EDITORIAL: Trump Demands, Europe Trembles. NATO on the Brink of Financial Collapse

An Increase Deemed Insufficient

The United Kingdom perfectly illustrates the dilemma. Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, London has increased its defense spending by only 0.3% of GDP—a paltry figure given the urgency proclaimed by Washington.

Keir Starmer, the outgoing prime minister, nevertheless announced this week a 15-billion-pound injection to make the British military “ten times more lethal.” But even with this effort, the United Kingdom is expected to reach only 2.7% of its GDP by 2029—still far from the target set by the alliance.

Ten times more lethal. The phrase rings out like a promise of war rather than defense. And yet, behind the billions announced lie cuts elsewhere. Sacrificed infrastructure. A successor who will have to borrow five billion to keep the promise of a departing predecessor. Defense always comes at a cost somewhere—and it’s never in the military budget that we see the true price.

A Prime Minister on Borrowed Time Facing Trump

Starmer will attend the summit in Ankara as one of his final official acts before stepping down. There, he will have to face possible rebukes from the U.S. president, at a time when his presumed successor, Andy Burnham, will have to deal with the budgetary decisions that have already been made.

HMS Prince of Wales on an Arctic Mission

In a move that resembles a diplomatic gesture, the United Kingdom sent its flagship aircraft carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, off the coast of Iceland this week. This 65,000-metric-ton vessel, accompanied by its fleet of F-35 fighter jets, is participating in NATO’s Arctic Sentry mission, designed to counter Russia’s activities in the region that are deemed hostile.

This deployment, though presented as a collective security operation, comes at a particularly opportune moment for London, which is clearly seeking to demonstrate its military good faith ahead of Trump’s arrival in Ankara.

An aircraft carrier sent to Iceland as a calling card. Look, Mr. President, we’re making an effort. I see something deeply revealing in this naval display: the European allies are no longer defending themselves solely against an external threat; they are also defending themselves against Washington’s wrath. Two fronts, a single army, budgets cracking at the seams.

A double-edged show of force

This type of deployment raises a fundamental question: Is Europe investing in its security, or in its image in the eyes of the United States? The line between the two is becoming increasingly blurred as American pressure intensifies.

A Possible One-on-One Meeting with Zelensky

The summit in Turkey could also provide an opportunity for a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss possible ways to end the war. This meeting comes on the heels of a 90-minute phone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin last week, during which the U.S. president reportedly offered his help in ending the conflict.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to carry out strikes on Ukrainian civilian areas, causing Trump’s diplomatic efforts to come under even closer scrutiny from European allies, who are concerned about a possible compromise being made behind their backs.

Putin on the phone, Zelensky at the summit, Europe watching. There is something dizzying about seeing the major powers discuss peace while bombs continue to fall. And yet, this is exactly the world we live in: diplomacy and war proceed in parallel, without ever truly intersecting.

The Stakes of a Fragile Agreement

Any diplomatic progress remains dependent on the goodwill of two men whose interests diverge profoundly. Europe, for its part, watches from the sidelines, without always having a say in its own security future.

From Collective Unity to Individual Power Dynamics

What this episode reveals goes far beyond the issue of budget figures. It is the very nature of NATO that seems to be redefining itself under the Trump presidency. Gone are the days when the alliance operated on the basis of an implicit mutual commitment. Now, a logic of individual merit has taken hold, where each country must prove its worth in dollars and percentages.

This transformation worries many security analysts, who fear that an alliance fragmented by bilateral power dynamics will lose its ability to respond collectively to a major aggression.

An alliance is not measured in percentages of GDP. It is measured in trust, in mutual commitment, in the certainty that if one falls, the others will rise to support them. And yet, this is precisely the foundation that Trump seems intent on undermining, replacing solidarity with a bill. I wonder what will remain of NATO when each member negotiates its loyalty as if it were a commercial contract.

The Consequences for Collective Security

If threats of retaliation materialize, some countries could find themselves de facto excluded from the alliance’s most robust protection mechanisms, creating a two-tier NATO where security would depend directly on each member’s budgetary capacity.

A Problem Deeper Than the Numbers

Behind the battle over percentages lies a far more fundamental question: that of the genuine political will of European countries to invest in their own defense, after decades of implicit dependence on the U.S. security umbrella.

The backlog that has built up since 2014 is not just a matter of tight budgets. It also reveals a political choice that has been made for years: prioritizing social and economic spending over military spending, banking on the lasting stability of the U.S. commitment.

For decades, Europe made a silent bet: that America would always be there—loyal, committed, and ready to intervene. That bet is crumbling before our eyes. And the bill for this complacency is coming due today, brutally, in the form of ultimatums and public threats. Who will pay for these years of budgetary comfort? European citizens, most certainly, through cuts elsewhere.

The Hidden Cost of the New Reality

Every billion invested in defense is a billion taken away from elsewhere—infrastructure, healthcare, education. These are the painful trade-offs that European governments will now have to publicly justify, under direct pressure from Washington.

Between Subordination and Strategic Autonomy

Will the Ankara summit mark a turning point? Some see it as an opportunity for Europe to rethink its military dependence on the United States and finally invest in genuine strategic autonomy. Others, on the contrary, fear an even greater alignment with U.S. demands, at the expense of a truly European defense policy.

The deployment of HMS Prince of Wales, the 15 billion announced by Starmer, Whitaker’s bellicose rhetoric: all of this paints a picture of a continent caught between two fires—the Russian threat to the east and American pressure from the west.

Caught between Moscow and Washington, Europe is still searching for its own voice. Meanwhile, budgets are piling up, aircraft carriers are sailing, and rhetoric is hardening. But where is the European strategy—the real one, the one that depends neither on the whims of an American president nor on the ambitions of a Russian autocrat? No one seems willing to answer that question frankly.

A Test of Credibility for the Entire Alliance

The summit in Turkey will be closely scrutinized by all international observers. It will determine whether NATO can still function as a united alliance, or whether it is definitively becoming a forum for negotiation where each member defends its own interests first and foremost.

A New Chapter Begins in Ankara

Whatever happens on Tuesday, one thing seems certain: the NATO of 2026 no longer resembles the alliance founded in 1949. Automatic solidarity is giving way to precise budgetary calculations, where every percentage point of GDP becomes a diplomatic bargaining chip. Trump no longer hides his intentions: those who pay are protected; those who lag behind are exposed.

It remains to be seen whether European capitals—still hesitant—will be able to turn this pressure into a genuine strategic shift, or whether they will continue to move reluctantly toward goals they know are inevitable.

There is something deeply unsettling about this spectacle. An alliance born to protect freedom finds itself negotiating its loyalty down to the last digit. And yet, this may be the price to pay for rousing a continent that has for too long been lulled into complacency by its security achievements. History will judge whether this abrupt awakening, imposed from the outside, will have been enough to save what remains of this historic alliance.

What the Ankara Summit Will Leave Behind

Whether Trump gets his way or not, the image will remain: that of an American president dictating his terms to historic allies, and of a Europe forced to justify every euro spent on its own security. A complete reversal of the balance of power that would have seemed unthinkable just a decade ago.

By Jacques PJake Provost