In the know | NATO summit in Ankara masks deep divisions behind show of unity

By Wang Wei (People’s Daily Online) 1:05 p.m., July 17, 2026

The NATO leaders’ summit, held July 7-8 in Turkey’s capital Ankara, was a show of unity masking deep divisions.

Upon arrival in Ankara, US President Donald Trump told media that he was “very disappointed with NATO.”

“If this hadn’t happened in Türkiye… I might not be there,” Trump said.

The reason is simple: Since the start of Trump’s second term, relations between the United States and its allies have been repeatedly strained due to defense spending, his attempted purchase of Greenland, escort missions in the Strait of Hormuz and the withdrawal of American troops from Europe.

During the summit, the official NATO website published a group photo of NATO leaders on its homepage. The image captures a moment from the Ankara summit that reflects the alliance’s deep divisions.

(Photo/Official NATO website)

Most of the attendees were dressed in dark, formal suits, standing with sober, serious expressions. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan looked solemn, and Trump appeared uncomfortable, while NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte wore a professional smile.

For some time, Rutte has sought to convey the message that “a stronger Europe means a stronger NATO”. He promoted the concept of “NATO 3.0” to encourage Europe to increase its defense investments, expand its military-industrial capacity, and maintain institutionalized support for Ukraine.

The numbers look impressive. By 2025, defense spending by all NATO members exceeded 2% of GDP. Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had already exceeded 3.5 percent, while Germany’s defense budget for 2026 exceeded $120 billion, with plans to increase this figure to 5 percent by 2029. Yet the numbers cannot mask the divisions.

NATO faces at least four major fault lines.

First, member countries take different paths to achieve their defense spending goals. In 2026, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia could fall back below the 2% of GDP threshold, while Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom lack clear long-term roadmaps to reach this goal.

Second, the lack of troops on NATO’s eastern flank and Trump’s attempt to acquire Greenland have highlighted the differences between Europe and the United States. As Trump reduces the presence of American troops in Europe, European countries are expected to fill the void on the eastern flank. Meanwhile, Trump reiterated his demands on Greenland at the Ankara summit.

Third, divisions emerged over the support mechanism for Ukraine. The current arrangement that “Europe provides the funds and the United States provides the weapons” was designed in part to preempt criticism from Trump. Yet even under this agreement, aid to Ukraine has been affected by the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran.

Fourth, NATO’s efforts to increase military-industrial capacity face difficulties related to benefit sharing. Although the summit announced contracts worth more than $100 billion, the role of American companies remains unclear.

Even greater uncertainty lies within the United States itself.

Trump has called NATO a “bad deal,” expressed frustration over opposition to his proposal to acquire Greenland, criticized Europe’s refusal to provide escort missions in the Strait of Hormuz, announced reductions in U.S. troop deployments in Europe and even suggested that Washington might consider withdrawing from NATO.

To prevent Trump from undermining “US leadership in NATO,” the US Congress had to establish clear boundaries through legislation. As early as 2023, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act (2024 NDAA), which provides that the president “shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty” without the advice and consent of the Senate, with the agreement of two-thirds of the senators present, or pursuant to an act of Congress.

The 2026 NDAA further requires that the number of U.S. troops stationed or deployed in Europe not fall below 76,000 for more than 45 consecutive days.

All of these intense disputes share a deeper systemic cause: NATO, as a collective security alliance, is losing the collective commitment that underpinned it.

The principle of collective security is that members come to the aid of each other. The reality in 2026 is that both sides of the Atlantic need each other, and yet neither side is responding to the other’s calls.

The protracted crisis in Ukraine has prompted Europe to consider “a NATO without the United States,” while the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran has led Washington to consider “a NATO without Europe.”

These two irreconcilable unilateral expectations transformed the Ankara summit into an institutionalized representation of unity in form but division in substance.

The 32 national flags, contracts worth more than $100 billion, and timetable for reaching the 5 percent goal provide the appearance of unity, but the lack of mutual responsiveness between the United States and Europe reveals a structural dilemma facing collective security.

The credibility of collective security depends not on whether all leaders attend a summit, but on whether the concerns of one party become those of the other.

What the NATO summit in Ankara revealed was precisely a moment of maximum internal tension and minimum shared understanding, a centrifugal moment for the alliance.

The author is a researcher at the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

(Web Editor: Hongyu, Liang Jun)