# In Ankara, NATO Pledges €70 Billion to Ukraine Without Washington

> On July 7 and 8, 2026, leaders of NATO's 32 member states gather in Ankara for a summit whose central stakes go

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Analysis
- Published: 2026-07-06
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-ankara-l-otan-promet-70-milliards-d-euros-a-l-ukraine-sans-washington

## Key takeaways

- The final declaration was reportedly approved by ambassadors from all 32 member states, including the United States, before the summit opened.
- The funding would combine €30 billion a year from an EU loan with national contributions already committed.
- The declaration reaffirms Article 5 and describes Russia as a long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security.
- Trump criticized allied defense spending as "ridiculous" and singled out Germany, while Merz said Germany is making its greatest defense effort ever.
- Erdogan asked for lifted restrictions on defense industry trade and greater Turkish involvement in European security.

## Introduction: a **summit** meant to seal a historic commitment

### A number that changes the equation for Kyiv

On July 7 and 8, 2026, leaders of **NATO's 32 member states** gather in **Ankara** for a summit whose central stakes go far beyond the usual diplomatic statements: ratifying a **quantified commitment** of **€70 billion**, roughly **$80 billion**, in military aid to Ukraine for **2026**, with a level "**at least equivalent**" promised for 2027. According to **Deutsche Welle**, the final declaration text had already been approved by ambassadors from all 32 member states, including the United States, even before the **summit's official opening**.

This funding would come, according to **diplomats** cited by the **AFP**, from a combination of **€30 billion a year** drawn from a **European Union** loan and funds already committed individually by member states. It sends a clear signal: **NATO's European members** and **Canada** are declaring themselves ready to shoulder the bulk of financing **Ukraine's war effort**, a decision that directly answers the gradual disengagement observed on the part of **the American administration**.

### Zelensky in Ankara to carry Kyiv's voice

Ukrainian president **Volodymyr Zelensky** will attend the Ankara summit, a presence that confirms the weight **the Alliance** places on the Ukrainian question in official discussions. His presence will also help maintain **direct diplomatic pressure** on Western leaders at the very moment the final declaration text must be formally validated by all the **heads of state and government** present.

The summit text is also expected to label **Russia** a "**long-term threat**" to "**Euro-Atlantic security and stability**," a formulation that confirms the hard line adopted by the Alliance toward Moscow, more than four years after the start of the **full-scale invasion** of Ukraine.

*Watching Europe and Canada shoulder the financial weight of Ukraine's ongoing support, without waiting on Washington, may be the most encouraging signal in a long while for the future of Ukrainian resistance against **Russia**.*

## Article 5, the reaffirmed cornerstone of the final text

### An **unwavering commitment** to collective defense

According to reporting from **Reuters**, the summit declaration aims to reaffirm an "**unwavering commitment to our collective defense** under Article 5 of the **Washington Treaty** and to the **transatlantic bond**." This clause, the **very foundation of the Atlantic Alliance** since its creation in **1949**, states that "**an attack on one ally is an attack on all**," a formula lifted word for word into the draft Ankara declaration.

This reaffirmation comes amid a climate where several voices, notably American ones, have raised doubts about the solidity of this collective commitment given internal Alliance tensions over sharing the financial and military burden. Member states therefore judged it necessary to spell out this clause explicitly in the final text, rather than treat it as simply self-evident.

### "We are building the future," the summit text declares

NATO countries wrote into the summit text that they "**are building the future: a stronger Europe within a stronger NATO**," a formulation that reflects the Alliance's determination to show it can adapt to new geopolitical realities, notably the relative disengagement of the United States under **the Trump administration** and the need for European countries to take on greater responsibility for their own collective defense.

This assertive rhetoric comes alongside confirmation that European members and Canada are honoring the commitment made at the previous summit in **The Hague** to significantly increase their **defense spending**, a budgetary trajectory that, according to several diplomats, must continue over several years to close the **capability gaps** accumulated since the end of the **Cold War**.

*Reaffirming Article 5 in black and white amid doubts about American commitment is a strategic necessity I welcome without reservation: collective deterrence only works if every potential adversary firmly believes it will actually be enforced.*

## American disengagement, catalyst for Europe's awakening

### Trump calls allied spending "ridiculous"

American president **Donald Trump** once again publicly criticized the level of defense spending among his NATO allies, calling it "**ridiculous**" according to remarks reported by **Deutsche Welle**. He also claimed that "**the United States spends more money on NATO than any other country, by far, to protect them, without getting any benefit**," a statement that illustrates the persistence of his **long-standing grievances** over burden-sharing within the Alliance.

Trump further singled out **Germany**, arguing its contribution remained "**far below**" that of other members, a criticism that comes even as **Berlin** announces unprecedented defense investments in its recent history.

### Merz claims Germany's biggest defense push in its history

German chancellor **Friedrich Merz** answered these criticisms indirectly, stating that Germany is making "**the greatest effort we have ever made** to strengthen our defense capabilities," adding that "**on that front, we have nothing to apologize for**." This budgetary push, according to Merz, is set to unfold over **four years**, a trajectory that directly answers demands Alliance partners have made for years.

Merz also plans to meet directly with Trump on the sidelines of the Ankara summit, a meeting that could help defuse some of the persistent bilateral tensions between Washington and Berlin over sharing the costs of collective Western defense.

*I understand the long-standing American frustration over burden-sharing, but calling "ridiculous" the efforts of allies who have just announced their biggest defense budgets in decades strikes me as both unfair and diplomatically counterproductive.*

## Erdogan and Turkey, hosts with demands of their own

### Ankara wants restrictions on defense trade lifted

Turkish president **Recep Tayyip Erdogan** used his role as summit host to press his own demands, telling an event for parliamentarians from NATO member states in **Istanbul** that "**our main expectation from the summit** is to achieve outcomes that preserve allies' national security sensitivities and strengthen the Alliance's spirit of solidarity and unity," according to remarks reported by **Reuters** on June 29, 2026.

Erdogan added: "**If we want to meet the challenges facing us, we must lift restrictions on defense industry trade while ensuring a balanced and equitable sharing of the burden**," a direct reference to the **American and European embargoes** that have weighed on Turkey for years over its ties to Russia and regional policy disagreements.

### Turkey wants greater say over European security

The Turkish president also stated that "**despite our contributions, it is also true that the indispensable benefits** Turkey brings to European security are overlooked in certain situations," adding that his country, as a nation with a stake in the development of the Alliance's **European pillar**, wants to join every defense and security initiative on the continent.

This Turkish demand fits into a broader context in which **Ankara** also expects more support from its allies in its fight against the **PKK** insurgency, which has lasted more than **forty years**, while insisting it is meeting its own defense spending targets set by the Atlantic Alliance.

*Turkey's demands, while legitimate on the substance of burden-sharing, should never obscure Ankara's persistent ambiguities toward Moscow, which structurally complicate its position within an Alliance that is supposed to present a united front against Russia.*

## The underlying tensions hanging over the summit

### Hormuz, Iran and Gaza: a crowded diplomatic agenda

Beyond the Ukraine question alone, the Ankara summit must also address the ongoing conflicts in **Iran** and **Gaza**, amid persistent **friction** between Washington and some European allies over their insufficient involvement in reopening the **Strait of Hormuz** during the **American-Israeli war** against Iran. These tensions illustrate the growing complexity of the security agenda the Atlantic Alliance must now handle simultaneously across multiple geographic theaters.

Officials from Alliance partners in the **Gulf** and the **Asia-Pacific** region are also expected in Ankara, a further sign of NATO's gradual expansion of its diplomatic circle beyond its traditional Euro-Atlantic zone, in response to threats now seen as globally interconnected.

### Burden-sharing, a persistent source of discord

The summit takes place amid well-documented **internal tensions** over **burden-sharing** and defense spending, disagreements that, far from new, have grown especially sharp since Donald Trump's return to the **White House** and his repeated criticism of contributions he deems insufficient from several longtime European allies.

These tensions, while real, did not prevent the 32 ambassadors from reaching prior agreement on the final declaration text, a **diplomatic feat** that shows the Alliance's ability to maintain a united front on core principles, even as tactical and budgetary disagreements remain sharp among certain members.

*That NATO managed to land on a common text despite these multiple tensions over Iran, burden-sharing and Turkish ambiguities is itself a diplomatic win that shouldn't be underestimated in today's geopolitical climate.*

## What this funding concretely changes for Ukraine

### A financial lifeline amid American uncertainty

For **Ukraine**, this €70 billion commitment represents a **guarantee of continuity** in financing its war effort, at a moment when American support remains subject to significant political uncertainty. This shift toward **mostly European and Canadian financing** reflects a **major strategic realization**: **the security of the European continent** can no longer indefinitely rest on Washington's goodwill alone, whatever administration happens to be in office.

This financial reorientation carries a **powerful symbolic dimension**: it demonstrates that **European allies**, long criticized for their excessive reliance on the **American security umbrella**, are now able to mobilize considerable financial resources when their collective security is directly threatened by **Russian aggression**.

### A signal sent directly to Moscow

This level of financial commitment also constitutes a **clear political signal** aimed at the **Kremlin**: the Russian strategy of betting on the gradual exhaustion of Western support for Ukraine, notably through internal American political tensions, is not producing the results Moscow hoped for. On the contrary, it appears to have accelerated Europe's recognition of the need to directly and durably fund Ukrainian resistance.

This strategic shift could have lasting consequences for Europe's security architecture well beyond the current Ukrainian conflict, laying the groundwork for greater **European strategic autonomy** against the combined **Russian, Chinese, Iranian and North Korean threats** weighing on Western security.

*If this European bet holds up over time, history may well remember the Ankara summit as the **turning point** when Europe stopped waiting for American sign-off to defend its own vital strategic interests against Russia.*

## The Hague summit precedents behind this trajectory

### A commitment that extends last year's decisions

Ankara's announcement doesn't come out of nowhere: it directly extends commitments made at the **previous summit in** **The Hague**, where European members and Canada had already pledged to substantially increase collective defense spending. The Ankara summit thus turns a budgetary trajectory announced months ago into financial reality, converting **commitments in principle** into precise, verifiable figures for 2026.

This continuity between the two summits reflects a dynamic of **gradual consolidation** of the Western defense effort, where each summit further sharpens concrete financial commitments rather than settling for general statements of intent, an evolution praised by several transatlantic defense analysts.

### Toward sustaining support beyond 2027

The pledge of "**at least equivalent**" support for 2027 also suggests a desire to sustain this financial effort beyond the single 2026 budget cycle, offering Ukraine a degree of **medium-term financial visibility** that could prove crucial for **planning its military operations** and its defense strategy on the ground against Russian forces.

This **greater financial predictability** is itself a significant strategic asset for Kyiv, which has repeatedly stressed how much uncertainty over Western financing has complicated its medium- and long-term military planning since the full-scale conflict began in **2022**.

*Giving Ukraine financial visibility across two years rather than one-off promises renewed amid uncertainty is exactly the kind of strategic stability Kyiv needs to plan its defense for the long haul.*

## Internal criticism over the exact burden-sharing split

### Who actually pays, and how much exactly

While the figure of **€70 billion** has been heavily promoted in official communications, several European diplomats acknowledge that the exact distribution of this effort among the **32 member states** remains a **delicate negotiation**, with each capital seeking to ensure its contribution stays proportionate to its neighbors'. This question of fair burden-sharing has historically been one of the most persistent sources of friction within the Atlantic Alliance.

The announced combination of **€30 billion a year** from an EU loan and national funds already committed illustrates the complexity of this financial arrangement, blending European community instruments with strictly bilateral national commitments, a **financial architecture** that will still need to be spelled out in the months following the Ankara summit.

*The complexity of this financial arrangement shouldn't obscure the essential point: for the first time since the conflict began, Europe is presenting a costed, multiyear financing trajectory rather than fragmented promises renewed in a hurry.*

## Britain's position and the non-EU members

### London, a key player despite its unique status

The **United Kingdom**, a NATO member but not an EU member, occupies a distinct position within this financing architecture, since its contributions must be structured differently from those of EU member states, which can draw directly on the **community loan mechanism** cited by diplomats speaking to the AFP. London has nonetheless reaffirmed its **unwavering support** for Ukraine's war effort, regardless of the specific financial mechanisms mobilized.

This diversity of national statuses within the Alliance illustrates the **institutional complexity** inherent to Europe's security architecture, where NATO membership, EU membership and bilateral financing mechanisms overlap and vary considerably from one country to another depending on their respective institutional status.

*As frustrating as this institutional complexity can be for the legibility of the collective effort, it also reflects the richness of a European security architecture capable of mobilizing varied financial instruments in service of a shared goal.*

## Moscow's expected reaction to this commitment

### A signal the Kremlin won't be able to ignore

Facing news of this massive financial commitment, Russian authorities are expected, according to several European security analysts, to respond with the **usual rhetoric** denouncing "**Western escalation**" and "**NATO provocation**," recurring talking points in Kremlin communications since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in **February 2022**. This anticipated reaction is unlikely to fundamentally change the budgetary trajectory announced by Western allies.

The implicit wager behind this Western strategy is to show Moscow that **Russian strategic patience**, built on the hope of a **gradual erosion** of Western support, will not deliver the results the Kremlin is counting on — a **message** European and Canadian leaders appear determined to send with particular clarity through this Ankara summit.

*Moscow crying Western provocation carries little rhetorical weight after four years of war: it is precisely Russia's original aggression that made this Western financial mobilization necessary and legitimate in the first place.*

## The industrial stakes behind the financial commitment

### An opportunity for Europe's defense industry

Beyond direct support for Ukraine, this €70 billion financial commitment also represents a considerable opportunity for **Europe's defense industry**, which is being called on to **ramp up production** to supply the equipment needed for Ukraine's war effort while simultaneously rebuilding the **strategic stockpiles** of European armies themselves, heavily depleted by successive deliveries to Kyiv since 2022.

This industrial momentum could accelerate the consolidation of a genuine **European defense industrial base** more independent from **American suppliers**, a longstanding goal of several European capitals that finds, in the current context, added strategic justification given persistent uncertainty over long-term American commitment to the continent's security.

*This European industrial buildup, if it truly materializes, could turn out to be the most lasting legacy of this wartime period, extending well beyond the outcome of the current Ukrainian conflict itself.*

## Canada's role in this shared financial effort

### Ottawa reaffirms its transatlantic commitment

Though geographically distant from the European theater, **Canada** confirms through this financial commitment its longstanding attachment to transatlantic security, a stance consistent with its historic involvement in the Atlantic Alliance since its founding in 1949. Canada's participation in financing the Ukrainian effort underscores the truly transatlantic, rather than purely European, nature of this mobilization.

Canada's contribution, while proportionally more modest than that of major European powers, carries genuine symbolic weight: it shows that support for Ukraine against Russian aggression goes beyond mere geographic proximity, rooted instead in a broader defense of **democratic principles** and the **rules-based international order**.

*Canada's steady commitment to this collective effort, often overshadowed by that of the major European powers, deserves recognition as a valuable contribution to Western solidarity against Russia.*

## The uncertainties that remain despite the agreement in principle

### From declaration to actual implementation

Despite the agreement reached at the ambassadorial level on the final declaration text, significant uncertainties remain about the concrete implementation of this €70 billion financial commitment. Recent history of international summits shows that the **gap between grand commitments in principle** and their actual disbursement can sometimes prove substantial, a risk several European defense observers aren't fully ruling out in this case.

Final validation by the heads of state and government gathered in **Ankara on July 7 and 8** will also have to withstand domestic political pressures that some European governments could face amid **national budget constraints** or **parliamentary opposition** to continually rising defense spending at the expense of other social or economic priorities.

*I remain cautious about how these announcements will actually translate on the ground: diplomatic history is full of impressively costed commitments on paper that later struggle to fully materialize, and Ukraine deserves better than broken promises.*

## The tight timeline before real-world implementation

### Concrete deadlines to watch in the coming months

Beyond the political declaration adopted in Ankara, several concrete milestones will test how solid this **€70 billion** commitment really is: **formal approval** of the **European loan mechanism** by EU institutions, **confirmation of national contributions** by each relevant parliament, and the **actual disbursement timeline** toward Kyiv, which will need to align with the **urgent needs of the Ukrainian military** on the ground. These **technical steps**, less dramatic than the announcement itself, will ultimately determine whether the Ankara commitment truly translates into additional military capability for Ukraine.

The coming months will also be marked by the need to preserve the Atlantic Alliance's **internal political cohesion** against electoral and budgetary pressures building in several European capitals, where support for Ukraine, though still a majority position, must contend with competing **domestic budget priorities** and a **growing fatigue** among segments of the public after more than four years of conflict.

*This implementation timeline will be NATO's real credibility test: Ankara's words will only be worth as much as the wire transfers actually made to Kyiv in the months ahead.*

### Ukraine still facing persistent uncertainty despite the announcements

For Kyiv, this financial announcement, however welcome, does not resolve the fundamental uncertainty hanging over the conflict's outcome: **Ukraine's ability to hold its front lines** against a Russian army that keeps launching costly **offensives** in terms of human lives, and the still-open question of an eventual **peace negotiation** whose terms remain, at this stage, largely undefined. President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly stressed that Western financial support must be matched by **immediate, concrete military support**, the only thing capable of truly shifting the **balance of power** on the ground.

This persistent uncertainty is a reminder that wars aren't won by summit announcements alone, however important, but by the consistency of a military, financial and diplomatic effort that must be sustained over time against a Russian adversary that, for its part, shows no sign of wanting to end its aggression.

*Zelensky is right to keep repeating it: the billions announced in Ankara only matter if they quickly turn into **shells**, **air-defense systems** and **ammunition** delivered to the front, not just budget lines in official press releases.*

## Conclusion: a summit that could redefine the transatlantic balance

### Europe steps up, Washington watches

The Ankara summit, beyond the impressive figures announced, potentially marks a turning point in **the balance of responsibilities** within the Atlantic Alliance. By committing to fund most of Ukraine's war effort, NATO's European members and Canada are sending a clear message: the defense of the European continent against Russia can no longer depend exclusively on Washington's shifting political will.

This shift, if it holds over time beyond mere summit declarations, could durably transform the very nature of the Atlantic Alliance, toward a **more balanced partnership** between its North American and European members, while preserving the essential collective solidarity against the shared threats posed by Russia, **China**, Iran and **North Korea**.

### Ukraine, the main beneficiary of a collective bet

For Ukraine, this summit represents tangible confirmation that its fight against Russian invasion continues to enjoy substantial, quantified Western support, regardless of the **political headwinds** that sometimes blow through Washington. What remains to be seen is whether this €70 billion commitment translates concretely on the ground into **measurably improved Ukrainian defense capabilities** against a Russian army that continues its offensives across several stretches of the front.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- Deutsche Welle — NATO summit: European members and Canada pledge Ukraine aid, July 3, 2026

- NATO — Overview: 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara

### Secondary sources

- Reuters — NATO leaders gather in Ankara, aiming to smooth over tensions with Trump, July 3, 2026

- Reuters — Turkey's Erdogan says NATO summit must emphasise unity and resilience, June 29, 2026

- Ideal and Partners — NATO Summit Ankara 2026

- The Straits Times — Trump to meet leaders of Ukraine, Syria alongside NATO summit

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-ankara-l-otan-promet-70-milliards-d-euros-a-l-ukraine-sans-washington