Why is the NATO Ankara summit consequential?

What makes Ankara important is its time and location. NATO is not in crisis, but under pressure. The alliance has made measurable progress since the 2025 Hague summit: more allies have met or exceeded the 2% of GDP defense spending benchmark since 2017, with Europe and Canada collectively adding more than a trillion dollars in additional investment. Yet the agenda in Turkey focuses primarily on accelerating defense investment, expanding transatlantic industrial production, and maintaining meaningful support for Ukraine, which reflects a tough realism. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has clearly formulated priorities emphasizing the move from inputs to outputs, from promises to industrial scale and from symbolic solidarity to concrete deterrence.

Türkiye’s role as host adds layers. Ankara sits at the intersection of NATO’s eastern and southern edges, a country that has clashed with allies over purchases, Mediterranean energy disputes and its balancing acts with Russia, yet remains indispensable for Black Sea security, migration management and counter-terrorism. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will undoubtedly use this forum to highlight Türkiye’s contributions and press for greater inclusivity in European defense initiatives. The accompanying Defense Industry Forum emphasizes a practical focus. There can be a renewed emphasis on joint production, innovation and removal of bottlenecks that hinder rapid re-supply and modernisation. In an era of multi-domain threats such as drones, cyber, hybrid operations and potential high-intensity conflict, NATO cannot afford fragmented supply chains or a peacetime procurement mentality.

This summit is also a stress test for unity. There is no bigger issue than America’s stance under the leadership of President Donald Trump. Trump arrived in Ankara, continuing the pressure campaign that has defined his approach to the alliance for years. He has repeatedly highlighted the disparity in contributions, noting that the US poured nearly a trillion dollars into allied support between 2014 and 2025, while urging the Europeans to “step up” dramatically. Their tone is not anti-NATO in the sense of demanding dissolution; Rather, it is transactional and results-oriented. Allies are pointing towards progress on this issue. More than two dozen nations are now meeting or exceeding 2%, but Trump’s insistence on lofty goals and visible outputs reflects a deeper skepticism that often comes across in polite diplomatic language. For them, NATO’s value lies in its strength as a deterrent, not in continued subsidization by American taxpayers and forces.

This attitude creates both friction and potential motion. European leaders understand that continued U.S. engagement requires credible burden sharing. The danger, however, is that public hectoring risks fueling domestic narratives in Europe that question the impartiality of the alliance, even as the Russian-Ukraine war intensifies. Ankara may thus perform a delicate balancing act; To present resolve and increased European responsibility without hinting at division, which adversaries could exploit.

Russia will be watching these proceedings with keen interest. Moscow’s calculus in Ukraine has long depended on the expectation that Western unity would crumble under the weight of economic costs, political fatigue and leadership changes. Any visible cracks in Ankara, whether on spending promises, industrial cooperation, or the exclusivity of long-term Ukraine support, will be interpreted as validation of the strategy of erosion. Conversely, concrete steps toward higher defense investment targets, expansion of joint production of munitions and systems, and new commitments to Kiev on air defense or other capabilities would signal that the alliance is doubling down. Türkiye’s hosting adds another dimension to the Kremlin’s approach. Ankara maintains pragmatic channels with Russia on energy, grain exports and Syria. Any Turkish-mediated tone or assertiveness as well as emphasis on de-escalation will be parsed for signals of wedge-driving opportunities.

Layered above these strategic currents is a more personal and recent drama that has attracted attention. Public disagreement between Trump and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The two, once seen as natural ideological partners, have had a surprisingly intense exchange. Trump reignited tensions by sharing a doctored image on Truth Social on the eve of the summit, depicting Maloney with the caption “Control order needed”, echoing his earlier G7 claim that she “begged” for a photo to promote her domestic position. Meloni has dismissed the story as fabricated, while Italian authorities have worked to isolate the personal feud from broader ties.

The episode is revealing. This partly stems from policy differences, including Italy’s cautious approach towards some US-led operations involving the Iran conflict and sensitivities around NATO basing and sovereignty. Maloney’s government has emphasized constitutional processes and parliamentary oversight, moves that conflict with notions of unfettered coalition support. Yet the personal tone Trump has adopted underscores a broader pattern. Their willingness to name and shame leaders they consider insufficiently committed, even those previously viewed as friendly. For Maloney, a right-wing leader who once cultivated a relationship with Trump, the episode risks domestic political costs by highlighting the transactional nature of his diplomacy.

In Ankara, this pretense risks distracting from the substance, yet it also humanizes the deep tensions within the alliance. European publics and leaders shy away from public lectures, even when the underlying criticism about free-riding has merit. At the same time, dismissing Trump’s push as mere posturing ignores the benefits to reformers within Europe who have long argued for greater strategic autonomy and investment. The Meloni-Trump dynamic thus serves as a microcosm: individual egos and national interests collide against the need for collective strength.

Stepping back, the Ankara summit provides a window into the evolving character of NATO – what some analysts have called a shift towards NATO 3.0. Traditional Article 5 regional defense remains the cornerstone, but the alliance must now fight increasingly, more complex threats that blur peace and conflict. Today, resilience depends on industrial depth, technological edge, flexible supply chains and the ability to sustain high-intensity operations over time. The location in Turkey also nudges the alliance toward a more balanced geographical approach, less focused exclusively on the east coast and more attuned to southern instability, energy security and hybrid challenges.

Success in Ankara will be measured not by grand announcements but by follow-through: clear spending trajectories with real money, solid industrial partnerships that minimize vulnerabilities, and sustained, calibrated support for Ukraine that avoids both endless escalation and premature capitulation. Failure to reconcile, on the other hand, will hand Russia the narrative of decline that the Kremlin desperately wants.

Trump’s presence communicates urgency. His skepticism, though sometimes undiplomatic, has historically inspired allies to take actions that might otherwise be delayed. The risk is isolation; Opportunity is instant capability. European leaders, for their part, have made progress, but they must demonstrate that increased spending translates into deployable forces, not just budgetary checkboxes. Türkiye’s convening power offers an opportunity to close some of these gaps, while leveraging its unique position to promote practical outcomes.

Ultimately, the Ankara summit is neither a celebration of victory nor a harbinger of doom. It is a working session for the 77-year-old alliance to adapt to a harsh world. In that adaptation lies its continued relevance. Moscow, Beijing, and observers of conflict zones from Ukraine to the Middle East understand this. Similarly, leaders should also gather under the Turkish sky. Decisions taken here—or the lack of them—will echo far beyond the presidential palace, shaping deterrence, security, and the balance of power for years to come. In an era when authoritarian regimes are testing the durability of democratic alliances, NATO’s ability to deliver concrete results in Ankara may prove more consequential than the lofty rhetoric that often accompanies such gatherings. As always, what is at stake is a stable Europe and a reliable transatlantic bond capable of preserving it.

(Views expressed are personal)

This article is written by Pravesh Kumar Gupta, Associate Fellow (Eurasia), Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi.