US President Donald Trump arrived in Ankara for the NATO summit aimed at changing the very conditions of the alliance. Using the summit, the US President insisted on much more defense spending from his allies, access to certain facilities and “loyalty.” The approach employed by him – a combination of public pressure, private bargaining, and the threat of withdrawal of the United States from the alliance – revealed the strength of the alliance during an important strategic moment due to the war in Ukraine. This paper analyzes the demands made by President Trump, the reaction of his allies and Turkey, specific items to be bargained about, and implications for the future of the alliance.
Background and summit setting
The gathering of NATO heads of state in Turkey took place against the backdrop of a very delicate moment: a war in Ukraine which changed security priorities in Europe, revived defence spending in Europe and reignited debate about burden sharing between the United States and Europe. The setting of the summit in Turkey, an indispensable part of NATO with its own relationship with Russia and the West, made the negotiations even more challenging. The hosting of the event had a decidedly bilateral character, since prior to the summit, Ankara released a list of demands related to defence purchases, sanctions relief, and access to American military technology.
Trump’s core demands and public framing
At the summit, Trump outlined three interrelated requirements. First, Trump required that allies spend much more on defense than the established 2% guideline set by NATO, demanding that some countries reach the target of about 5% of GDP in military expenditure. Second, he demanded clear demonstrations of allegiance and assistance to U.S. military endeavors, requiring reciprocity for the security commitments made by America. Third, Trump used bilateral pressure on Turkey and suggested making deals with Ankara by making concessions on the issues of sanctions and defense systems in exchange for its cooperation and hospitality at the summit. The public statements of Trump made use of conditionalities. The President stated how valuable NATO was for the United States from the perspective of quid pro quo relationship between NATO allies and the United States. These statements were followed by threats of cutting troops’ numbers in some countries or withdrawing from military bases unless the requirements of Trump were satisfied.
Turkey’s bargaining position
Turkey arrived with a distinct and practical wish list: the return or replacement of F-35 components, easing of U.S. sanctions imposed after Ankara’s earlier purchases of systems deemed incompatible with NATO hardware, access to SAMP/T missile systems, and broader relaxation of defence trade restrictions. For Ankara, the summit represented an opportunity to secure bilateral fixes that multilateral consensus alone could not guarantee. Turkish officials framed these requests as matters of national defence and industrial sovereignty, and they were presented publicly not as favors but as legitimate items for negotiation between two allied capitals.
Diplomatic choreography in Ankara therefore combined typical summit theatre with explicit bilateral bargaining. Protocol decisions — for example whether visiting delegations would pay homage at Anıtkabir, the mausoleum of modern Turkey’s founder — took on outsized symbolic meaning and were interpreted through the lens of the bilateral atmosphere between Washington and Ankara.
Allied reactions and the shift in European posture
The European capitals, however, have reacted with a combination of irritation, adaptation and strategic repositioning. Governments of Western Europe have, since the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, sharply raised their military spending. The officials quoted large percentages increase in the defence budget of Europe as an evidence of the rapid burden sharing. But despite these sharp percentage increases, the spending figures still do not match the very ambitious goals set by the President of the United States during the summit. A number of European and NATO officials made an attempt to recognize Trump’s problems while at the same time limiting his unilateral actions by stressing the importance of the cooperation and solidarity among allies. Some tried to please or appease Americans with respect to the points that were important to Americans behind the closed doors.
At the same time other Europeans accelerated preparations for an independent European defence and contingency planning in case US support would not be dependable anymore.
The NATO secretary-general and other summit interlocutors walked a narrow line: they recognized the political reality of U.S. influence within NATO while urging continued unity and stressing that many European states are materially contributing more to collective defence than in past years.
Concrete figures and defence spending dynamics
At the summit, Trump juxtaposed the 2% guideline against his own, more stringent expectations, arguing allies should commit a significantly larger share of GDP to defence. Reported discussions referenced a 5% target for some countries — a level that would require sweeping fiscal reallocation in many European states. Allies countered by highlighting recent trends: some European members and Canada have recorded double-digit percentage increases year-on-year in defence budgets since the Ukraine war’s intensification, signaling serious but uneven movement toward greater burden-sharing.
The debate is not purely arithmetic. Defence spending encompasses procurement cycles, force readiness, sustainment costs, and long-term capability development; moving headline spending immediately to 5% of GDP would be politically and economically complicated. Nevertheless, Trump’s headline pressure forced explicit calculations in capitals about what higher, permanent defence investment would mean for public finances and domestic priorities.
Security posture and U.S. force presence
Trump’s words raised questions regarding the longevity of American military deployments in Europe aside from the financial aspect. U.S. officials had started to review their posture in the region, while discussions at the summit brought up fears that the United States would make its presence contingent upon allied cooperation. This possibility prompted contingency plans among the European defense planners since, if the Americans would lessen their rotational and access forces, the Europeans would have to bolster their rapid deployment capabilities and prepositioning of equipment, otherwise agreeing to a lesser level of immediacy of deterrence. It is obvious what goals underlie the political use of the threat of posture change. By linking various benefits that an ally can receive, including basing, logistics, and intelligence exchange, with certain commitments of an ally, the U.S. president tried to achieve leverage to accelerate burden-sharing efforts.
Bilateral outcomes with Turkey
Turkey’s negotiating position yielded the potential for near-term bilateral outcomes. Ankara’s demands — on F-35 components, sanctions relief, and missile system access — were precisely the sort of transactional items a U.S. president might consider in exchange for goodwill and host-nation cooperation. For Turkey, success at the summit would be the tangible restoration of defence options and industrial pathways that had been constrained in prior years.
However, any concrete concessions by Washington would have wider alliance implications. Easing sanctions or returning sensitive equipment to Turkey without coordinated allied support could provoke political backlash from other NATO capitals and raise questions about interoperability and security guarantees. Thus, Ankara’s gains, even if secured, are likely to be the product of calibrated compromises rather than sweeping unilateral concessions.
Throughout the summit, the tenor of public remarks was sharp and transactional. President Trump repeatedly framed the alliance in reciprocally conditional terms and insisted on tangible returns for American commitments. Turkish officials and their diplomats stressed the legitimacy of their defence needs and the expectation of mutually respectful bilateral bargaining. European leaders, while acknowledging the necessity of improved burden-sharing, emphasized collective action and the danger of eroding the alliance’s deterrent strength through threats of unilateral withdrawal.
Strategic implications:
In the short term, the summit’s principal result is likely to be rhetorical and tactical: increased public demands from Washington, accompanied by pledges from some European capitals to accelerate procurement or adjust budgets. The immediate operational risk is political friction among allies rather than an abrupt collapse of cooperation; NATO’s command and operational structures are robust enough to withstand rhetorical pressure in the near term.
Over the medium term, however, the summit may accelerate two durable trends. First, European states will continue to expand defence capacity, partially driven by the desire to hedge against unpredictable U.S. policy. Second, bilateral deal-making — particularly between the U.S. and pivotal members such as Turkey — may become a more prominent feature inside NATO diplomacy, creating asymmetric concessions that strain the alliance’s unity of purpose.
