It is no longer simply how to deter Russia—it is whether the alliance s most powerful member, the United States, still wants to remain the pillar holding the structure together.
When U.S. President Donald Trump arrived in Ankara aboard Air Force One, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan welcomed him with the confidence of a host whose political standing had already been strengthened by the visit itself.
Trump s presence was news in its own right. After all, he had spent years describing NATO as "obsolete" and a burden on the United States.
Erdoğan, however, turned the moment into a diplomatic victory, reinforcing the message that Türkiye is not just another NATO member but an indispensable ally.
The central theme of the summit remains familiar: burden-sharing. Trump has long argued that European nations should shoulder a greater share of defense spending.
At last year s Hague summit, members pledged to increase defense budgets to five percent of their GDP. Now, in Ankara, the key question is whether those promises are turning into reality.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has described the progress as "significant"—a phrase diplomats often use when there is enough movement to claim success, but not enough to declare victory.
For Trump, defense spending has become synonymous with loyalty. In his view, countries that invest more in defense are more committed allies, while those spending less are failing the alliance.
By that measure, he has praised Türkiye as one of NATO s most loyal partners—a statement widely interpreted as a signal that Washington may finally be ready to revisit the long-stalled F-35 fighter jet issue.
The irony is difficult to ignore. It was the United States that expelled Türkiye from the F-35 program in 2019 following Ankara s purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system.
Now, under the same US President, discussions about restoring military cooperation are back on the table.
The episode illustrates a recurring reality of international politics: strategic interests and personal diplomacy often outweigh consistency.
While the White House appears willing to improve ties with Ankara, resistance remains strong in the U.S. Congress. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also publicly warned that returning Türkiye to the F-35 program could upset the regional military balance.
Between Washington s strategic calculations and Israel s security concerns lies a region that has long served as the chessboard of global powers.
Another notable figure at the summit is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Once publicly humiliated by Trump during a tense exchange, Zelenskyy has returned as a respected guest despite Ukraine not being a NATO member.
He is expected to meet Trump again as Kyiv seeks additional air defense systems following a new wave of Russian drone and missile attacks.
Yet Ukraine faces an uncomfortable contradiction. The same American president from whom Kyiv seeks military assistance also maintains direct communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin while repeatedly expressing optimism that the war will end soon.
For Ukraine, the challenge is no longer just securing weapons—it is deciding which of Washington s messages reflects actual policy.
The security of the Strait of Hormuz has also emerged as a key topic at the summit. Trump has previously criticized NATO allies for failing to support the United States in safeguarding one of the world s most vital maritime trade routes.
The discussion reflects how NATO s agenda has expanded far beyond Europe s borders. Today, the alliance finds itself debating Middle Eastern security, global energy routes, and maritime stability—issues that were never envisioned in its original charter.
One of NATO s most debated commitments remains Article 5, the alliance s collective defense clause. In practice, it has been formally invoked only once, following the September 11 attacks in 2001, leading NATO members to join the war in Afghanistan.
Since then, critics have pointed to several incidents—including attacks on Turkish territory originating from Syria and missile strikes that landed in Poland, Romania, Estonia, and Latvia—where Article 5 was not activated.
These cases continue to fuel debate over how consistently NATO applies its principle of collective defense, with supporters arguing that each incident involved different legal and strategic circumstances.
Thirty-two heads of government, a Ukrainian president, a South Korean guest, and countless global security challenges all converge around one central figure: Donald Trump—the same leader who once dismissed NATO as outdated and now finds himself attending its summit as one of its most influential participants.
Perhaps that is the enduring lesson of international politics. Alliances survive not because every member agrees, but because they find ways to keep even their most skeptical members at the table.
The Ankara summit is another test of that principle. Whether its declarations translate into meaningful action will become clear in the coming days. But one question is certain to remain long after the summit ends:
Will the promises made in Ankara become policy—or simply another chapter in NATO s long history of ambitious declarations?
