STORY: In Ankara, NATO Finally Calls Russia a “Structural Threat” and Pledges 70 Billion

A Budget for Two Critical Years

The financial commitment announced in Ankara provides for approximately 70 billion euros per year for the period 2026–2027, a budget intended to strengthen the collective defense capabilities of NATO member countries, in line with decisions made at previous summits regarding increases in national defense budgets.

This amount is in addition to earlier commitments made at the Hague Summit regarding the defense spending target of 5% of Allied countries’ GDP—an ambitious goal that requires a sustained acceleration of national military investments over several consecutive years.

What this money is specifically intended to fund

According to available documents, this funding is primarily intended to finance the strengthening of air defense capabilities, the industrial production of ammunition and equipment, and the development of new military technologies capable of countering the hybrid threats that Russia is now deploying against several Alliance member countries.

This emphasis on industrial production rather than budgetary spending alone reflects a lesson learned from four years of war in Ukraine: promising money is not enough if Western factories cannot produce at the pace demanded by a high-intensity conflict.

Seventy billion a year is an impressive figure on paper. But NATO’s recent history has taught me to remain cautious: it is actual deliveries, not announcements, that will determine whether this figure truly shifts the balance of power.

A Chancellor Who Breaks with Berlin’s Traditional Caution

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz played a notable role in the firm tone adopted in Ankara, continuing a shift that began when he took office, which has seen Germany adopt a more assertive stance toward Russia than that of his predecessors, who were historically more cautious on this sensitive issue.

This shift in Germany’s stance carries particular weight within NATO, where Berlin represents one of the Alliance’s largest economies and one of its most significant potential military contributors—a status that lends special significance to any change in its stance toward Moscow.

What This German Stance Actually Changes

Friedrich Merz’s support for tougher rhetoric toward Russia, combined with concrete commitments to increase German defense spending, is helping to consolidate a more robust European consensus within the Alliance at a time when transatlantic unity remains a sensitive political issue in light of U.S. uncertainties.

This European consolidation, driven in particular by Germany, could prove decisive for the long-term credibility of the commitments made in Ankara, especially if U.S. support were to waver in the months following this summit.

Seeing Germany—which has long been cautious toward Russia for energy and historical reasons—now adopting such a firm stance is perhaps the most tangible sign that Europe has finally grasped the full extent of the threat it faces.

Not all countries share the same sense of urgency

Despite the consensus expressed in the final declaration of the Ankara summit, tensions persist among NATO member countries regarding the level of urgency to be assigned to the Russian threat, with some Eastern European Allies calling for an even faster acceleration of defense spending than currently planned.

These differences, documented by several analysts following the summit’s preparatory negotiations, reflect varying perceptions of the immediate risk depending on each country’s geographical proximity to the Russian border—a geopolitical reality that sometimes complicates reaching a swift consensus among the 32 member states.

The Ever-Sensitive Issue of U.S. Support

The exact position of the U.S. administration on the precise distribution of this financial burden between European and North American Allies remains a sensitive point of negotiation, given that Washington has been urging its European partners for several years to shoulder a greater share of their own collective defense.

This transatlantic dynamic, though generally constructive according to available documents, continues to prompt delicate diplomatic adjustments between European capitals and Washington regarding the exact division of financial and military responsibilities within the Alliance.

The unity displayed in Ankara should not obscure the real tensions between the Allies. Thirty-two countries that agree on a joint statement do not necessarily agree on the pace at which the commitments made will be carried out.

Support that is reflected in doctrine rather than in isolated promises

For Ukraine, NATO’s designation of Russia as a structural threat represents significant diplomatic validation of what Kyiv has been reiterating since the start of the invasion: the war waged against it is not an isolated conflict, but a systemic threat targeting the entire European security order.

This official recognition, while it does not result in Ukraine’s immediate accession to the Alliance, nevertheless strengthens the legitimacy of the ongoing military support that Kyiv is seeking from its Western partners in the face of an adversary now explicitly designated as a threat to all Allies, not just to Ukraine itself.

The Limits of This Diplomatic Recognition

However, this statement does not guarantee Ukraine’s accelerated accession to NATO, nor does it entail an automatic collective defense commitment under Article 5—a reality that serves as a reminder that rhetorical recognition of the Russian threat does not necessarily translate into the strongest security guarantees that Kyiv continues to demand.

This structural limitation remains the main source of frustration expressed by Ukrainian authorities, who welcome the strong language while noting that only concrete and binding security guarantees could truly protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression following a potential ceasefire.

Naming the threat is all well and good. But Kyiv knows better than anyone: the words in a press release have never stopped a Russian missile. Ukraine is waiting for guarantees, not just descriptions—no matter how accurate they may be.

Produce Faster, Not Just Spend More

Beyond diplomatic rhetoric and the announced funding package, the Ankara summit placed particular emphasis on the need to accelerate Western defense industrial production—a priority already raised at previous summits but one that now appears to be receiving a more concrete commitment from the Allies.

This emphasis on production rather than funding alone reflects a bitter lesson learned from the war in Ukraine: over the past four years, several Western countries have discovered that their defense industrial capabilities had shrunk considerably since the end of the Cold War, complicating their ability to sustain a prolonged war effort.

A challenge that goes beyond the budgetary framework alone

Revitalizing a defense industrial base weakened by decades of underinvestment cannot be achieved solely through one-time financial injections; it requires long-term structural investments in supply chains, the training of a skilled workforce, and the modernization of often aging industrial infrastructure.

This structural challenge, explicitly acknowledged in the preparatory discussions for the Ankara summit, could take several years to fully resolve, even with a financial commitment as substantial as the 70 billion announced for the 2026–2027 period.

Money alone cannot build an ammunition factory overnight. The West has been learning this industrial reality the hard way for the past four years, while Russia has already reorganized its war economy.

Ankara: A Significant Choice of Venue

The choice of Ankara as the venue for this summit holds special significance for Turkey, a NATO member occupying a unique geostrategic position between Europe, the Middle East, and the Black Sea region—a country directly affected by the regional consequences of the war in Ukraine.

This geographic position gives Ankara a special diplomatic role in this conflict, as Turkey has maintained channels of communication with Moscow while simultaneously providing significant military support to Kyiv, notably through the delivery of drones that played a key role in the early years of the war.

Turkey’s Diplomatic Balance Under Close Scrutiny

This Turkish balancing act between dialogue with Moscow and support for Ukraine remains under close scrutiny by other NATO members; some view it as a valuable diplomatic asset for potential future negotiations, while others express reservations about the consistency of Turkey’s commitment to the hard line adopted by the rest of the Alliance in Ankara.

Turkey’s unique position illustrates the complexity of the internal balances within NATO, where each member country navigates its own geopolitical interests while attempting to preserve the unity displayed in the Alliance’s official statements.

Turkey is playing a complex diplomatic game between Moscow and Kyiv, and I understand the reservations of some Allies. But for Ankara, hosting this summit on its soil remains a signal of its Western alignment that deserves to be recognized.

A Predictable Rejection, but a Message Received

NATO’s characterization of Russia as a fundamental and structural threat is, unsurprisingly, likely to elicit an official rebuke from the Kremlin, which traditionally accuses the Atlantic Alliance of hostile encirclement to justify its own aggressive stance toward its neighbors, including Ukraine.

This Russian rhetoric, well known to observers of this conflict for years, does not, however, alter the documented reality of the hostile actions attributed to Moscow against several NATO member countries—actions that are precisely what prompted this tougher rhetoric from Ankara.

What Moscow Cannot Ignore

Beyond official rhetoric, the Kremlin cannot ignore the concrete financial commitment announced in Ankara, which signals a Western intention to support collective defense over the long term—a deterrent message that Moscow will have to factor into its own strategic calculations for the coming years, in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe.

This long-term deterrent, if it is fully realized through the promised military deliveries, could carry more weight in the Kremlin’s calculations than any isolated diplomatic statement, no matter how firm its language may be.

Moscow will dismiss this statement as Western propaganda, as always. But numbers and factories, unlike words, ultimately shift the actual balance of power on the ground.

A doctrine that finally catches up with the reality on the ground

Several international security analysts, cited in the coverage of this summit, believe that Ankara’s statement marks a necessary realignment between NATO’s diplomatic rhetoric and the operational reality observed on the ground for several years, where hostile Russian activities against Alliance member countries have continued to escalate.

This doctrinal realignment—though belated, according to some observers—could nevertheless prove decisive for the future coherence of the West’s stance toward Russia, particularly if the announced financial commitments actually translate into increased industrial production within the promised timeframe.

Necessary Vigilance Regarding Implementation

These same experts point out, however, that NATO’s recent history includes several examples of ambitious financial commitments that were not always fully honored within the initially announced timeframes—a reality that warrants particular vigilance regarding the concrete follow-through on the 70 billion promised for 2026–2027.

This methodological vigilance, shared by several Western think tanks specializing in security, serves as a reminder that the true value of a summit like the one in Ankara will be measured in the months and years to come, not in the immediate enthusiasm sparked by the final declaration.

I share the experts’ caution. I have seen too many summits conclude with impressive figures that, a year later, turn out to have been only partially fulfilled. Ankara will have to prove, through concrete actions, that this time will be different.

A war entering its fifth year

This Ankara summit comes as the war in Ukraine enters its fifth year, with no clear prospect of a negotiated resolution in the short term—a context that weighs heavily on NATO’s deliberations regarding the stance to adopt toward a Russia that has shown no signs of a lasting de-escalation of its territorial ambitions.

The prolonged duration of the conflict has gradually transformed the Western perception of the Russian threat, shifting from a one-off crisis to be managed to a long-term structural confrontation requiring a profound adaptation of Western defense doctrines, as evidenced by the language adopted in Ankara.

A Year Marked by Several Hybrid Incidents

The year 2026 was also marked by a surge in hybrid incidents attributed to Russia targeting NATO member countries—ranging from cyberattacks to drone incursions near sensitive facilities—events that helped convince even the most hesitant Allies of the need for stronger language in the summit’s final declaration.

According to several analysts, this accumulation of documented incidents throughout the year was the main catalyst that made it possible to secure a sufficiently broad consensus among the Alliance’s thirty-two members to adopt this stronger language toward Moscow in Ankara.

Every Russian hybrid incident, every spy drone, and every cyberattack quietly built the case that made this tougher language in Ankara possible. Western patience has finally run out, and that’s a good thing.

The actual implementation remains to be seen

In the months following the Ankara summit, observers will focus on the concrete implementation of the announced commitments, particularly the precise allocation of the 70 billion euros among the various member countries and the priority industrial sectors identified by the Alliance for the 2026–2027 period.

This implementation phase will determine whether the strong rhetoric adopted in Ankara actually translates into a measurable strengthening of Western collective defense capabilities, or whether it remains—as with some previous summits—more of a declaration of intent than a genuine operational transformation.

A Follow-Up Meeting Already Anticipated by the Allies

Several diplomats quoted in the coverage of this summit are already mentioning the need for a follow-up meeting—potentially as part of the next NATO ministerial meeting—to assess progress in fulfilling the commitments made in Ankara and, if necessary, adjust the pace of the promised investments.

This anticipation of close monitoring reflects a growing awareness within the Alliance itself that the credibility of the Ankara declaration will depend entirely on the Allies’ ability to transform their financial pledges into tangible industrial and military capabilities within the announced timeframes.

I will be closely monitoring this follow-up meeting. It is there—and not in the enthusiasm of the final communiqué—that the true credibility of the Ankara summit for years to come will be determined.

Order books Already Full

Several major European defense contractors already have order books filled to capacity for the coming years, a situation that reflects both the increased demand generated by the war in Ukraine and the structural limitations of production capacity resulting from decades of underinvestment in this strategic sector.

This saturation raises a key question regarding the fulfillment of commitments made in Ankara: even with sufficient funding, will European factories be able to produce at the pace required by a Russian threat now deemed structural, without facing delays of several years before achieving significant ramp-up?

Lessons Learned from the War in Ukraine

The difficulties encountered by several Western countries in delivering the ammunition and equipment promised to Ukraine since 2022 on time served as a direct lesson for the discussions in Ankara, where the Allies explicitly recognized the need to invest in industrial capacity itself, not just in procurement budgets.

This realization, though belated according to some critics, could nevertheless yield concrete results in the coming years if the announced 70 billion actually translates into structural investments in production lines rather than mere one-off orders.

Money doesn’t produce shells overnight. The West has learned this the hard way since 2022, and I sincerely hope that Ankara finally marks the moment when this lesson becomes a sustainable industrial policy.

A sense of weariness that could undermine these commitments

Despite the firm stance taken in Ankara, several Western governments are grappling with a certain degree of public fatigue regarding the prolonged war in Ukraine—a domestic political factor that could complicate the long-term fulfillment of the financial commitments announced for 2026–2027.

This fatigue, documented by several opinion polls in various European countries, does not call into question the diplomatic consensus reached in Ankara, but it does pose a real political risk that Western leaders will have to manage in order to honor their promises throughout the announced period.

The Role of Political Outreach in the Coming Months

Convincing Western public opinion, over the long term, of the need to maintain such a substantial financial effort in the face of a threat now described as structural will require sustained public outreach by European governments, clearly explaining why this investment directly serves their own security, not just that of Ukraine.

This educational effort, which remains uneven across NATO member countries, could prove just as crucial as the financial decisions themselves in ensuring the political sustainability of the commitments made in Ankara over the entire planned period.

I firmly believe that European security is shaped as much in factories as it is in public opinion. A government that fails to explain why this effort matters risks losing public support at the worst possible moment.

What the Ankara Summit Makes Clear

The NATO summit in Ankara marks a significant rhetorical turning point, with Russia explicitly designated as a fundamental and structural threat, accompanied by a substantial financial commitment of 70 billion euros per year for 2026–2027, driven in particular by the renewed firmness of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

This doctrinal shift, if confirmed in its practical implementation, could mark one of the most significant transformations in the West’s stance toward Moscow since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, finally bringing diplomatic rhetoric in line with the operational reality documented on the ground.

What Remains to Be Seen in the Coming Months

The true measure of this summit’s success will become clear in the coming months: will the announced 70 billion translate into measurable industrial output, or will it remain, like some previous commitments, only partially fulfilled due to the internal budgetary and political constraints of each Alliance member country?

This question will determine whether Ankara will go down in history as the summit where NATO finally aligned its words with the reality of the Russian threat, or as yet another missed opportunity to transform a firm declaration into a truly binding defense policy.

I conclude this account with a deliberate note of caution: the words from Ankara are right, necessary, even courageous. But the history of this war has taught me to celebrate only actual deliveries, never mere promises.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist