REPORT: Zelensky Lands in Ankara, Reaching Out to Trump and NATO

A glaring shortcoming revealed by the recent strikes

Zelensky was brutally candid on this point even before his arrival in Ankara: “Our warriors did indeed intercept the drones and cruise missiles today, but unfortunately not the Russian ballistic missiles. And the reason lies in the insufficient supply of interceptor missiles.” This statement confirms, in the Ukrainian president’s own words, the scale of the problem.

According to several Ukrainian officials, the shortage of Patriot interceptors has worsened due to resources being diverted to air defense during the conflict with Iran earlier this year, creating a shortage more severe than at any point in the recent conflict.

A Direct Appeal to Washington and Its Allies

Zelensky stated that he wanted to discuss directly the urgent delivery of interceptor missiles for U.S.-made Patriot systems, emphasizing that these missiles are not produced exclusively by the Americans. He clarified: “We know which friends—not just the Americans, by the way—have these capabilities. We desperately need them; it is an urgent need.”

I find this clarification by Zelensky particularly astute. By pointing out that other countries produce Patriot components, he discreetly broadens the circle of potential decision-makers beyond Washington alone, without ever directly accusing it.

At least fifteen dead before arriving in Ankara

Even before leaving for Turkey, Zelensky had called on the countries attending the summit to take strong action, after at least fifteen civilians were killed in Kyiv during a Russian bombardment involving both drones and missiles. This tragic toll, which occurred just hours before the summit was set to begin, lends the Ankara meeting an added sense of moral urgency.

“The United States and Europe have enough strength to stop this terror,” Zelensky insisted—a statement that sums up the spirit in which he is approaching this summit: less a traditional diplomatic negotiation than a direct appeal to the West’s collective responsibility.

An Overwhelmed Air Defense System Despite Partial Successes

Ukrainian forces managed to intercept the majority of the drones and cruise missiles during this attack—a genuine technical success that stands in stark contrast to their inability to intercept ballistic missiles due to a lack of sufficient Patriot interceptors. This contrast alone illustrates the nature of the problem: it is not a lack of competence, but a lack of ammunition.

I want to emphasize this point because it changes everything in how we interpret this crisis: Ukraine has not lost its defensive capabilities; it has simply been stripped of the ammunition needed to fully exercise them. This is a Western choice, not a Ukrainian failure.

An Evening with Unexpected Guests

Zelensky, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, European Council President Antonio Costa, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are set to join NATO leaders for an official dinner on Tuesday evening—an expanded format that underscores the Alliance’s desire to link the Ukraine issue to broader security challenges, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

The leaders are also set to meet with regional representatives from Middle Eastern nations, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, while NATO defense ministers will hold talks with their counterparts from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea.

A Signal of Unity in the Face of Authoritarian Regimes

This expanded diplomatic framework sends a clear signal: the war in Ukraine is no longer treated as an isolated regional conflict, but as one front among many in a broader systemic confrontation pitting the West and its democratic partners against authoritarian regimes, from Russia to China, Iran, and North Korea.

I believe this geographical convergence—from Seoul to Kyiv via Canberra—is one of the most significant diplomatic developments of this year. The West is finally beginning to treat these crises as chapters in the same story.

Mounting Tensions with the Alliance

Donald Trump’s presence at this summit remains marked by a series of mounting tensions with his European allies. His repeated threats to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe, his controversial proposal to annex Greenland—which several European nations have called “dangerous”—and his irritation with member countries that refused to support the military campaign against Iran have undermined the Alliance’s apparent cohesion.

Last May, Trump stated bluntly: “We helped them [the Europeans] with Ukraine… But when we needed them, they weren’t there. We must remember that.” This statement illustrates the transactional mindset with which he approaches every collective security issue.

A Troop Withdrawal Already Underway in Germany

The Trump administration has already begun withdrawing approximately 5,000 troops stationed in Germany, following a thorough review of U.S. military deployments in Europe, and is raising the possibility of also withdrawing troops from Italy and Spain—a prospect that deeply concerns the capitals in question.

I believe it is necessary to acknowledge this honestly: Trump remains, despite everything, a necessary evil for Western security. His methods are brutal and his threats destabilizing, but no credible alternative currently guarantees the same level of military deterrence against Russia.

A conflict that hasn’t fallen off the radar

It remains unclear whether the war against Iran, triggered in late February by U.S. and Israeli strikes, will be formally addressed at this summit. According to Reuters, however, leaders are expected to state in the final declaration that Iran must never possess nuclear weapons and to call on Tehran to fully respect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

This Iranian issue will loom in the background of all discussions, particularly because the diversion of U.S. military resources to that theater has, according to several analyses, directly contributed to the worsening shortage of Patriot interceptors for Ukraine.

A Dual Emergency for the Alliance

This dual emergency—in Ukraine and Iran—illustrates the growing difficulty NATO faces in allocating its limited resources across multiple simultaneous crisis theaters, a reality that directly impacts the concrete decisions expected to emerge from the Ankara summit.

I’ll say it again because it’s essential to understand: the shortage of Patriot systems in Kyiv is not an isolated mystery. It is the direct and well-documented consequence of a military trade-off made in Washington between two simultaneous theaters of war.

Guarantees, Not Just Promises

According to an official quoted by the Kyiv Independent, one of Zelensky’s top priorities during his meeting with Trump will be precisely the shortage of Patriot interceptors—a concrete and urgent issue that goes far beyond the usual declarations of symbolic support. Kyiv is seeking firm commitments—quantified and dated—not just more diplomatic rhetoric.

This approach reflects a notable shift in Ukraine’s diplomatic strategy: after more than four years of war, Kyiv has learned that declarations of solidarity, however sincere, can never replace actual deliveries of equipment on the ground.

Fears of a “hollow” exercise

Zelensky himself warned that Ukraine expects this summit not to become a “hollow exercise”—a phrase that reflects genuine concern about the risk of Ankara turning the event into a mere public relations stunt with no concrete consequences for Ukrainian defenders on the ground.

I share this concern expressed by Zelensky. The recent history of NATO summits is rife with solemn declarations followed by insufficient deliveries. Ankara will have to prove, with figures and dates, that it is breaking with this pattern.

Produce Faster, Produce More

Beyond political announcements, the summit will also need to address member countries’ actual industrial capacity to produce more missile defense systems—an industrial challenge that goes far beyond political will alone and directly affects supply chains and the availability of specialized components.

This industrial dimension, though less spectacular than bilateral meetings between heads of state, will nevertheless have a much more direct impact on Ukraine’s ability to receive, in the coming months, the Patriot interceptors it urgently and demonstrably needs.

A Test of Credibility for the Entire Alliance

This summit therefore represents a test of credibility that goes far beyond the Ukrainian issue alone, gauging NATO’s collective ability to translate its spending commitments into concrete production capabilities that can be delivered within timeframes compatible with the urgency on the ground.

I believe this industrial test will be more revealing than any group photo of heads of state. This summit will be judged not by its speeches, but by the number of Patriot systems actually delivered to Kyiv in the weeks following its conclusion.

A packed diplomatic schedule over 48 hours

The Ukrainian delegation will have to navigate an extraordinarily packed agenda over the two days of the summit, including a bilateral meeting with Trump, attendance at a larger dinner with Indo-Pacific partners, and multiple bilateral meetings with other European heads of state who are sensitive to the issue of missile defense.

This diplomatic intensity illustrates the scale of Ukraine’s expectations for this specific summit, which several analysts consider one of the most critical meetings of the year for the future of Western military support for Kyiv.

The Weight of Diplomatic Fatigue

After more than four years of war, the Ukrainian delegation must also contend with a form of diplomatic fatigue evident among certain Western partners, making it slightly more difficult to turn each summit into firm, quantifiable commitments than it was two or three years ago.

I refuse to accept this narrative of Western fatigue as inevitable. Every ballistic missile that strikes Kyiv without being intercepted serves as a reminder that this fatigue, if it exists, comes at a cost measured in human lives—not just in media weariness.

Turkey, a Host with an Ambivalent Diplomatic Stance

The symbolic choice of Ankara as the host city for this summit is not without significance. Throughout the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Turkey has maintained an ambivalent diplomatic stance, supplying military equipment to Ukraine while keeping channels of dialogue open with Moscow—a balancing act that has earned it both criticism and respect within the Alliance.

This Turkish ambivalence, documented since the start of the conflict, sometimes makes it difficult to gauge Ankara’s actual commitments to military support for Ukraine, despite its role as the symbolic host of this summit, which is crucial for the future of European defense.

A Geographical Symbol Between Europe and the Middle East

Turkey’s geographic position, at the crossroads between Europe and the Middle East, also lends this summit an additional symbolic dimension, at a time when the Ukrainian and Iranian issues are becoming increasingly intertwined in Western strategic priorities.

I see the choice of Ankara as a fairly accurate symbol of the West’s current situation: caught between two fronts—European and Middle Eastern—and seeking a difficult balance between priorities that are competing for the same limited military resources.

Precedents That Call for Caution

The recent history of NATO summits on Ukraine has repeatedly revealed a persistent disconnect between the solemn announcements made during official meetings and the actual pace of equipment deliveries on the ground—a pattern that is now fueling skepticism among many observers regarding the concrete results expected from Ankara.

This skepticism is not unfounded: it is based on documented cases where financial commitments announced with great fanfare took several months to translate into actual deliveries—a delay that the current situation on the ground in Ukraine can no longer tolerate without considerable risk to human life.

Why This Summit Might Be Different, Nevertheless

Certain factors, however, set this summit apart from previous ones: the recent and well-documented urgency of the Patriot shortage, the simultaneous presence of Indo-Pacific partners grappling with their own tensions with China, and the increased media pressure surrounding the human toll of the Russian strikes in recent days.

I want to believe that this combination of factors could, this time, speed things up. But I refuse to give in to naive optimism until I see the first additional Patriot systems actually arrive on Ukrainian soil.

An industry that is closely watching every announcement

U.S. and European defense contractors are closely monitoring the expected outcomes of this summit, aware that any additional commitments regarding military spending or arms deliveries to Ukraine will directly translate into new contracts and increased pressure on their production lines, which are already operating at full capacity.

This economic dimension of the summit—rarely highlighted in mainstream media coverage—nevertheless weighs heavily on the political decisions made in Ankara, as governments must balance immediate military urgency with the industrial capabilities actually available in the short term.

The Challenge of Production Lead Times Amid Urgent On-the-Ground Needs

Even with budgets released immediately following the summit, the manufacturing lead times for the Patriot systems and their interceptors are still measured in months—a time lag that could prove costly for Ukrainian defenders if Russian strikes continue at the current pace during this period of industrial transition.

I believe that this industrial reality, as frustrating as it may be, must be stated clearly rather than concealed behind reassuring political announcements. The pace of manufacturing does not always align with the pace of war, and it is Ukraine that is paying the price for this discrepancy.

European Countries Under Pressure to Step Up

Several European NATO member countries are facing growing pressure, both from Washington and from their own public opinion, to step up their financial and material contributions in support of Ukraine, at a time when the shortage of Patriot systems serves as a concrete illustration of the consequences of the West’s collective delay.

This pressure is felt unevenly across capitals: some Scandinavian and Baltic countries have maintained a steady pace of contributions since the start of the conflict, while others, geographically farther from the front lines, have struggled to sustain the same level of financial commitment over the years.

The Risk of a Rift Between Eastern and Western Europe

This disparity in contributions fuels a real risk of a rift within the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself, between Eastern European countries—which are directly exposed to the Russian threat—and certain Western countries, whose commitment continues to be perceived as insufficient given the documented urgency on the ground in Ukraine.

I note this with a certain bitterness: geography continues to largely determine the level of commitment each European country shows toward Ukraine. Those living closest to the Russian threat are, logically but sadly, the ones doing the most.

A verdict that will be measured in weeks, not hours

The true outcome of this Ankara summit will not be known at the end of the two days of official meetings, but in the weeks following its conclusion, as it becomes clear whether the promised Patriot interceptors actually arrive on Ukrainian soil and whether defense spending targets translate into concrete industrial orders.

The Human Crisis Behind the Diplomacy

Behind every technical discussion about GDP percentages and industrial supply chains, there are Ukrainian civilians who are sleeping—or rather, who are not sleeping—under the threat of ballistic missiles that their country can no longer intercept due to a lack of sufficient ammunition. It is this human urgency, more than any abstract geopolitical issue, that must remain at the center of what the West decides in Ankara.

I conclude this report with the same conviction that has driven me since the start of this war: the West has the means to stop this terror, as Zelenskyy says. All it lacks is the steadfast will to do so, summit after summit, without ever letting up.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist