OPINION: Watching NATO Debate the 2% While Kyiv Lacks Patriot Missiles

Rutte and the Doctrine of Urgency

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has demanded clear, concrete, and credible plans from all members to meet the new spending targets, noting that U.S. President Donald Trump expects all allies to immediately accelerate their efforts toward the 5% threshold.

This U.S. pressure, which has been exerted insistently since Trump’s return to the White House, is accompanied by concrete actions, notably the announced withdrawal of approximately 5,000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany, as part of a broader review of the U.S. military posture in Europe.

A message that is not universally accepted

Some European leaders view this U.S. pressure as legitimate in light of the security crisis, while others see it as a form of disguised U.S. disengagement, which would force Europe to fill on its own a strategic vacuum that Washington might leave behind.

Trump is right to push Europe to pay its fair share, even if his method is heavy-handed. An ally that does not pay its share is not truly a reliable ally in the event of a major crisis.

Kyiv Is Struggling With Depleted Supplies

While Western delegations debate budget percentages in Ankara, Ukraine continues to weather nightly waves of drones and missiles amid a chronic shortage of Patriot systems—a reality repeatedly documented by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense in recent weeks.

This contrast between the hushed budget discussions in Western capitals and the harsh reality on the Ukrainian front lines illustrates a striking disconnect that Kyiv continues to highlight at every diplomatic meeting with its NATO partners.

Zelensky, a Voice That Remains Unwavering

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed hope that the Ankara summit will not turn into a hollow diplomatic exercise, calling for concrete commitments rather than mere verbal declarations of solidarity with his war-torn country.

Zelensky is right to fear a hollow summit. NATO’s recent history is rife with solemn promises followed by aid deliveries that are too slow and too meager for a country that counts its dead every night.

Collective Credibility at Stake

NATO’s ability to meet its own spending targets directly determines its credibility in the eyes of adversaries such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, who are closely watching for even the slightest signs of division or weakness within the Western Alliance.

Every country that lags behind in meeting its budgetary commitments sends—whether intentionally or not—a signal of vulnerability to authoritarian regimes that do not hesitate to exploit even the slightest cracks in Western cohesion to advance their own strategic interests.

The Hidden Cost of Under-Contribution

Countries that invest below the established thresholds are, in effect, shifting part of the security burden onto their European neighbors and the United States—a dynamic that fuels internal tensions within the Alliance and undermines its long-term cohesion.

Every country that does not pay its fair share shifts the burden of its security onto its neighbors. This is a form of strategic selfishness that Ukraine, for its part, has never had the luxury of affording.

Commitments That Must Be Turned Into Action

The Ankara summit represents an opportunity for Western leaders to turn their financial commitments into concrete actions, particularly by accelerating the delivery of air defense systems that Ukraine urgently needs to address its current shortage of interceptors.

Analysts quoted by Time Magazine note that the credibility of this summit will be measured less by the speeches delivered than by the specific delivery schedules announced for the coming months—a test that several Western allies have already failed in the past.

A window of opportunity that won’t last forever

The momentum created by current geopolitical tensions—including the war in Ukraine and uncertainties surrounding the U.S.’s long-term commitment to Europe—offers a rare window of opportunity to accelerate reform of burden-sharing within NATO.

This window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely. If the West does not seize this moment to reorganize collectively, it may come to bitterly regret it when the next major crisis strikes.

Two Small Countries Off the Diplomatic Radar

Belgium and Luxembourg, despite their modest size within the Atlantic Alliance, illustrate a broader trend observed among several small member states: the difficulty of quickly mobilizing sufficient budgetary resources to make up for the shortfall in meeting the military spending targets collectively set by NATO.

This situation, however marginal it may seem compared to the massive budgets of the United Kingdom or France, nevertheless weighs on the Alliance’s collective credibility, as each laggard fuels the narrative of a divided Europe in the face of the current security crisis.

Real but Insufficient Budgetary Constraints as an Excuse

The internal budgetary constraints of these small states—often linked to competing social priorities—can no longer serve as a sufficient justification given the scale of the Russian threat now looming over the entire European continent, including those states geographically furthest from the Ukrainian front.

I understand the internal budgetary constraints of small countries like Belgium or Luxembourg, but collective security cannot be negotiated on a case-by-case basis according to each country’s domestic priorities.

A Direct Link Between National Budgets and Deliveries to Kyiv

Insufficient national defense budgets automatically result in a reduced capacity to supply military equipment to Ukraine, creating a direct link between the internal budget shortfalls of certain allies and the persistent shortage of Patriot interceptors that Kyiv suffers from every night.

This connection, rarely made explicit in official statements, deserves to be clearly articulated: every percentage point missing from a member country’s defense budget potentially translates into additional Ukrainian lives lost due to a lack of sufficient air defense systems.

A collective responsibility that transcends national borders

In light of this reality, the responsibility to support Ukraine can no longer be treated as a mere matter of voluntary generosity on the part of each country, but must be recognized as a collective obligation directly linked to the budgetary commitments made by each member of the North Atlantic Alliance.

We must stop treating support for Ukraine as an optional act of charity. It is a strategic and moral obligation directly linked to the budgetary commitments that every NATO country has freely signed.

Figures That Must Serve a Greater Cause

Beyond the percentages and comparative tables, the real question facing Ankara is as much a moral one as it is a budgetary one: Is the West prepared to collectively bear the cost of its own security, at the very moment when Ukraine is paying that price every night with human lives?

An Alliance That Must Choose Sides in the Face of History

This summit must mark a clear turning point: either NATO finally translates its commitments into concrete and rapid deliveries to Kyiv, or it risks validating—through its persistent inaction—Vladimir Putin’s cynical bet that Western democracies always grow weary before autocracies do.

I conclude this account with a simple conviction: every percentage point of GDP not invested by a NATO ally is paid for elsewhere—in Ukrainian lives. Ankara must be the summit where this reality is no longer ignored.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist