REPORT: Rutte Challenges Putin Ahead of the Ankara Summit — NATO Ready to Strike Hard

From the Promise in The Hague to the Demonstration in Ankara

In 2025, at the Hague summit, the allies agreed to a target of 5% of GDP by 2035—a figure that many at the time viewed as a rhetorical aspiration designed to satisfy the demands of U.S. President Donald Trump. Rutte was keen to clarify: this is not an arbitrary figure. It is “deeply rooted in capability goals,” based on analytical work initiated by his predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg.

The breakdown is as follows: 3.5% for essential defense needs and 1.5% for resilience and critical infrastructure. This budgetary framework is not merely an accounting formula—it reflects a comprehensive military doctrine, built around the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine.

The Numbers Speak for Themselves

Between 2016 and 2026, European allies and Canada spent an additional $1,200 billion on defense. In 2025 alone, the increase amounted to an additional $139 billion in a single year—a rise of nearly 20%. Germany is on track to double its defense spending by 2029, reaching more than 150 billion euros per year.

All the major allied economies—Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Canada—have now reached the 2% of GDP threshold, a target that seemed unattainable just a few years ago. The direction is clear, even if some allies still need, as Rutte puts it with a discreet smile, “encouragement.”

These figures are staggering, yet they receive little media attention. An additional 1,200 billion dollars over ten years—that’s more than South Korea’s annual GDP. The defense industrial revolution Rutte speaks of is not a metaphor. It is a budgetary reality that Putin would do well to ponder.

Contracts Speak Louder Than Words

One of the most concrete announcements in Rutte’s speech concerns the very nature of the Ankara summit: there will be a major defense industry day on the very first day. Tens of billions of dollars in new contracts will be signed—contracts involving companies on both sides of the Atlantic, in the fields of ammunition, missile systems, armored vehicles, and cyberdefense technologies.

This is no small matter. NATO has never been more concerned with the industrial aspect of collective security. The war in Ukraine has starkly demonstrated that military power is not just a matter of strategy or political will—it is first and foremost a question of production capacity. How many tanks can be manufactured per month? How many artillery shells? How many Patriot systems can be delivered on short notice?

The PURL Program and U.S. Support for Ukraine

The Secretary General reiterated the importance of the PURL program—launched jointly by Trump and Rutte in 2025—through which Ukraine receives nearly 90% of its air defense systems, including Patriot interceptors. This program represents a sustainable, multilateral, and operationally effective support framework.

The Czech Ammunition Initiative is also cited as an example of the institutional creativity NATO has had to develop to circumvent national bureaucratic delays. These mechanisms—discreet but essential—form the true fabric of support for Kyiv.

The industry day in Ankara interests me more than any political speech. Because a signed ammunition contract means shells arriving in Ukraine six months later. That’s where the war is truly being fought—in the factories of Bratislava, Stuttgart, and Toledo, not in diplomatic salons.

A Historic Transatlantic Rebalancing

Rutte outlined his vision for NATO 3.0: a stronger Europe within a stronger NATO, with Europeans taking on greater responsibility for the continent’s conventional defense, while maintaining the U.S. presence and the nuclear umbrella as the ultimate guarantee. This is not a break with the United States—it is a reconfiguration of responsibilities.

The context is crucial: U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has launched a six-month review of the U.S. military presence in Europe. This uncertainty weighs heavily on the allies. But rather than passively enduring it, Europe has turned it into a catalyst for its own rearmament.

The Challenge of European Industrial Fragmentation

Rutte identified one of the major obstacles to this revolution: the fragmentation of national defense industries in Europe. Each country has its own standards, its own supply chains, and its own weapons systems—which are sometimes incompatible with those of its neighbors. This industrial balkanization is a legacy of the Cold War that comes at a high cost in terms of efficiency and money.

Overcoming this problem requires strong political will—and a reduction in bureaucracy, both in Brussels and in Washington. Rutte called for simplifying procurement processes, stimulating innovation, and fostering more seamless industry-defense partnerships.

European industrial fragmentation is NATO’s Achilles’ heel. As long as Poland buys American F-35s, Germany produces its Leopard tanks, and France sells its Rafale jets to anyone who can afford them, we are not yet operating within a framework of integrated collective defense. Ankara will need to draw up a realistic roadmap on this issue.

An invitation with profound significance

Volodymyr Zelensky has been officially invited to the Ankara summit. His presence is not merely symbolic—it is fundamental. Ukraine is not an observer state tolerated on the sidelines. It is a partner in the fight whose resistance has redefined the parameters of European security since February 2022.

Rutte drove this home with a powerful statement: “Our security is interconnected. Ukraine has shown that we will not be intimidated by Russia’s aggression.” This is a declaration of solidarity that goes far beyond standard diplomatic protocol. It commits NATO morally, politically, and, de facto, militarily.

Ukraine: A Testing Ground for New War Doctrines

The war in Ukraine has produced more operational data in four years than a generation of military exercises could generate. Drone warfare doctrines, layered air defense systems, and the use of artificial intelligence to accelerate decision-making cycles—all of this has been tested under real-world conditions in the fields and cities of eastern Ukraine.

According to former NATO leaders such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Ukraine—which has been “battle-hardened”—has a role to play in Europe’s defense. This is not a utopian vision: it is a serious strategic proposal, backed by four years of fierce combat.

Zelensky’s presence in Ankara is more than just an appearance at a summit. It is an implicit acknowledgment that Ukraine is already, de facto, part of the Western defense framework. Whether formal NATO membership is near or far off, the operational link is real, deep, and irreversible.

Forty to fifty percent of the military budget: an unsustainable war economy

Rutte painted a striking economic picture of Russia: 40 to 50% of the federal budget is devoted to defense, meaning that more than 70% of Russian tax revenue is absorbed by the war effort. Russia’s National Wealth Fund is being depleted at a rapid pace. Inflation is eroding purchasing power. Shortages are on the rise.

This economic reality stands in stark contrast to the narrative of strength cultivated by the Kremlin. Putin may send tanks into Ukraine, but he cannot indefinitely sacrifice Russia’s civilian economy on the altar of a war of conquest. Historians of protracted wars know that economic exhaustion ultimately determines the outcome of conflicts.

The Refinery as a Symbol of Russian Vulnerability

The drop of one-third in Russian refinery output is not an abstract figure. In practical terms, it translates into long lines at gas stations across several Russian regions, shortages of agricultural fuel during the planting season, and increasingly constrained military logistics. The chain stretches from Ukrainian bombs to gas pumps in the Urals.

Ukrainian strikes on oil and refining infrastructure have targeted one of the vital arteries of the Russian economy. This is a documented, deliberate strategy that is producing measurable effects—effects that Rutte himself has cited as proof of the effectiveness of Ukrainian resistance and Western support.

When an economy devotes 70% of its tax revenue to the war, it no longer has a safety net. Russia is walking a tightrope. And that tightrope is being cut a little more each day by Ukrainian strikes on refineries. This is what the West must understand and amplify.

Rutte: Between Calculated Flattery and Strategic Realism

The relationship between Donald Trump and NATO remains the most delicate political equation at the moment. Rutte navigated it with his characteristic style: a dose of unabashed flattery toward the U.S. president—citing his cardboard charts showing the allies’ spending increases since 2017—combined with strategic candor regarding the Alliance’s mutual obligations.

The outcome of the Hague summit—the adoption of the 5% of GDP target—was presented as a personal victory for Trump. This was not entirely untrue, and this framing helped maintain U.S. commitment to the Alliance. Trump is, as Rutte implicitly acknowledges, an unpredictable figure, but one whose signature on NATO commitments remains indispensable.

Hegseth and the Review of U.S. Troops in Europe: Uncertainty as Leverage

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a six-month review of the U.S. military presence in Europe, raising the specter of a troop reduction. This uncertainty—whether calculated or not—had a paradoxically positive effect: it accelerated European defense spending and pushed allies to take their security more seriously.

Rutte responded to this uncertainty with pragmatism: he assured that there would “always be a robust U.S. presence in Europe,” not only as an ultimate nuclear guarantee but also as a conventional force. It is a balanced position that accommodates both Washington’s sensitivities and the legitimate fears of the Eastern allies.

Trump is a necessary evil that Rutte has managed to tame without compromising himself. By making the increase in defense spending the U.S. president’s personal victory, the secretary general achieved what he wanted: financial commitments from the allies. This is diplomacy in its purest form. And it works.

Ankara as a Symbolic and Political Venue

The choice of Ankara as the summit venue is not insignificant. Turkey occupies a unique geographic and political position within NATO: a member of the Alliance since 1952, it shares a maritime border with Russia via the Black Sea, controls the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, and maintains complex relations with Moscow. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has described this summit as “critical for the future of the Alliance.”

Turkey has played a mediating role in the war in Ukraine—notably by facilitating negotiations on grain exports—while maintaining its own trade ties with Russia. These ambiguities are well known and accepted by NATO. What matters is that Ankara remains in the Alliance and contributes to its cohesion.

Erdogan’s Invitation to Trump as a Diplomatic Lever

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan expressed his conviction that Trump would attend the summit, particularly because of the U.S. president’s “personal respect” for Erdogan. This interpersonal chemistry has been deliberately cultivated by Ankara to secure U.S. attendance at the summit—a presence considered indispensable for the credibility of the decisions to be made there.

This dynamic is revealing of NATO’s policy in the Trump era: it is personal relationships between leaders that often determine U.S. engagement in multilateral institutions. Rutte played this game skillfully, Erdogan provided the framework, and NATO reaps the benefits.

Turkey is NATO’s most difficult ally—and often its most useful. Erdogan plays both sides simultaneously, but in the end, he remains in the Alliance and brings Trump to the summit. In the real world of diplomacy, that’s what counts. Not ideological purity.

An economic argument that the public can understand

Rutte emphasized a point often overlooked in defense debates: military spending is not a financial drain—it is a driver of economic growth. “The result is not just improved security. We are in the early stages of a defense industrial revolution that will help our economies grow and support hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

This is a significant shift in rhetorical framing. By talking about jobs, innovation, and industrial growth, Rutte is trying to convince the European public that rearmament is not a sacrifice but an investment. Governments struggling to justify increased defense budgets will find this line of argument a valuable political tool.

Defense Industries as Drivers of Innovation

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that military innovation can advance at an astonishing pace when operational conditions demand it. From combat drones to precision-guidance systems, from remotely operated munitions to AI-assisted command networks, the Ukrainian battlefield has become a full-scale testing ground.

Rutte wants this innovation dynamic to be institutionalized across the entire Alliance. The Ankara Industry Day will provide an opportunity to showcase these innovations and connect defense companies with the operational needs identified by allied military headquarters.

Talking about jobs to sell rearmament is smart because it’s true. Defense plants in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Germany employ tens of thousands of people. Security and prosperity are not mutually exclusive—they reinforce each other. It was time for NATO leaders to state this clearly.

NATO Beyond the North Atlantic

The presence of delegations from the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific at the Ankara summit illustrates a profound transformation of NATO. The Alliance is no longer just a North Atlantic defense club—it is gradually becoming a global security institution, aware that the threats posed by China, Iran, and North Korea are interconnected.

Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand have been regular participants in NATO meetings for several years. Their presence in Ankara signals that the defense of Europe and that of the Indo-Pacific are now seen as two sides of the same strategic challenge: containing the expansionist ambitions of autocratic regimes.

China as a Systemic Threat

China is not explicitly named in Rutte’s speech regarding the message to Putin, but its presence is implicit in any discussion of Western defense. Beijing supplies Russia with electronic components, machine tools, and dual-use equipment that fuel the Russian war economy. This structural complicity makes China an indirect actor in the conflict in Ukraine.

The Indo-Pacific presence in Ankara sends a clear message to Beijing: the West and its Asian partners form a cohesive and united security network, ready to defend its interests and values across multiple theaters simultaneously.

NATO’s expansion into the Indo-Pacific is not expansionism—it is a rational response to the formation of an authoritarian axis linking Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang. When these four capitals cooperate militarily, the West would be foolish to respond in a fragmented, nation-by-nation manner.

A financial commitment unprecedented since the end of the Cold War

The financial support for Ukraine expected at the Ankara summit is colossal: a program estimated at 70 billion euros in military aid over the next two years, in addition to the 90 billion euro package approved by the European Council. These figures, confirmed by several diplomatic sources, represent a financial commitment on a scale unprecedented since the Cold War.

The German initiative for a new transparency mechanism for funding—which would consist of 30 billion euros via an EU loan and 40 billion via bilateral commitments—is currently under negotiation. Finalizing this agreement in Ankara would send a strong signal to both Moscow and Kyiv simultaneously.

NATO-Ukraine Security Interdependence

Rutte has repeatedly echoed a phrase that deserves to be carved in stone at European security institutions: “Our security is interconnected.” ” This is not mere rhetoric. If Ukraine falls, NATO’s borders with Russia will extend by several thousand additional kilometers. Defending Kyiv means defending Warsaw, Tallinn, and Berlin.

That is why military support for Ukraine is not philanthropy—it is a security investment. Every Patriot system delivered to Kyiv, every battle tank supplied, every artillery shell sent is a euro or a dollar that directly protects the citizens of the Alliance.

Ninety billion over two years for Ukraine is a huge amount, and yet it is still insufficient compared to what Russia spends on weapons. But it sends an irrefutable political signal: the West is not giving up. And Putin, who was counting on our weariness, must rethink his calculations.

Millions of shells that are shifting the balance on the front lines

The Czech Ammunition Initiative is one of the most low-key yet significant successes of Western support for Ukraine. Launched in 2024 under Prague’s coordination, it has made it possible to centralize ammunition purchases from non-NATO producers and deliver them to Kyiv at high speed. This mechanism bypassed European bureaucratic delays and demonstrated that strong political will can produce rapid results.

Rutte cited this initiative in his speech as an example of the institutional ingenuity the Alliance had to develop in the face of an emergency. The lesson is simple but profound: when normal procedures are too slow to meet operational needs, new channels must be created. Ukraine needed 155 mm shells—and the Alliance found them, purchasing them from South Korea, Morocco, and wherever else possible.

Air defense as a top priority: 90% via the PURL

The PURL program—launched jointly by Trump and Rutte in 2025—forms the backbone of air defense support for Ukraine. Through this program, Kyiv receives nearly 90% of its air defense systems, including Patriot interceptors and NASAMS missiles. This figure is staggering: without this program, Ukraine would not have the capacity to intercept the dozens of Russian drones and missiles that strike it every night.

Air defense has become the very symbol of concrete Western support. Every Patriot battery delivered saves civilian lives. Every interceptor used prevents the destruction of a power plant or a hospital. This is an operational reality that Western citizens must understand when they wonder why their governments are spending billions on Ukraine.

The Czech Initiative and the PURL program are examples of what the West can do when it truly decides to act. Not just statements—but shells, missiles, and concrete systems. It is this kind of operational pragmatism that makes the difference between an alliance that talks and an alliance that wins.

Deterrence Through a Clear Message

Rutte used a deliberately direct phrase: NATO is ready to respond to any “stupid move” against its members. In the normally muted diplomatic language of multilateral institutions, this is a remarkably explicit statement. It aims to remove any ambiguity regarding the Alliance’s red lines and to ensure that Moscow understands them clearly.

This clarity is precisely what deterrence requires. Classical deterrence rests on two pillars: the ability to respond and the credibility of that response. For years, the second pillar has been undermined by Western hesitation, internal divisions within NATO, and doubts about U.S. commitment. Rutte intends to correct this.

NATO as an Operational Machine, Not a Discussion Club

The core message of Rutte’s speech is this: NATO is no longer just a forum for political dialogue—it is an operational machine that produces concrete results. Contracts signed, weapons systems delivered, soldiers deployed, industrial capabilities developed. The Alliance delivers on its commitments, and that is what impresses adversaries—not press releases.

By stating that Putin fears the implementation of commitments—not the commitments themselves—Rutte has given NATO its core mission for the coming months: to deliver. To deliver the promised systems, to deliver the announced investments, to deliver support to Ukraine.

A “stupid move”—that’s a phrase I wish I’d heard three years ago, before the February 2022 invasion. Perhaps it would have changed Putin’s calculations. Perhaps not. But today, after four years of war, this clarity is welcome. It’s coming late, but it’s here.

A summit that must deliver, not just make promises

The Ankara summit on July 7 and 8, 2026, will be judged by the concrete results it produces—not by the quality of the speeches or the elegance of the final statements. Tens of billions of dollars in contracts must be signed. Firm financial commitments to Ukraine must be made. A credible roadmap toward 5% of GDP must be presented. Rutte himself has set the criteria for success: delivery.

Putin will be watching this summit closely. He will be looking for cracks, disagreements, signs of fatigue, or division. What he will see instead—if the Alliance keeps its commitments—is a coalition of economies worth 70,000 billion dollars, united, rearmed, and determined. That is the best message we can send him.

Ukraine’s future is also at stake in Ankara

For Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, Ankara represents much more than a diplomatic summit. It is confirmation—or refutation—that the West remains committed, that support is not waning, and that weapons systems will continue to arrive. Every strong signal sent from the Turkish capital directly boosts the morale of the fighters on the front lines in the Donbas and Zaporizhzhia.

Ukraine has been fighting for more than four years against an army that had the advantage of numbers, resources, and strategic surprise. It is holding its ground. It is even advancing in some sectors. This miracle of resistance has been made possible by Western support. Ankara must amplify it, not temper it.

This summit in Ankara may be the moment when the West proves that it has finally understood: wars are won through sustained, united resolve, not fleeting promises. Rutte found the right words. Now they must be turned into concrete actions—and that is how history will judge him.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist