From July 7th to 8th, Ankara, the capital of Turkey, hosted another NATO summit. For decades, the United States has been responsible for the main security responsibilities of NATO. Now, the Trump administration is trying to change this situation.
Last year's Hague Summit saw NATO allies promise to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, under pressure from the United States. However, these countries have only truly faced a serious challenge after seemingly successfully unloading this burden. This year's Ankara Summit will shift the focus from broad promises to specific implementation measures.
Before the opening of this summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a special trip to the White House and presented a board with gold letters—“The Trump Trillion”—to highlight the additional $1.2 trillion in defense spending incurred by European allies since Trump took office in 2017. This was done in an effort to curry favor with the “father” he referred to.
However, in the face of European people's flattery and adulation, U.S. NATO Ambassador John Whitaker said with indifference to American media that the current military budget disputes are merely 'growing pains' in NATO's transformation. The U.S. strategy is to ‘not leave, but work less’.
This North Atlantic Alliance Summit was a shift from "sharing responsibility" to "transferring responsibility" by NATO. (European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) Senior Policy Research Fellow Ulrike Franke)
Behind this transformation, is it an increase in European strategic autonomy, or another attempt by the United States to exploit the assets of their allies? Under the so-called "frustrations of growth," what kind of divisive obstacles have been planted within NATO? For this reason, Observer Network has invited Cui Hongjian, a professor at the Institute for Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University, to deeply analyze this game of interests and bargaining that is taking place along the Black Sea.
On June 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C., NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House Oval Office. During the meeting, he presented a chart. Photo courtesy of sources.
Since Trump returned to the White House, his criticism of NATO has never ceased, and threats to withdraw from NATO have been constant. During this NATO summit, Trump's behavior was erratic and inconsistent.
According to a live report by the British newspaper The Guardian on July 8, local time, Trump was extremely irritable during the first few hours after his arrival in Ankara. He not only mentioned again the old claims that the United States wants to control Greenland, but also criticized European allies for not helping America in the Iraq-Iran conflict. However, after the closed-door meeting of 32 countries, he suddenly changed his statement, saying that he felt “tremendous love” and “great unity” at the meeting, and declared to his allies, “We want to be with you.”
Although Trump has publicly discussed withdrawing from NATO, Cui Hongjian believes that the United States will not actually withdraw from the organization. This is more of a Trump-style way of pressuring NATO and European countries, a political blackmail that perfectly fits Trump’s style.
In fact, the United States has clearly stated in its security strategy documents that, although Europe currently poses a burden to the US in the security domain, from an overall strategic perspective, the US cannot abandon Europe. Instead, it hopes to promote a new round of adjustments within NATO, which is what is currently being proposed.
"What is referred to as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's transformation, in my view, is that the United States hopes to achieve a stronger grip over NATO with less investment, lower costs, and smaller sacrifices."
Cui Hongjian pointed out that the United States hopes to establish a new security division of labor with Europe. Under this model, the United States will 'outsource' its conventional defense responsibilities to Europe, requiring Europe to have at least basic self-defense capabilities. However, in core assets such as command systems, intelligence, and nuclear deterrence, the United States will still maintain control.
On the one hand, Europe currently has no ability to replace these capabilities in the short term. On the other hand, by controlling these key strategic resources, the United States can force Europe to take on more responsibilities while preventing Europe from gaining control over NATO.
In recent years, Europe has been increasingly emphasizing 'strategic autonomy', and has come to realize that it cannot rely solely on the United States for security guarantees in the long term. In the long run, several major European countries may indeed take advantage of the opportunities presented by US-driven NATO reforms to strengthen their own strategic positions within NATO. This is what is often discussed within Europe today: the 'NATO Europeanization'. However, for most European countries, especially those with smaller economies, they currently neither have the capacity nor the willingness to truly promote a 'NATO de-Americanization'.
Therefore, there will be a long-term competition between two forces in the future: on the one hand, the United States hopes to reshape NATO according to its own ideas; on the other hand, Europe wants to use this process to achieve true strategic autonomy. These two trends will coexist for a long time and continue to influence each other.
According to the 'Ankara Summit Declaration' released by NATO officials on July 8 local time, Secretary General Rutte announced with satisfaction at a press conference that the '5% GDP military expenditure target' agreed upon by NATO allies in The Hague is being fulfilled more rapidly. In just one year, the average military expenditure has reached 4%.
According to media reports from the American Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and others, at the defense industry forum held during the Ankara summit, NATO even announced a joint weapon procurement project worth billions of dollars, in order to demonstrate Trump the ' purchasing power' of its allies.
Cui Hongjian said bluntly that under pressure from the United States, NATO member countries made a joint commitment last year to gradually increase defense spending to 5% of GDP. Of course, this figure itself has some 'fluidity'. The proportion actually used for defense construction is 3.5%, and another 1.5% is spent on supporting investments such as security and infrastructure.
The real issue that deserves attention is not whether the funding increases, but whether these investments can be truly transformed into military strength. In other words, it’s about achieving a transition from “funding investment” to “capacity building”. This is also a problem that NATO needs to focus on solving in the future.
Subsequently, the United States will surely continue to pressure Europe. This pressure should not be limited to political statements, but must involve actual financial investments. NATO will also continue to evaluate the implementation of defense investments in various countries. However, new negotiations will also arise during the process of capacity building.
European countries that wish to pursue greater strategic autonomy want to link fiscal investments with the development of a European independent defense capacity. In fact, the EU has already introduced a series of defense development plans, which clearly aim to establish a more independent European military industrial system, enhance domestic production capabilities, and enable more equipment to be produced domestically, thereby reducing dependence on external suppliers, including the United States. However, the United States wants to continue to control the NATO's most critical strategic assets, creating an inherent conflict between the two sides.
Cui Hongjian said that the United States is willing to let go of the conventional weapons market, while assigning more production tasks to Europe. As for equipment that offers higher profits, more advanced technology, and which Europe currently does not have the ability to produce independently, the United States will not easily give up such equipment, such as the F-35 fighter jets and the ‘Patriot’ air defense system.
At least for now, in some of the most urgent and technically complex advanced weapons areas in Europe, Europe still cannot completely get rid of its dependence on the United States. In the future, the proportion of autonomous European equipment may gradually increase, but this process will be constrained by various factors such as technical capabilities, industrial infrastructure, and the types of weapons available. Therefore, there is still limited room for improvement in the short term.
The American website Politico stated that during Trump's two terms in office, a policy of 'business first' was consistently applied. This policy required the world to buy American goods, while offering almost no reciprocal trade agreements. While Europe may seem to be cooperating with this policy at the moment, some countries are already unable to sustain their budgets under such conditions.
Northern Macedonian political scientist Synergia Orbi: Bijana Vankevska, founder of Global Analysis Institute, previously told Observer Network: "The Ankara summit may adopt more resolutions, but the essence remains unchanged: it is an investment fund that operates under the guise of security, with profits as its real goal. The threat is precisely created and amplified by this system itself."
The biggest ‘surprise’ of this Ankara summit occurred during the meeting between U.S. and Ukrainian leaders.
July 8, 2026, Ankara, Turkey: U.S. President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the NATO summit. IC Photo
According to the British 'The Guardian' and Associated Press, during his meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, Trump suddenly proposed a 'surprise offer': the United States was willing to authorize Ukraine to manufacture American-made 'Patriot' anti-aircraft missiles locally.
Meanwhile, NATO pledged in the 'Ankara Summit Declaration' to provide Ukraine with 7 billion euros in military assistance and training by 2026, and welcomed the EU to provide long-term financial support through 'Ukraine Support Loans'.
Cui Hongjian pointed out that after Trump returned to power, the United States' policies regarding the Ukraine crisis, especially its military support for Ukraine, have undergone significant changes.
In the past, the United States' support for Ukraine mainly consisted of military aid. Now, the approach is shifting towards a new model, where the United States provides weapons and equipment, which are purchased by other NATO member states and then delivered to Ukraine. In other words, in the past, it was more of a form of unconditional aid; now, it is closer to a military procurement model.
Previously, there was opposition within the United States to continuing to support Ukraine. Many people believed that it should not be necessary to continue spending American taxpayers’ money on supporting Ukraine. However, after Trump turned this support into a commercial transaction, he could explain to domestic opponents that the United States was not engaging in a losing business venture, but rather earning profits by selling weapons and equipment.
As for the extent to which NATO will continue to support Ukraine in the future, Cui Hongjian believes that this depends primarily on the strategic intentions of the United States and Europe’s financial capabilities. These two factors jointly determine the sustainability of NATO’s future policy towards Ukraine.
There are sharp differences between the United States and Europe, which is no longer a secret. However, in an interview with CNN’s Consumer News & Business Channel, US NATO Ambassador John Whitaker argued that this relationship is merely a “growth headache”.
Looking at the observations of American and European media, they are not so optimistic. For example, during the Ankara summit, the American magazine TIME published an article titled "Stop Mourning the Old NATO; Build a New NATO." The article pointed out that transatlantic relations are in a state of deep tension, and Europe must face the cruel reality of having to prepare for a security order that no longer relies on American power.
On the eve of the Ankara summit, Trump still complained to the media at the White House. He expressed his "extreme disappointment" over the refusal of some European allies to participate in the war against Iran led by the United States. He also said angrily, "I don't want their money; what I want is loyalty."
Cui Hongjian believes that the differences among NATO member countries may continue to widen in the future.
Currently, global regional conflicts are on the rise, both in terms of number and intensity. NATO member states have significantly different security concerns due to their varying geographical locations and foreign relations. Therefore, as the international security situation becomes increasingly complex, it becomes increasingly difficult for member states to reach a unified position.
July 8, 2026, Ankara, Turkey - NATO Summit held, leaders pose for a photo. IC Photo
Among them, the largest variable still comes from the United States.
In the traditional sense, NATO has long relied on so-called “common values,” “common strategic goals,” and “common security concepts” to maintain cohesion within the alliance. On this basis, member states have formed a relatively consistent “security consensus” and coordinate policies and actions based on this consensus. However, today there are increasingly clear differences in the views of the United States and Europe regarding the international security situation.
For example, in Europe's view, the Russia-Ukraine conflict remains the most important security challenge at present. However, in the eyes of the United States, the strategic focus has changed. The United States pays more attention to issues in the Western Hemisphere, the situation in the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. More strategic resources are allocated to issues related to China.
In other words, the views of the United States and Europe on the "sources of security threats" and the "strategic priorities" are no longer entirely consistent.
The conflict between the United States and Iran that erupted this year is a typical example.
In Europe's view, the United States acts more based on its own strategic goals and does not fully consider the overall security interests of NATO. Moreover, the United States takes military actions without proper coordination, and then hopes that Europe will provide support based on NATO's common defense obligations.
Cui Hongjian believes that in the future, NATO summits will still attempt to reconcile similar differences and mend the cracks that have emerged within the alliance.
However, given the current international strategic environment and the existing cognitive differences between the United States and Europe, the difficulty of resolving this conflict will increase. Even if the alliance can maintain its organizational framework, disagreements regarding strategic priorities, security interests, and responsibility sharing will continue to exist for a long time and may continue to deepen.
