COMMENTARY: Mark Rutte Walks a Tightrope Between Trump and Kyiv Ahead of the Ankara Summit

Ambassador Matthew Whitaker’s Warning

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker warned on Wednesday that some allies “are not currently investing enough or do not have a credible plan,” adding that “President Trump fully expects all allies to rapidly increase their efforts and commit to reaching the 5% target,” according to The New York Times. This statement confirms that U.S. pressure is not limited to the president’s own media appearances.

It illustrates a consistent line between the White House and its diplomatic representation at NATO, where the demand for increased spending has become a test of political loyalty as much as a technical budgetary issue.

Trump Calls the Situation “Ridiculous”

Donald Trump has called the insufficient spending levels of certain allies “Ridiculous!”, a reaction typical of his direct style but one that reflects genuine and well-documented frustration with decades of European underinvestment in collective defense. This presidential impatience forms the political backdrop for all of the budget discussions led by Rutte.

This pressure, however uncomfortable it may be for some European governments, has had the merit of accelerating budget decisions that had been dragging on for years in several European capitals.

I believe that Trump’s verbal brashness, however diplomatically unpalatable it may be, has had a real impact on European defense budgets that years of expert reports had failed to achieve. This does not make the method elegant, but history may remember its effectiveness more than its style.

Albania and the Baltic States Are Stepping Up Their Purchases

Albania has increased its funding for the production of ammunition, drones, and military uniforms, while the Baltic states have stepped up their purchases of drones, air defense systems, and ammunition, according to The New York Times. These national examples concretely illustrate how the priorities set by Mark Rutte at the Alliance level are being reflected in budgets.

These countries, which are geographically the most exposed to a potential Russian aggression, did not wait for U.S. pressure to accelerate their investments—an important nuance that challenges the perception of a Europe that is uniformly reluctant to spend more.

The United Kingdom aims for 2.7% of GDP by 2029

The United Kingdom plans to reach 2.7% of GDP allocated to defense by 2029, according to projections reported by Reuters—a pace of progress deemed insufficient by some observers in light of the ultimate 5% target set for 2035. This British example illustrates the diversity of national trajectories within a single Alliance that is officially united in its objectives.

This disparity in national timelines is precisely the challenge Rutte must manage without ever giving the public impression of a multi-speed Alliance in the eyes of Washington.

I find it telling that the countries geographically closest to Russia, such as the Baltic states, did not need Trump’s threats to increase their spending. This confirms a simple truth that is sometimes forgotten: the proximity of danger remains the best budgetary argument, far ahead of U.S. diplomatic pressure.

A 2.1% of GDP cap formally granted to Madrid

Unlike most other members, Spain has secured a formal exemption from the 5% of GDP target, with a ceiling negotiated at 2.1%, according to Reuters. This exception, made public ahead of the Ankara summit, complicates the Alliance’s ability to present a perfectly unanimous front on its budgetary goals.

This Spanish exemption illustrates the real limits of NATO’s budgetary cohesion, despite official statements emphasizing a common 5% target shared by all thirty-two members.

A precedent that could inspire other requests

This Spanish exception—however justified it may be by specific national budgetary constraints—sets a precedent that other European governments facing similar budgetary difficulties might be tempted to invoke in the coming years, potentially undermining the collective 5% target by 2035.

This potential vulnerability serves as a reminder that the unity Rutte displayed in his public statements is based on internal compromises far more complex than the Alliance’s official communication suggests.

I believe that this Spanish exception, while understandable from a national budgetary perspective, sends a dangerous signal to other capitals tempted to demand the same treatment. An Alliance that begins to negotiate individual exceptions to its most symbolic target risks seeing that target gradually eroded.

70 billion euros pledged for 2026

In addition to national defense spending, European allies have pledged 70 billion euros in support for Ukraine through 2026, with a similar amount planned for 2027, supplemented by a 60-billion-euro European loan facility covering the 2026–2027 period, according to Reuters. This third pillar of Rutte’s strategy remains, according to his own statements, absolutely non-negotiable despite other budgetary pressures.

This substantial amount illustrates the Alliance’s determination to demonstrate—including to Washington—that support for Kyiv will never be sacrificed on the altar of domestic budgetary balance, regardless of the pressure exerted on national defense spending.

An Industry Forum to Turn Promises into Contracts

The NATO Defense Industry Forum, held on July 7 on the sidelines of the summit, is intended to help transform some of these financial commitments into concrete industrial contracts covering tens of billions of dollars in new capabilities, according to The Jerusalem Post. This industrial dimension complements the strictly budgetary aspect of support for Ukraine.

This link between financial pledges and concrete contracts is precisely the kind of tangible evidence Rutte must provide to Trump to demonstrate that Europe’s commitment to Ukraine goes beyond mere diplomatic rhetoric.

I believe that these 70 billion euros pledged for Ukraine constitute the true test of credibility for Rutte’s entire strategy. Increasing national defense spending without maintaining this level of support for Kyiv would be tantamount to preparing for a future war while abandoning the one already unfolding before our eyes.

An Alliance That Can No Longer Rely Solely on the United States

NATO, founded 77 years ago, is heading into this summit in Ankara at a time when even Mark Rutte acknowledges that European militaries cannot adequately defend themselves against potential aggressors without U.S. support, according to The New York Times. This admission of persistent dependence contrasts with official rhetoric about enhanced European strategic autonomy.

This acknowledgment, however uncomfortable it may be for certain European leaders committed to the rhetoric of strategic autonomy, has the merit of candor in the face of a military reality that spending figures—however improved they may be—cannot yet fully compensate for.

Estonia’s Call for Unwavering Solidarity

Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur stated in June at NATO headquarters: “We really hope that all allies will follow suit,” adding, “This is crucial for the alliance,” according to The New York Times. This call, coming from a Baltic country directly exposed on the border with Russia, encapsulates the sense of urgency felt by the Alliance’s geographically most vulnerable members.

This Baltic sense of urgency contrasts with the relative detachment felt by some southern NATO members, who are less directly exposed to the immediate Russian threat, illustrating once again the diversity of threat perceptions within the Alliance itself.

I believe Pevkur’s appeal deserves to be heard far beyond the usual diplomatic circles. When a country that shares a direct border with Russia pleads with its allies to keep pace, this is not summit rhetoric; it is a warning of what could happen if Western unity were to crack.

A presence that will cast a shadow over every announcement at the summit

Donald Trump’s presence at the Ankara summit, alongside the 32 NATO leaders and external guests such as Volodymyr Zelensky, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, Antonio Costa, and Ursula von der Leyen, ensures that every announcement made at this event will be immediately interpreted in light of his satisfaction or dissatisfaction, according to Reuters. This focus on the American perspective directly influences how Rutte has structured his three priorities.

This dynamic gives Trump disproportionate influence over the agenda of an Alliance in which he officially leads none of the 32 members other than the United States—a political reality that European diplomacy must now incorporate on a lasting basis.

A Necessary Evil for Western Cohesion

Despite the tensions caused by his direct and sometimes brutal methods, Donald Trump’s presence and pressure have undeniably accelerated budgetary decisions that Europe alone would likely not have made with the same speed. This uncomfortable reality must be acknowledged without, however, excusing the rhetorical excesses that sometimes accompany his public statements.

This ambivalence shapes much of the Western commentary on the current American role within NATO, oscillating between relief at the budgetary results achieved and persistent unease regarding the methods used to obtain them.

I believe we must be honest enough to acknowledge that Trump remains a necessary evil for the West on this specific issue. His approach is harsh—and at times humiliating for certain allies—but in just a few months, it has produced more concrete budgetary results than years of low-key diplomatic summits ever managed to achieve.

A Public Statement That Smooths Over Real Tensions

Mark Rutte’s official statement, centered on three clearly stated priorities, tends to downplay very real internal disagreements among allies regarding the pace of spending increases, as illustrated by Spain’s exception and Washington’s repeated warnings to certain members deemed insufficiently committed. This carefully crafted statement is itself a diplomatic exercise in its own right.

This smoothing over in the communication, while understandable from a diplomatic standpoint, should not obscure from outside observers the true complexity of the internal negotiations that precede every public announcement by the Alliance.

Limited transparency raises questions about the long term

While this skillful management of public communication helps preserve an image of unity in the short term, it could ultimately undermine NATO’s credibility if the discrepancies between official rhetoric and national budgetary realities become too visible to be ignored by Western public opinion.

This tension between controlled communication and democratic transparency constitutes one of the least discussed structural challenges of contemporary multilateral diplomacy within the Atlantic Alliance.

I believe that this skillful management of communication, however necessary it may be diplomatically, has its limits. At some point, the citizens of NATO member countries deserve to know the true internal divisions, not just the polished version presented at official press briefings.

A Vigilance That Goes Beyond the Russian Issue Alone

While the Ukraine issue dominates discussions at the Ankara summit, the priorities set by Mark Rutte are also part of a broader vigilance toward China, Iran, and North Korea, whose ties with Moscow have strengthened throughout the conflict in Ukraine. In the eyes of many Western strategists, this broader scope of the threat justifies the scale of defense spending now required of each ally.

This convergence of multiple threats—rather than a single, clearly identified adversary—complicates Rutte’s task, as he must justify considerable spending to a public that is sometimes more concerned with the immediate Russian issue than with threats perceived as more distant.

A Comprehensive Deterrence Doctrine Still in the Making

This comprehensive approach to deterrence—encompassing Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea simultaneously—is still a work in progress within NATO’s official doctrine, which sometimes struggles to clearly articulate the relative priorities among these various threats in its public communications.

This unfinished doctrinal framework constitutes a parallel effort—less visible in the media than spending figures, but just as critical to the Alliance’s strategic future in the coming years.

I believe that the West still too often underestimates the growing convergence between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Treating these issues separately, as NATO’s official communications sometimes do, risks obscuring a far more troubling strategic reality: that of an increasingly coordinated authoritarian front against the West.

The Legacy of Past Transatlantic Tensions

The current tensions between certain European allies and the U.S. administration are reminiscent of previous, more turbulent episodes in NATO’s recent history, when disagreements over the sharing of the financial burden had already temporarily undermined the Alliance’s apparent cohesion. This institutional memory directly influences the caution with which Rutte is crafting his current messaging.

This historical caution partly explains why Rutte favors a discreet approach to exerting pressure rather than public confrontation with allies deemed insufficiently committed—a method that has proven effective during previous similar internal crises.

An approach that has so far prevented an open rift

This cautious approach, as frustrating as it may be for observers calling for greater public firmness toward recalcitrant allies, has so far helped prevent an open rift within NATO—an outcome that should not be underestimated in a geopolitical context as tense as that of 2026.

This relative continuity of Western unity, despite real and well-documented tensions, remains one of the most valuable achievements that Rutte must absolutely preserve at the Ankara summit.

I believe Rutte deserves credit for having, so far, averted the open rift that many feared would occur between Washington and certain recalcitrant European capitals. It is not a spectacular feat, but in the current context, preserving even a minimal degree of unity within the Alliance is, in itself, a significant diplomatic victory.

Moving from Verbal Commitments to Signed Contracts

The true test of the Ankara summit will not lie in the speeches delivered by Mark Rutte or Donald Trump, but in the Alliance’s ability to transform these three stated priorities into verifiable budgetary commitments and actually signed industrial contracts, such as those announced on the sidelines of the defense industry forum. This demand for concrete proof goes far beyond the scope of routine diplomatic communication.

This demand for tangible results reflects a growing weariness—both in Washington and among certain segments of European public opinion—with decades of defense promises that have not always translated into genuinely strengthened military capabilities on the ground.

An event Ukraine will be watching closely

For Ukraine, which is directly engaged in an existential war against Russian aggression, this summit represents much more than an abstract diplomatic exercise: it will concretely determine the extent of the material and financial support available to Kyiv in the coming months, at a time when Russia continues to intensify its strikes against Ukrainian cities.

This existential dimension for Ukraine must remain, in this column’s view, the ultimate yardstick by which to judge the real success or failure of the Ankara summit—far beyond the much-discussed GDP percentage figures.

I believe we too often judge these summits by abstract GDP percentage figures, forgetting that the true measure of success lies on the ground in Ukraine. If this summit does not result in more concrete air defense for Ukrainian cities, all the talk about the 5% will have been nothing more than diplomatic noise.

What Putin Hopes Will Begin to Crumble

Every revealed tension between Western allies, every negotiated budget exception like Spain’s, every abrupt statement by Donald Trump about the lack of effort by certain partners—these are precisely the kinds of cracks that Vladimir Putin hopes to see widen within the Atlantic Alliance. This reality must remain at the forefront of every observer’s mind when commenting on NATO’s internal tensions.

This vigilance in the face of Russian hopes for Western division must not, however, lead to a disregard for real tensions in order to preserve a facade of artificial unity—a balancing act that Mark Rutte seems, so far, to be maintaining with remarkable consistency.

An Alliance That Remains, Despite Everything, Stronger Than in 2022

Despite the tensions documented in this commentary, NATO in 2026 remains objectively more robust, better funded, and more determined than it was in 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This upward trajectory, however imperfect and fraught with tension it may be, constitutes in itself an implicit response to Moscow’s revisionist ambitions.

This real progress, measurable through spending figures and signed industrial contracts, must be acknowledged without downplaying the considerable challenges that remain to be overcome in order to fully achieve the goals set by Rutte for 2035.

I conclude this section convinced that, despite all the tensions described in this commentary, the NATO of 2026 remains a more determined and better-equipped Alliance than the one that witnessed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is not a complete victory, but it is a trajectory that Putin certainly did not anticipate on this scale.

Fears of an Endless Budgetary Stalemate

Some European governments, while not saying so openly during official press briefings, fear that the 5% of GDP target set for 2035 could turn into a permanent budgetary quagmire, draining resources that could otherwise fund sensitive national social priorities. This fear, rarely expressed publicly out of respect for NATO’s public display of unity, is nonetheless circulating discreetly in several European capitals.

This silent budgetary reservation represents one of the main domestic political challenges that Mark Rutte will have to manage in the coming years, well beyond the Ankara summit alone.

The Risk of Democratic Fatigue in the Face of Ongoing Efforts

Beyond mere government trade-offs, some experts are also concerned about a gradual weariness among the European public regarding a defense effort presented as necessary but whose concrete benefits are sometimes difficult for ordinary citizens—who face other daily economic concerns—to perceive.

This potential fatigue, if it were to manifest itself in election results across several member states, could ultimately undermine the ambitious budgetary trajectory consistently championed today by Rutte and his allied counterparts.

I believe this potential democratic fatigue is underestimated in standard diplomatic commentary. Maintaining a high level of defense spending for an entire decade requires sustained public support that European governments will need to actively cultivate—not simply take for granted—because the Russian threat remains real.

A Summit That Must Turn Words into Action

The Ankara summit marks a new step in Mark Rutte’s effort to maintain the cohesion of an Alliance torn between U.S. demands and the urgent need to support Ukraine until Russia renounces its territorial ambitions. The three priorities outlined—spending, production, and Ukraine—provide a clear framework, but their actual implementation will determine whether this summit marks a substantial step forward or is merely another public relations exercise.

This litmus test will play out in the months following the summit, through the contracts actually signed, the budgets actually approved by national parliaments, and above all through developments on the ground in Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression that, to date, shows no signs of abating.

What the West Can No Longer Afford to Ignore

Faced with the growing convergence between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, the West can no longer afford to treat NATO’s internal tensions as mere secondary budgetary squabbles. Unity, however imperfect it may be, remains the primary condition for any credible deterrence against adversaries who are closely watching for every sign of Western division.

It is against this standard that the true legacy of the Ankara summit and the three priorities consistently championed by Mark Rutte will be judged in the coming months.

I’ll conclude this commentary with a simple conviction: summit speeches are worthless without signed checks and actual deliveries on the ground. Rutte has set the right priorities, but history will judge his tenure by the drones shot down over Kyiv, not by the percentages announced in Ankara.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist