Has NATO reached its peak when it meets in Turkey? | | NATO news

NATO leaders gather in Ankara to address US-Europe tensions, security gaps and support Ukraine’s military strength.

The war in Ukraine and the fallout from the Iran conflict are central to this week’s NATO summit. But before Secretary General Mark Rutte took off on Tuesday, NATO’s most powerful man had already set a tone.

“It is pointless for the USA to continue on a one-sided path if this relationship does not change,” US President Donald Trump wrote late last week. “They weren’t there for us!!!”

When the 32 leaders of the transatlantic organization gathered in Ankara for their two-day meeting from Tuesday, the frosty relationship between the members of the military and the United States has been seen as a serious problem that overshadows their future.

NATO he says The conference will focus on three important issues: increasing defense spending, expanding industrial security in Europe and ensuring long-term military support for Ukraine. The meeting comes after allies pledged last year to spend five percent of GDP on defense, with European allies and Canada increasing defense spending by a nominal $139bn in 2025 alone.

But the talks will be overshadowed by Trump’s threat to pull the US out of NATO and his plan to withdraw troops and weapons from Europe. On May 1, the Pentagon announced the withdrawal of about 5,000 troops from Germany, following “a thorough review of the department’s performance in Europe”.

Ian Lesser, distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund in the United States, said: “I don’t think the alliance is over. But it is entering a period of great change.

Trump’s suspicion of NATO is not new, but the recent conflict with Iran has heightened tensions within the alliance. He has repeatedly criticized his European allies for refusing to back Washington into the war, particularly by refusing to participate in efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Another source of conflict is the cost of war. On Thursday, Trump also criticized the defense alliance saying that it is “ridiculous” that Washington spends more money on NATO than any other country to protect them “for no benefit”.

Experts say that although the US has changed its position in NATO, leaving the US is unlikely to consider legal and political difficulties in doing so, especially when the country is preparing for major mid-term elections that will determine who will continue to control Congress.

To leave, Trump would need a two-thirds majority in the US Senate or Congress – events that will not happen soon, NATO still enjoys great support among many lawmakers in all major parties in Washington. “It is in the interest of the US to maintain European security and to maintain a significant role in NATO – and these are views that are shared on both sides of the aisle in Washington,” said Lesser.

Europeans have stopped reviving the interdependence of the last few decades, but I hope that this meeting will be a time to prepare, he said Sophia Besch, senior fellow in the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The one thing they are still hoping for is to be predictable. They have accepted that America’s commitment to Europe is changing; what they want is systemic change,” Besch said. “The fear behind this is well-founded: The ineffective delivery from the US led by the European-led NATO opens a gap in deterrence and security.”

Despite concerns about reduced US aid, European allies cannot be left defenseless. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown the weakness of Europe’s defense infrastructure and the dependence of many NATO members on Washington for critical military operations. At the same time, the resurgence of transatlantic relations – from conflicts within NATO to Trump’s threat to seize Greenland – has also fueled strong pressure for European Strategic Autonomous. As a result, defense spending among European allies he left and 62 percent between 2020 and 2025.

However, large gaps remain. According to International Institute for Security Studies (IISS), European countries continue to rely heavily on the US for long-range strikes, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, satellite assets, assets and joint air and missile defense.

Closing those gaps will be difficult for a long time. The IISS estimates that replacing the U.S.’s conventional weapons would require about $1 trillion and could take a decade or more. Europe’s defense industry is also struggling to ramp up production quickly, while many armed forces continue to struggle with recruitment and retention.