NATO leaders face unity, burden-sharing, defence industry and Ukraine support at Ankara summit

Nato survived the Ankara summit - but it still lacks a second fist Submitted by Omar Ashour on Mon, 07/13/2026 - 20:24 The alliance's future depends on turning European spending into combat power, while Washington remains politically unpredictable US President Donald Trump and Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte attend the Nato summit in Ankara, Turkey, on 8 July 2026 (Saul Loeb/AFP) Off In November 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron declared: “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of Nato.”  Seven years later, the largest and most successful defensive alliance in modern history is still standing. The harder question is whether it can fight with two equally capable fists: an American one and a European-Canadian one. The imbalance remains severe. Nato’s latest estimates put US core defence expenditures at roughly $1.03 trillion in 2026, around 57 percent of the allies’ total. Yet Washington’s share of Nato’s common-funded budgets is only 14.9 percent, equal to Germany’s.  The deeper dependence is operational: Europe still relies heavily on the US for strategic intelligence functions, air-to-air refuelling, ballistic-missile defence and airborne electronic warfare. The wider dependency extends into cyber, maritime surveillance, space awareness, logistics for large-scale operations, and secure communications. Most of Nato’s recovery was produced by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategic blunder in Ukraine. Moscow appears to have expected another Crimea-style fait accompli: limited sanctions, hesitant diplomacy and a frozen-war framework resembling the Minsk years.  Instead, the full-scale invasion enlarged Nato, reinforced its eastern flank, and turned Ukraine into the operational centre of European security. The road to the Ankara summit nevertheless looked more like crisis containment than alliance management. US President Donald Trump again argued that Greenland should come under American control, pressuring the territory of Denmark, a smaller founding ally.  Earlier reporting suggested that Danish contingency planning included explosives to deny key runways in the event of an American attack. What once sounded preposterous had become a live alliance-security problem. Continuity over rupture The war on Iran exposed another fault line. Trump was angered when European allies did not join the Israeli-American offensive campaign.  But Nato is not the Warsaw Pact. Article 5 commits to collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack; it is not an obligation to join every discretionary, out-of-area war of aggression launched by the strongest member’s unpredictable president. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte’s approach has also raised questions. His coalition management is interesting, but repeated flattery towards Trump - including the “daddy” comparison - has blurred the line between tactical diplomacy and institutional abasement.  There is irony here: the Netherlands remained below Nato’s defence spending target of two percent of GDP for most of Rutte’s 2010-24 premiership, reaching it only at the end.  Ankara did not prove Nato is immortal. But it showed that the alliance can still absorb a political shock, bargain and regenerate This was also the country that lost 196 citizens in 2014 on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, downed by a Buk system that investigators traced to Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade. It was a war crime committed by Russian regular forces and its proxies, and most of the victims were Dutch - yet Rutte’s defence budget still did not budge back then. Turkey helped prevent these contradictions from dominating the summit. Trump said he might have stayed away were it not for his relationship with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  As host, Ankara used bilateral diplomacy and defence-industrial bargaining to keep the meeting on track. Turkey also brings material weight: Nato calls it the alliance’s second-largest army, while Erdogan pressed for the removal of allies’ defence-trade restrictions, and promoted his country’s $24bn “Steel Dome” programme. The result was continuity rather than rupture. The Ankara declaration reaffirmed Article 5, and governments announced more than $50bn in procurement commitments; a $40bn, five-year counter-drone initiative; and €27bn ($31bn) for fuel infrastructure.  European allies and Canada have increased their core defence investments by more than $139bn since the 2025 Hague pledge. These are serious numbers, but certainly not yet proof of combat effectiveness. Ukraine at the forefront The clearest winner of the Nato summit was Ukraine. The declaration states that “Ukraine contributes to transatlantic security”, and allies pledged €70bn ($80bn) in military equipment, assistance and training for 2026 and at least an equivalent level for 2027.  This should not, however, be presented as €70bn in entirely new assistance: the figure probably consolidates, reaffirms and gives collective political weight to a mixture of previously announced national commitments and additional support.  Post-summit reporting also noted that Trump authorised Ukraine to manufacture Patriot interceptors. This would be strategically significant if implemented, but it remains more of a long-term political and industrial signal than an immediate answer to Ukraine’s urgent air-defence requirements.  Still, the shift is clear: Ukraine is not merely a recipient of western assistance. It is a provider of security, operational learning and defence innovation. At the official “Allies in Ankara” hub, I joined Ukrainian military and drone-industry practitioners and civilian-protection specialists to examine how Kyiv’s adaptations could help protect Gulf civilians and critical infrastructure. Could Gulf states learn from Ukraine's drone revolution? Read More » Ukraine was not the summit’s only winner. Syria also secured a potentially consequential diplomatic breakthrough, with Trump announcing his intention to remove it from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. Subject to a 45-day congressional review, the move could ease restrictions on aid, investment and financial transactions, accelerating Syria’s international reintegration and reconstruction. Ankara produced an alliance that is adapting, but not yet strategically autonomous. Replacing the conventional capabilities supplied by the US could cost Europe about $1 trillion over a 25-year lifecycle. The challenge is converting money into formations, munitions depth, air defence, resilient command systems and industrial surge. Nato’s endurance also rests on ethical and political foundations that distinguish it from other alliances. The Warsaw Pact was used to crush the Prague Spring in 1968. The Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation failed Armenia so visibly that Yerevan froze participation.  Nato’s record outside of territorial defence and humanitarian interventions is far from unblemished, but its enlargement framework did tie membership to democracy, individual liberty, elected civilian control and institutional military and civilian reforms.  Ankara did not prove Nato is immortal. But it showed that the alliance can still absorb a political shock, bargain and regenerate. Its future now turns on three tests: whether European spending becomes combat power, whether Ukraine wins and remains integrated as a security provider, and whether the remaining Trump years irreversibly corrode the transatlantic bargain. Communiques will not save Nato. Europe needs to build the second, American-free fist; Ukraine must remain at the operational core; and Washington must remember that alliance leadership is not ownership.  The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Nato Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0

Nato summit: How a fractured alliance is fuelling a permanent war economy Submitted by Anas Altikriti on Fri, 07/10/2026 - 15:42 Massive surge in arms spending is justified through the language of collective defence, and sustained by threats that are partly constructed  US President Donald Trump attends the Nato summit in Ankara on 8 July 2026 (Saul Loeb/AFP) Off The Nato summit held in Ankara this week was, by any measure, a gathering of an alliance under profound and perhaps irreversible strain.  Hosted by Turkey, the summit took place against the backdrop of an active US-Israeli war on Iran, a grinding conflict in Ukraine, a rupturing transatlantic relationship, and a European defence establishment determined to turn crisis into cash.  Whatever unity was performed for the cameras, the fissures running through Nato have never been deeper. Let’s begin with the most fundamental question: what is Nato’s purpose, and who does it serve? The alliance has long papered over a basic contradiction - that it is simultaneously a collective defence pact, and an instrument of American strategic will.  That contradiction became impossible to ignore when, on 28 February, the US and Israel launched a unilateral war on Iran without consulting a single European ally. US President Donald Trump was furious when his partners declined to join.  “I’m very upset with Nato,” he declared in Ankara.  For their part, European leaders watched a war being conducted in their neighbourhood - one that sent energy prices soaring by up to 60 percent and throttled global shipping through the Strait of Hormuz - that they had no hand in starting and no power to stop.  Outgoing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke for much of the continent when he told the nation: “This is not our war.” It was an honest statement that also happened to be a confession of strategic impotence. Who benefits? The Iran conflict has crystallised something that observers of transatlantic relations have long suspected: the US under Trump does not regard its European allies as partners, but as subordinates expected to follow without question and pay without complaint. When France refused to allow Israeli arms flights over its airspace, Trump branded it “very unhelpful”.  When the UK declined to join the offensive campaign, he suggested that fuel shortages were the appropriate punishment. The bond of Nato, as one European analyst put it, “weakens further”.  And yet in Ankara, this same alliance pledged €70 billion ($80bn) in military assistance to Ukraine for 2026 and announced more than $50bn in new weapons procurements. Nato members have also committed to spending five percent of GDP on defence by 2035. But who really benefits from all this money being spent, and how? This is where the growing power of the arms and defence lobby demands scrutiny. The Ankara summit was not merely a diplomatic event; in parallel, it was the venue for the Nato Summit Defence Industry Forum, gathering the continent’s arms manufacturers alongside heads of government to discuss “production, investment and innovation”. How Europeans are saying no to rearmament and conscription Read More » Lord George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general who authored the UK’s Strategic Defence Review, has spoken of the nation’s security being “in peril” and accused the Treasury of “vandalism” for hesitating to accelerate spending. His review paved the way for a UK defence budget set to rise from £62.2 billion ($83bn) to £73.5 billion by 2028/29.  Across Europe, the pattern is the same: defence budgets expanding year on year, often at the direct expense of welfare, development and public services. One should ask who, precisely, is manufacturing the urgency. The answer, in part, lies in the perpetual invocation of the Russian threat. Since 2022, western governments and their military establishments have insisted that Russia poses an existential danger to Europe - a threat that demands unlimited rearmament. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte warned in Ankara that Russia could be “ready to use military force against Nato by 2030”.  Such statements, endlessly repeated, serve a political function that extends well beyond genuine strategic assessment. Russia’s war in Ukraine, in all its horror, can be understood at least in part as a reaction to the eastward expansion of an alliance that Russia had warned for decades it regarded as an existential threat to its own security.  Russia has displayed no military hostility towards any western European nation, with the partial exception of its targeting of Polish energy infrastructure, and made no territorial claims beyond the contested borderlands of Ukraine.  To present this as the opening move in a campaign of continental conquest is to take a position, not to report a fact. And that position conveniently justifies defence budgets at near-Cold War levels, and the enrichment of an industrial complex that is now embedded at the heart of the western political process. Stoking fears Adding to this picture, consider the host nation’s own strategic calculations.  Turkey’s presence at the summit was not merely ceremonial. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey is simultaneously a Nato member, a major arms exporter, an active military actor in Libya and Sudan, a mediator in the Ukraine conflict, and a country that has deepened its drone diplomacy across Africa and the Middle East.  Turkish Bayraktar drones have operated in Sudan’s catastrophic civil war. In Libya, Turkey is pursuing a “One Libya, One Army” strategy that serves Ankara’s Mediterranean ambitions as much as it serves Libyan stability.  Erdogan has cultivated a position of indispensable leverage: too important to marginalise, too autonomous to control. Hosting the summit was itself an act of strategic communication - a signal that Turkey intends to be at the centre of whatever Nato becomes next, while never being entirely bound by it. Fear of Russia, of Iran, of instability - this is the lubricant of this machine, and the Ankara summit generated enormous quantities of it And what does Nato become next? The Iran war has moved Europe measurably towards strategic autonomy. The realisation that Washington can drag the region into conflict - disrupting energy supplies, threatening shipping lanes and provoking Iranian strikes on US bases across the Gulf - without so much as a consultation is now at the forefront of European minds.  Several member states have begun asking, with an urgency they once lacked, what it would mean to be able to say no to Washington not merely rhetorically, but practically. The tragedy is that the answer being offered is more weapons, more spending and more integration with an industrial complex whose interests are not the same as those of the publics it claims to protect. Fear of Russia, of Iran, of instability - this is the lubricant of this machine, and the Ankara summit generated enormous quantities of it.  The challenge for those who believe in a genuinely rules-based, diplomatically grounded international order is to name what is happening. It is a legitimate security response, yes, but it is also something else: a permanent war economy dressed in the language of collective defence, sustained by threats that are partly real, partly constructed and enormously profitable for those who have made the manufacture of insecurity their business. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Nato Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0

These days, every official visit, every summit that involves the President of the United States seems like a mad scramble to keep the leader of the Atlantic Alliance on board. But what if it’s just too late? Last month, leaders left France thanking their lucky stars that Donald Trump hadn’t taken a big bazooka to the G7 Summit.In Ankara, a darker Donald threatening to pull all US troops from Europe, cut trade with Spain and blasting Nato for its unwillingness to join his war against Iran. He claimed he wouldn’t have even shown up but for his friend Recep Tayep Erdogan hosting. Putting put-downs and popularity contests aside, real lives are at stake. How do allies go faster in providing defence systems against Russia's cruise missiles lobbed on Ukraine? What if Vladimir Putin, whose citizens are feeling the pinch from Ukrainian drones targeting power and fuel supplies, decides to go for broke and test the resolve of frontline European states?

US President Donald Trump said he would lift sanctions on Turkiye and make a decision on a potential sale of F-35 stealth jets to Ankara as he began a meeting on Tuesday with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan at a Nato summit. Trump arrived in Ankara to meet Erdogan and join fellow leaders of the military alliance for the summit, which begins with a dinner this evening. “We’re going to be taking the sanctions off,” Trump told reporters when asked about the measures imposed under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In 2020, Washington imposed CAATSA sanctions on Turkiye over its acquisition of Russian S-400 air defence systems. It also removed Ankara from the F-35 fighter jet program, a move Turkiye called unjust and illegal. Trump was expected to throw his support behind the potential sale of F-35s during the visit to Ankara, two sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday, even as legal and congressional hurdles have yet to be fully resolved. “It’s a decision we’re going to make,” Trump said, adding that he and Erdogan would also discuss trade. Nato showcases big arms deals Nato leaders began unveiling arms deals worth tens of billions of dollars, driving home the message that they are heeding US calls to spend more to defend Europe before a summit with Donald Trump. To upbeat tunes and slick videos at a defence industry forum in the capital Ankara, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte announced a series of initiatives as the sum of various deal values was projected onto a screen. He called for a defence industry “revolution” across the alliance, warning over Russia’s massive military spending as well as China, North Korea and Iran. “We don’t have the luxury of time. We need capabilities now to ensure we remain ready. The security situation demands it,” Rutte said. “The hum of machinery must become a roar.” It was a rallying cry for Western arms firms to ramp up investment to increase capacity, and for governments to place long-term orders and create the conditions for companies to thrive. Europe’s defence sector has often been criticised as fragmented and saddled with red tape and rivalries between companies and countries. That has left Europe more reliant on purchases of weapons from the United States. Weak economic growth and the need to maintain generous state welfare provisions have also made defence spending a tougher sell in Europe. A Saab JAS 39C Gripen jet performs during an aerial show in Eslov, Sweden in this photo from June 5, 2011. — Reuters/File The deals, which had been mostly kept under wraps to make a splash at the summit, included European countries buying surveillance drones from US company Northrop Grumman, and Nato buying planes from Sweden’s Saab. Saab shares were the biggest gainers in Europe, up more than 5 per cent as investors bet on the company benefiting from European rearmament. Morgan Stanley upgraded the stock. US defence company Lockheed Martin and Germany’s Rheinmetall signed a draft deal to jointly produce Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles in Germany, a move that would mark the first non-US manufacture of the short-range ballistic missile. Rutte said Nato allies will invest more than $40 billion in the next five years in their anti-drone capabilities. United States and South Korean troops launch the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) into the waters of the East Sea, off South Korea, on July 5, 2017. — Reuters/File The announcements follow Trump’s frequent criticism of Europe for insufficient defence contributions and over-reliance on the US to defend them through Nato, which has protected the continent since the early years of the Cold War. Trump reinforced the message in a video previewing his visit on Truth Social, urging Europe to spend more on its own defence. Rutte said on Monday that Europeans had made staggering increases in defence spending in part due to fears of Russia, which have surged since Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and also after Trump’s extremely forceful encouragement. According to Rutte, Nato’s European members and Canada spent $90bn more on defence in real terms in 2025 than in 2024, to reach a total of more than $570bn. Iran war prompted Trump to revive criticism of Nato Tensions within Nato have deepened since the US attacked Iran in February. Trump has repeatedly criticised Nato members for insufficient support in the conflict, threatening to quit the alliance. European officials insist they largely honoured commitments to let the US use their airspace and bases, despite not having been consulted about a deeply unpopular war that roiled their economies. The US has also announced troop withdrawals from Europe and launched a six-month review of its military presence on the continent. European officials say they are braced for a repeat of some of Trump’s recent criticism and cannot be sure of a positive outcome. There is also Trump’s volatile relationship with some leaders, most recently seen in a feud with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Nato members are expected to reaffirm support for Ukraine and pledge assistance of €70bn ($80bn) in 2026. Underscoring the stakes, Russia hammered the Kyiv region with missiles and drones on Monday, killing at least 28 people and exposing Ukraine’s critical shortage of US-made air-defence interceptors. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivers remarks, at the Nato Summit Defence Industry Forum, on the sidelines of the Nato leaders’ Summit, in Ankara, Turkiye on July 7, 2026. — Reuters

US President Donald Trump said he would lift sanctions on Turkiye and make a decision on a potential sale of F-35 stealth jets to Ankara as he began a meeting on Tuesday with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan at a Nato summit. Trump arrived in Ankara to meet Erdogan and join fellow leaders of the military alliance for the summit, which begins with a dinner this evening. “We’re going to be taking the sanctions off,” Trump told reporters when asked about the measures imposed under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In 2020, Washington imposed CAATSA sanctions on Turkiye over its acquisition of Russian S-400 air defence systems. It also removed Ankara from the F-35 fighter jet program, a move Turkiye called unjust and illegal. Trump was expected to throw his support behind the potential sale of F-35s during the visit to Ankara, two sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday, even as legal and congressional hurdles have yet to be fully resolved. “It’s a decision we’re going to make,” Trump said, adding that he and Erdogan would also discuss trade. Nato showcases big arms deals Nato leaders began unveiling arms deals worth tens of billions of dollars, driving home the message that they are heeding US calls to spend more to defend Europe before a summit with Donald Trump. To upbeat tunes and slick videos at a defence industry forum in the capital Ankara, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte announced a series of initiatives as the sum of various deal values was projected onto a screen. He called for a defence industry “revolution” across the alliance, warning over Russia’s massive military spending as well as China, North Korea and Iran. “We don’t have the luxury of time. We need capabilities now to ensure we remain ready. The security situation demands it,” Rutte said. “The hum of machinery must become a roar.” It was a rallying cry for Western arms firms to ramp up investment to increase capacity, and for governments to place long-term orders and create the conditions for companies to thrive. Europe’s defence sector has often been criticised as fragmented and saddled with red tape and rivalries between companies and countries. That has left Europe more reliant on purchases of weapons from the United States. Weak economic growth and the need to maintain generous state welfare provisions have also made defence spending a tougher sell in Europe. A Saab JAS 39C Gripen jet performs during an aerial show in Eslov, Sweden in this photo from June 5, 2011. — Reuters/File The deals, which had been mostly kept under wraps to make a splash at the summit, included European countries buying surveillance drones from US company Northrop Grumman, and Nato buying planes from Sweden’s Saab. Saab shares were the biggest gainers in Europe, up more than 5 per cent as investors bet on the company benefiting from European rearmament. Morgan Stanley upgraded the stock. US defence company Lockheed Martin and Germany’s Rheinmetall signed a draft deal to jointly produce Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles in Germany, a move that would mark the first non-US manufacture of the short-range ballistic missile. Rutte said Nato allies will invest more than $40 billion in the next five years in their anti-drone capabilities. United States and South Korean troops launch the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) into the waters of the East Sea, off South Korea, on July 5, 2017. — Reuters/File The announcements follow Trump’s frequent criticism of Europe for insufficient defence contributions and over-reliance on the US to defend them through Nato, which has protected the continent since the early years of the Cold War. Trump reinforced the message in a video previewing his visit on Truth Social, urging Europe to spend more on its own defence. Rutte said on Monday that Europeans had made staggering increases in defence spending in part due to fears of Russia, which have surged since Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and also after Trump’s extremely forceful encouragement. According to Rutte, Nato’s European members and Canada spent $90bn more on defence in real terms in 2025 than in 2024, to reach a total of more than $570bn. Iran war prompted Trump to revive criticism of Nato Tensions within Nato have deepened since the US attacked Iran in February. Trump has repeatedly criticised Nato members for insufficient support in the conflict, threatening to quit the alliance. European officials insist they largely honoured commitments to let the US use their airspace and bases, despite not having been consulted about a deeply unpopular war that roiled their economies. The US has also announced troop withdrawals from Europe and launched a six-month review of its military presence on the continent. European officials say they are braced for a repeat of some of Trump’s recent criticism and cannot be sure of a positive outcome. There is also Trump’s volatile relationship with some leaders, most recently seen in a feud with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Nato members are expected to reaffirm support for Ukraine and pledge assistance of €70bn ($80bn) in 2026. Underscoring the stakes, Russia hammered the Kyiv region with missiles and drones on Monday, killing at least 28 people and exposing Ukraine’s critical shortage of US-made air-defence interceptors. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivers remarks, at the Nato Summit Defence Industry Forum, on the sidelines of the Nato leaders’ Summit, in Ankara, Turkiye on July 7, 2026. — Reuters

Nato leaders began unveiling arms deals worth tens of billions of dollars in Turkiye on Tuesday, driving home the message that they are heeding US calls to spend more to defend Europe before a summit with President Donald Trump. To upbeat tunes and slick videos at a defence industry forum in the capital Ankara, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte announced a series of initiatives as the sum of various deal values was projected onto a screen. He called for a defence industry “revolution” across the alliance, warning over Russia’s massive military spending as well as China, North Korea and Iran. “We don’t have the luxury of time. We need capabilities now to ensure we remain ready. The security situation demands it,” Rutte said. “The hum of machinery must become a roar.” It was a rallying cry for Western arms firms to ramp up investment to increase capacity, and for governments to place long-term orders and create the conditions for companies to thrive. Europe’s defence sector has often been criticised as fragmented and saddled with red tape and rivalries between companies and countries. That has left Europe more reliant on purchases of weapons from the United States. Weak economic growth and the need to maintain generous state welfare provisions have also made defence spending a tougher sell in Europe. The deals, which had been mostly kept under wraps to make a splash at the summit, included European countries buying surveillance drones from US company Northrop Grumman, and Nato buying planes from Sweden’s Saab. A Saab JAS 39C Gripen jet performs during an aerial show in Eslov, Sweden in this photo from June 5, 2011. — Reuters/File Saab shares were the biggest gainers in Europe, up more than 5 per cent as investors bet on the company benefiting from European rearmament. Morgan Stanley upgraded the stock. US defence company Lockheed Martin and Germany’s Rheinmetall signed a draft deal to jointly produce Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles in Germany, a move that would mark the first non-US manufacture of the short-range ballistic missile. Rutte said Nato allies will invest more than $40 billion in the next five years in their anti-drone capabilities. United States and South Korean troops launch the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) into the waters of the East Sea, off South Korea, on July 5, 2017. — Reuters/File The announcements follow Trump’s frequent criticism of Europe for insufficient defence contributions and over-reliance on the US to defend them through Nato, which has protected the continent since the early years of the Cold War. Trump reinforced the message in a video previewing his visit on Truth Social, urging Europe to spend more on its own defence. Shift on F-35 warplanes to Turkiye Trump arrived in Ankara to meet Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and join fellow leaders of the military alliance for the summit, which begins with a dinner on Tuesday evening. Rutte said on Monday that Europeans had made staggering increases in defence spending in part due to fears of Russia, which have surged since Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and also after Trump’s extremely forceful encouragement. According to Rutte, Nato’s European members and Canada spent $90bn more on defence in real terms in 2025 than in 2024, to reach a total of more than $570bn. In a major potential shift, Trump is also expected to tell Erdogan that he is prepared to allow the country to rejoin the F-35 stealth fighter programme, sources told Reuters, an issue that has long been a sore point in bilateral ties. Washington had imposed sanctions and removed Turkiye from the F-35 fighter jet programme after Ankara’s 2019 acquisition of the Russian S-400 air defence system. Iran war prompted Trump to revive criticism of Nato Tensions within Nato have deepened since the US attacked Iran in February. Trump has repeatedly criticised Nato members for insufficient support in the conflict, threatening to quit the alliance. European officials insist they largely honoured commitments to let the US use their airspace and bases, despite not having been consulted about a deeply unpopular war that roiled their economies. The US has also announced troop withdrawals from Europe and launched a six-month review of its military presence on the continent. European officials say they are braced for a repeat of some of Trump’s recent criticism and cannot be sure of a positive outcome. There is also Trump’s volatile relationship with some leaders, most recently seen in a feud with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Nato members are expected to reaffirm support for Ukraine and pledge assistance of €70bn ($80bn) in 2026. Underscoring the stakes, Russia hammered the Kyiv region with missiles and drones on Monday, killing at least 28 people and exposing Ukraine’s critical shortage of US-made air-defence interceptors. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivers remarks, at the Nato Summit Defence Industry Forum, on the sidelines of the Nato leaders’ Summit, in Ankara, Turkiye on July 7, 2026. — Reuters