of money involved but also in its predictability. Military planning becomes far more difficult when assistance depends on annual political negotiations.
The commitment also carries another message.
NATO's leaders appear increasingly aware that domestic politics inside member states can no longer be taken for granted. Building longer-term financial mechanisms is, in part, an attempt to shield support for Ukraine from exactly the kind of political turbulence visible throughout the summit.
That irony was difficult to miss. While the alliance tried to make assistance to Ukraine more stable, its own internal cohesion appeared less certain than at any point in recent years.
Europe faces a growing dilemma
The dispute over defence spending goes well beyond military planning.
For Washington, higher defence budgets are proof that allies are sharing responsibility. For several European governments, demands approaching 5% of GDP raise uncomfortable questions about national priorities.
Every additional euro allocated to defence has to come from somewhere else. Governments must balance military investment with healthcare, infrastructure, pensions and economic policy. That makes defence spending not simply a strategic issue but a domestic political one.
Spain's refusal to accept the proposed target brought that conflict into the open.
Unlike previous debates, the disagreement was no longer hidden behind diplomatic language. One member state publicly rejected a central American demand, exposing divisions that NATO has often tried to manage behind closed doors.
European capitals also face another concern. Calls for higher spending have been accompanied by persistent speculation about a reduced American military presence on the continent. That leaves governments trying to answer an increasingly difficult question: are they being asked to strengthen the alliance, or to compensate for a United States that may gradually reduce its own commitment?
Turkey emerged with new leverage
Among the summit's participants, Turkey arguably left Ankara with the strongest diplomatic hand.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hosted an event that placed his country at the centre of trans-Atlantic diplomacy while also receiving unusually warm public praise from Trump. The US president signalled his readiness to lift sanctions on Turkey and reopen discussions on the sale of F-35 fighter jets, a remarkable change after years of strained relations.
Personal diplomacy appeared to matter as much as institutional politics.
Trump openly referred to the strong relationship between the two leaders, creating a striking contrast with his criticism of some of Washington's oldest European partners. Germany, France, and Italy found themselves publicly rebuked, while Ankara received promises of closer defence cooperation.
That contrast illustrates a broader change inside the alliance.
Influence increasingly seems to depend less on established institutional roles and more on bilateral political relationships. Countries able to build direct ties with Washington may find themselves in a stronger position than allies relying solely on NATO's traditional decision-making framework.
The cost of hosting the alliance
The summit also exposed tensions within Turkey itself.
Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Istanbul to protest against NATO and the government's decision to host the meeting. The march ended peacefully, but organisers said hundreds of activists had already been detained before the event.
In Ankara, authorities banned demonstrations altogether. Police dispersed a smaller protest and arrested around twenty participants. Across separate operations, more than one hundred activists were detained.
For Erdogan's government, ensuring the summit proceeded without disruption clearly became a political priority.
The images coming from the streets offered a reminder that international prestige often comes with domestic consequences. Hosting one of the world's most important security gatherings strengthened Turkey's diplomatic standing, but it also highlighted the government's increasingly hard approach toward dissent whenever national security enters the political conversation.
A different kind of alliance
NATO leaves Ankara with tangible achievements. Ukraine received a significant long-term commitment. Russia remains officially identified as the alliance's primary security challenge. The institutional machinery continues to function.
Yet the summit also revealed an organisation adapting to a different political environment.
The debates were no longer confined to Europe or even to Russia. American expectations now extend into conflicts in the Middle East, while defence spending has become intertwined with broader questions of political loyalty. Bilateral relationships increasingly shape outcomes that once depended primarily on collective institutions.
That evolution carries consequences far beyond this summit.
For decades, Article 5 represented a political promise that allies would stand together because the treaty required it. The discussions in Ankara hinted at a different future - one in which protection depends not only on shared commitments, but also on whether governments satisfy Washington's expectations on spending, procurement, and strategic alignment.
The alliance has not abandoned collective defence. It is beginning to negotiate the terms under which that defence is delivered.