NATO Ankara Summit: Strategic Implications for Asian Security of the Shift in European Defense Burden and Cracks in Alliance Cohesion

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The NATO Ankara Summit (July 7-8, 2025) served as a turning point where the transactional alliance approach of a potential second Trump administration began to manifest as concrete institutional pressure. The summit convened amidst strong US demands for European allies to meet the 5% of GDP defense spending target and to independently shoulder the burden of supporting Ukraine. The core issue of the summit, a commitment of €70 billion in military aid to Ukraine, has been delayed due to disagreements from Slovakia and Italy, revealing that internal NATO cohesion cracks are exacerbating the alliance's strategic vulnerabilities as much as external threats. This structural realignment of the European security order has direct implications for Asian security. The US transactional approach to alliances is likely to be applied equally to Asian allies such as South Korea and Japan. If the burden-sharing in Europe is successfully absorbed, US strategic resources may be refocused on the Indo-Pacific, strengthening the deterrence posture against China. Conversely, failure could undermine US alliance credibility across the board, leading to a dual impact. Therefore, Asian security actors must urgently pursue a dual strategy: not only increasing defense spending passively in response to US strategic volatility but also actively strengthening autonomous defense capabilities and building multi-layered security networks, such as trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the US, and Japan, to gradually reduce dependence on the US while simultaneously deepening alliance relationships.

Phase 1: Issue Analysis

NATO Ankara Summit: European Defense Burden Shift and Support for Ukraine

Issue Analysis

1. Background and Progress of the Issue

The NATO Ankara Summit was convened amidst a structural deepening of the conflict over defense burden-sharing between the US and European allies following the potential emergence of a second Trump administration. President Trump has consistently criticized European allies for free-riding on US security guarantees and expressed strong dissatisfaction that European allies did not provide sufficient support during the war with Iran [12]. These US pressures have moved beyond mere rhetorical warnings, potentially leading to a reduction in US troop presence in Europe and a re-evaluation of defense commitments, thereby beginning to cause substantial cracks in the overall European security order.

Against this backdrop, major European powers have been seeking response strategies to strengthen the European pillar within NATO. Notably, the E5 group, comprising the five major European military powers—Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Poland—held a preliminary coordination meeting in Berlin ahead of the Ankara Summit to establish a common position [10][13]. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz chaired this meeting, emphasizing the cohesion of European allies and proposing the formalization of strong financial support commitments to Ukraine at the NATO level [11].

2. Current Situation (Latest Developments)

The 36th NATO Summit, held in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7-8, is a large-scale diplomatic event attended by heads of state from dozens of countries. Ankara authorities have completed extensive security and traffic control measures along the official route from Esenboğa Airport to the Presidential Palace [8]. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced that new defense-related contracts worth tens of billions of dollars will be announced at the summit, and the alliance's commitment to supporting Ukraine will be reaffirmed [3][4].

Regarding support for Ukraine, a military aid commitment of €70 billion is under discussion for this year, but consensus is being delayed due to opposition from Italy and Slovakia. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico publicly declared that his delegation had not received a mandate to approve participation in additional military loans to Ukraine [20]. Meanwhile, French President Macron, following the Berlin E5 meeting, expressed optimism about mending transatlantic alliance rifts, stating, "Europe and the United States are entering a phase of reconvergence on core security issues" [6]. Additionally, Turkish President Erdoğan is likely to hold bilateral talks with President Trump on the sidelines of the summit, raising expectations for Turkey's role as a strategic mediator [19].

3. Key Actors and Their Positions/Interests

United States (Trump Administration)is maintaining a strong pressure stance at the summit, demanding that European allies report on their progress toward the 5% of GDP defense spending target. The US is focused on shifting the financial burden of Ukraine support to Europe and has publicly questioned alliance loyalty, citing the passive stance of European allies during the Iran war [12]. Nevertheless, the reaffirmation of Article 5, the collective defense clause, in the joint declaration is expected, and the prevailing view is that the US will not completely withdraw from the alliance [2].

Germanyis being officially called upon to assume a leadership role within NATO's European pillar at this summit. Chancellor Merz led the E5 meeting, proactively proposing European allies' financial support commitments to Ukraine and sending a strong message to Russia that "European support is unwavering" [11][16]. Germany's actions are interpreted as a preemptive response to US demands for burden-sharing and a strategic positioning to enhance European autonomy within NATO.

Franceas a traditional proponent of European strategic autonomy, President Macron seeks to leverage this summit as an opportunity to redefine European-US relations [6]. France is employing a dual strategy of enhancing European negotiating power through E5 cohesion while managing relations with the US within the NATO framework [7].

Italy and Slovakiaare acting as obstacles to consensus by opposing additional military aid commitments to Ukraine. Italian Prime Minister Meloni, while attending the E5 meeting, agreed with the principle of "a stronger Europe within a stronger NATO" [9], but maintained a reserved stance on specific financial commitments. Slovak Prime Minister Fico has more explicitly expressed opposition to military loans to Ukraine [20].

Turkeyas the host country of the summit, is strengthening its role as a strategic mediator within NATO. President Erdoğan plans to discuss bilateral issues with President Trump and simultaneously improve relations with the EU [5][19]. Turkey is promoting its mediation capabilities externally by adopting "Key to Peace" and "Key to Security" as summit slogans [8].

UkrainePresident Zelensky is expected to attend the summit in person to appeal for continued Western support [3]. With Russia facing difficulties on the battlefield, securing financial and military aid commitments from NATO allies is Ukraine's top priority [17].

4. Summary of Key Issues

The key issues at this summit can be summarized into three main points. First is the issue ofdefense burden readjustment. With the US strongly demanding the 5% of GDP defense spending target, the extent to which European allies can practically fill the US defense gap will be a key indicator of alliance credibility. According to NATO sources, European member states have already filled most of the defense gap left by the US withdrawal, but the financial capacity and political will of each country will be variables in the process of institutionalizing this.

Second is theagreement on Ukraine aid commitments. The €70 billion military aid package is facing difficulties in reaching unanimous agreement due to opposition from Italy and Slovakia [20], revealing a crack in NATO's policy towards Ukraine. Whether an agreement is reached and its scale will be an important signal of Western resolve towards Russia.

Third is the issue ofinstitutionalization of European autonomy within NATO. The trend of Germany emerging as a European leader and the strengthening of the E5 framework herald a change in NATO's traditional US-led structure [10][14]. Whether this structural change will strengthen the cohesion of the transatlantic alliance or paradoxically lead to further US withdrawal remains a key variable determining NATO's future strategic direction.

Phase 2: In-depth Issue Analysis

NATO Ankara Summit: European Defense Burden Shift and Support for Ukraine

In-depth Issue Analysis

1. Analysis of the Root Causes of the Issue

The root cause of the tension surrounding the NATO Ankara Summit lies not merely in the figures of defense burden-sharing, but in the clash of perceptions that the US-led structure of supplying public security goods, solidified over thirty years since the end of the Cold War, is no longer sustainable. Since the founding of NATO, the US has invested overwhelming military power and financial resources as the primary security provider for the alliance. However, the second Trump administration has clearly signaled its intent to fundamentally reshape this structure. President Trump's strong dissatisfaction with the insufficient support provided by European allies during the war with Iran [12] suggests that the accumulated dissatisfaction within the US regarding European security free-riding has crossed a critical threshold, transforming into concrete diplomatic pressure.

The fundamental vulnerability on the European side lies in the structural inertia of continuously reducing defense spending under the logic of a 'peace dividend' since the end of the Cold War. Most European NATO member states have long failed to meet even the target of 2% of GDP for defense spending, creating a vicious cycle that deepened their reliance on the US security umbrella. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 dramatically exposed this structural vulnerability, prompting Europe to recognize the necessity of strengthening its own defense capabilities. However, a significant time lag is inevitable between the shift in perception and the actual increase in military power, and this gap is currently acting as a key factor amplifying the tension.

Internal divisions, as seen in the issue of Ukraine support, must also be understood at the level of root causes. Slovak Prime Minister Fico's public refusal to participate in additional military loans to Ukraine [20] goes beyond a mere financial disagreement, revealing a fundamental difference in threat perception towards Russia and the political legitimacy of supporting Ukraine within NATO. Italian Prime Minister Meloni, while supporting increased European contributions to NATO [9], also maintains a reserved stance on reaching consensus regarding the scale of Ukraine support, confirming the existence of a divergence of interests beneath the outward appearance of alliance cohesion.

2. Structural Context

Political Structure This crisis is occurring at the intersection of populist shifts within Western democracies and skepticism towards the multilateral order. The 'America First' approach of the Trump administration redefines alliances not as a collective security system based on shared values but as transactional relationships based on cost-benefit calculations, posing a challenge to NATO's institutional identity itself. Within Europe, leaders with pro-Russian leanings, such as Fico (Slovakia) and Orbán (Hungary), are eroding alliance cohesion from within, forcing NATO to confront a dual challenge of responding to external threats while simultaneously countering internal centrifugal forces.

Economic Structure The realistic constraint is that the fiscal conditions of major European countries are insufficient to support a sharp increase in defense spending. Germany has amended its constitutional debt brake (Schuldenbremse) to create fiscal room for increased defense spending, but this was a decision that entailed significant political costs. The US demand for 5% of GDP far exceeds the levels currently achieved by most European countries, suggesting its primary function is as a negotiating leverage rather than a realistic short-term goal. The tens of billions of dollars in new defense contracts announced by NATO Secretary General Rutte [3][4] represent a visible response from Europe to this pressure and a strategic choice to pursue substantial military buildup by expanding defense industry production capacity.

Security Structure The tension between Europe's attempt to achieve strategic autonomy and the maintenance of the transatlantic alliance forms the core structural contradiction. The Berlin preliminary coordination meeting of the E5 group [10][13][14] reflects an effort to strengthen the European pillar, enabling independent strategic decision-making without relying on US leadership. It is particularly noteworthy that Germany is being called upon to emerge as a new European leader within NATO, which demands a fundamental shift in Germany's strategic culture, historically characterized by military restraint as part of its national identity. Chancellor Merz's declaration to Russia, "Ukraine is still strong, and European support is unwavering" [11][16], symbolically represents the direction of this change.

3. Historical Precedents and Comparison with Similar Cases

The current conflict over NATO defense cost-sharing is an extension of the historically recurring debate within alliances over burden sharing, but it qualitatively differs from past precedents in its intensity and structural implications. In the 1960s, during the Nixon administration, the U.S. engaged in intense negotiations with West Germany over the cost-sharing of U.S. troops stationed in Europe, which resulted in 'offset agreements.' However, while the conflict at that time was a matter of cost adjustment within the framework of a shared perception of the communist Soviet Union as a common threat that maintained the fundamental cohesion of the alliance, the current situation is fundamentally different in that skepticism within the U.S. regarding the very raison d'être of the alliance is being expressed at an institutional level.

France's withdrawal from NATO's integrated military command structure in 1966 provides a historical precedent for the centrifugal forces within an alliance that can arise from the pursuit of European strategic autonomy. At the time, France sought to secure strategic autonomy by rejecting dependence on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and developing its own nuclear deterrent (force de frappe). While the current situation in Europe differs from de Gaulle's independent path, the structural logic whereby a decline in confidence in U.S. security commitments drives the strengthening of European independent defense capabilities is similar. Macron's assessment that "Europe and the United States are entering a phase of recomvergence"[6] can be interpreted as part of diplomatic efforts to maintain the framework of the alliance while managing these centrifugal forces.

The 2% of GDP defense spending target adopted at the 2014 Wales NATO Summit was introduced as a collective response to Russia's annexation of Crimea, but its implementation has been sluggish. Subsequently, following Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, European countries accelerated their defense spending increases, and the number of NATO member states currently meeting the 2% target is at an all-time high. However, the 5% target demanded by the Trump administration far exceeds this historical trend and is at a level never before proposed in any alliance negotiation. It is more plausible in historical context to interpret this not as a demand for substantial defense capability enhancement, but as part of a strategy of maximum pressure on Europe.

The rifts within the alliance regarding support for Ukraine have structural similarities to the internal conflicts over NATO's intervention during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. At that time, major European powers such as Germany, France, and the UK held differing views on the scope and method of intervention, and it was confirmed that collective action would be difficult without the U.S.'s leading role. The current situation, where the agreement for €70 billion in support is being delayed due to opposition from Slovakia and Italy[20], once again demonstrates how difficult it is for Europe to resolve collective action issues independently when the U.S. steps back from a leading role.

4. Key Variables in Issue Development

The first key variable determining the future development of the issue is the outcome of the bilateral meeting between Trump and Erdoğan. With President Erdoğan hinting at the possibility of a one-on-one meeting with President Trump, Turkey occupies a unique strategic position as a NATO member that also maintains an independent relationship with Russia. If Ankara assumes the role of mediator between the U.S. and Europe as the host of the summit, it could directly influence the framework of defense cost-sharing negotiations and the content of the agreement on support for Ukraine.

The second key variable is Germany's willingness and capacity for strategic leadership. Chancellor Merz's hosting of the E5 meeting, leading the cohesion of European allies, and proposing strong financial support for Ukraine[11] demonstrate Germany's intention to emerge as a new center of gravity for European defense. However, unless Germany's leadership is backed by substantial military capabilities and political resolve, the joint declaration of the E5 meeting[14] will be difficult to imbue with meaning beyond a mere joint statement.

The third key variable is the possibility of a change in the positions of Slovakia and Italy. If Prime Minister Fico's public opposition[20] is not mitigated in some form during the summit, the €70 billion Ukraine support pledge may result in a coalition pledge from some member states rather than a consensus of the entire alliance. This could damage NATO's image of collective cohesion and provide Russia with diplomatic space to exploit the rifts within the alliance.

The fourth key variable is the actual pace of expansion in defense industry production capacity. It will take considerable time for the multi-billion dollar defense contracts announced by Secretary General Rütter to translate into actual production capacity expansion[3][4]. The greater the gap between declarative pledges and actual capabilities, the more limited efforts to fill Europe's defense vacuum will be in the short term, potentially leading to a vicious cycle that triggers further pressure from the U.S. The mention of Turkey's Bayraktar drone as a model for next-generation defense[12] suggests that innovation and production expansion in the European defense industry are emerging as strategic challenges for the entire alliance.