To NATO, which is finally daring to aim for 5% of GDP on defense

Introduction: a letter to an Alliance that is finally rearming

Why I am writing this letter on the eve of Ankara

Dear leaders of NATO, I am writing you this open letter just days before the Ankara summit, scheduled for July 7 and 8, 2026, where you must prove that the pledge made last year at the The Hague summit was not a mere diplomatic formula meant to placate an irritated American president. That pledge was to raise collective defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, a target that would have seemed unrealistic just five years ago, according to analysis cited by Forbes.

I am writing because the world has changed, and because too many of you, for decades, treated collective defense as a budgetary afterthought rather than a vital necessity. Vladimir Putin's Russia reminded Europe, through weapons, that peace is never guaranteed.

What this letter wants to tell you clearly

This letter is addressed to you, the 32 heads of state and government who will gather at the presidential palace in Ankara, but also, indirectly, to European publics who need to understand why this colossal budgetary effort is justified. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has promised that this summit would turn additional spending into real combat capability and sharply scale up Western defense industries, according to remarks reported by Reuters.

I want to tell you plainly that I consider this 5% target one of the most important decisions in the recent history of the Atlantic Alliance. It marks the end of an era of strategic complacency that has lasted since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The legacy of The Hague, one year after the promise

A historic deal wrenched out under pressure

We need to remember where this started. At the The Hague summit in June 2025, all 32 member states, except Spain, which secured a waiver, committed to raising defense and security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, according to the detailed breakdown from Wikipedia and confirmed by official NATO documentation. That target splits into 3.5% for core military spending and 1.5% for broader security spending, such as cyber defense and critical infrastructure.

It was a straightforward doubling of the old 2% benchmark set at the Wales summit in 2014. A doubling that, I should note, would probably never have happened without the relentless insistence of U.S. President Donald Trump, who made this demand an almost existential condition for continued American commitment to the Alliance.

The numbers that should make you proud, but not complacent

According to figures presented by Mark Rutte at the NATO defense ministers' meeting on June 18, 2026, European allies and Canada increased their spending by more than 90 billion dollars in real terms last year, roughly 139 billion dollars in nominal value. For the first time since the 2% threshold was set in 2014, all 32 members met or exceeded it in 2025, according to a tally from the Anadolu Agency.

Poland now leads the pack with a defense budget already above 4% of GDP, backed by a binding national law. Latvia has already crossed the 3.5% core military threshold, a full decade ahead of the 2035 deadline. These numbers are not propaganda; they are verifiable and corroborated by multiple independent sources.

Ankara, the moment of truth for the Alliance

A summit under American scrutiny

The Ankara summit will not be a mere procedural formality. According to an article from a European think tank cited by euinsider.eu, Washington now wants concrete proof that promised money is actually being disbursed, not just announcements designed to temporarily placate the White House. For many European governments, reaching 5% means brutal arithmetic: cut elsewhere, borrow more, or both.

The summit's final declaration, already approved by NATO ambassadors according to Reuters, is set to reaffirm an ironclad commitment to collective defense under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Members are also expected to pledge 70 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine for 2026, with at least equivalent levels planned for 2027.

Donald Trump's ambiguous but necessary role

I cannot write this letter without honestly addressing Donald Trump's role in this budgetary awakening. Despite his repeated, sometimes brutal, criticism of NATO, which he has called a ridiculous and one-way support structure according to remarks reported by WION, it is precisely his constant pressure that forced Europeans out of their budgetary torpor. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed in early June that the American president would indeed attend the Turkish summit.

On this specific point, deterrence against Russia, I credit Trump without reservation. It is a credit that cannot be taken from him, even while criticizing other aspects of his domestic record. Realpolitik does not need to be likable to be effective.

The real price of the 5% commitment

Sums that are dizzying

According to projections from SIPRI, the Swedish peace research institute, if all NATO allies reach the 5% target by 2035, they would need to allocate roughly 1.4 trillion dollars more per year in military spending compared to 2024 just to reach 3.5% of GDP. To reach the full 5%, that would be nearly 2.7 trillion dollars more, pushing the Alliance's total spending to roughly 4.2 trillion dollars by 2035.

In concrete terms, Germany would need to spend roughly 329 billion dollars by 2035, France 221 billion, and Italy 158 billion. These are sums that will permanently reshape European public budgets and force painful political trade-offs in societies already worn down by inflation.

The internal resistance that persists

Not everything is settled. Spain remains the only country formally exempt from the 5% target, having negotiated a ceiling around 2.1% of GDP, according to the factbox from the Anadolu Agency. Belgium and Slovakia have also voiced reservations. A researcher at the European Policy Centre, Paul Taylor, called the target unrealistic, estimating that most allies, including heavyweights like the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, will probably not reach it.

These reservations deserve to be taken seriously rather than swept aside with triumphalist dismissal. A political commitment without an enforcement mechanism remains, by nature, fragile against internal budgetary pressure.

What the carnage in Kyiv reminds Europe

Russian brutality as the ultimate argument

If some European leaders still needed a reminder of the urgency, the events of July 1 and 2, 2026, delivered one in blood. Russia launched one of its most devastating attacks on Kyiv since the war began, with 570 drones and missiles, killing at least 27 people according to the Institute for the Study of War, a toll that kept climbing in the following days to 30 confirmed deaths reported by Mayor Vitali Klitschko.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the strikes as part of a deadly pattern of bombing populated areas, according to remarks relayed by his spokesman Stephane Dujarric. Civilian casualties in Ukraine rose 40% between December 2025 and May 2026 compared with the same period the previous year.

Why this context justifies the budgetary urgency

These figures are not abstract statistics meant for a diplomatic report. They are human lives destroyed by a regime that stubbornly refuses any serious negotiation, despite repeated Ukrainian attempts to propose official and unofficial channels for talks, according to statements from President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Every euro invested in Western defense today is a euro that could, tomorrow, save Ukrainian lives or deter a future attack on an Alliance member state. This is not budgetary abstraction, it is a matter of collective survival.

Aid to Ukraine, the cornerstone of the summit

Seventy billion euros, a strong signal

According to the text of the Ankara declaration approved by ambassadors and revealed by Reuters, NATO members are committing to provide 70 billion euros in military assistance to Ukraine for 2026, with a pledge to maintain at least equivalent levels in 2027. This is a considerable sum reflecting a willingness to support Kyiv over the long term, rather than in fits and starts dictated by the news cycle.

This funding builds on a mechanism already established since last September, allowing allies to finance Ukraine's armament through purchases coordinated by NATO from American industry, a solution that satisfies both Ukrainian needs and Washington's commercial interests.

The question that remains unanswered

A central question remains that the Ankara summit will probably not fully resolve: can Europe defend itself alone if the United States were to further reduce its commitment, as posed by researcher Stephen Wertheim of the Carnegie Endowment. It is no longer just a question of how much Europe spends, but whether it can act autonomously in the event of a sharper American disengagement.

This question deserves to be asked without either complacency or panic. Europe has made real progress, but it remains dependent on critical American capabilities, particularly satellite intelligence and advanced missile defense.

Turkey, the strategic host of a high-stakes summit

Ankara wants to reset relations with Trump

The choice of Turkey as host country is no accident. In April 2026, Ankara had already expressed hope that NATO would use this summit to reset its relationship with Donald Trump and prepare for a possible reduction in American participation, according to Reuters. Turkish presidential spokesman Burhanettin Duran said Turkey itself aims to reach the combined 3.5 plus 1.5% target by the end of 2030, ahead of the general schedule.

Bilateral talks between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Donald Trump are considered likely on the sidelines of the summit, a sign that personal diplomacy will continue to play a central role in how the Alliance functions under this American administration.

Heightened security for a sensitive summit

The city of Ankara has been placed under a massive security operation, according to India Today, reflecting persistent tensions within the Alliance and the explosive geopolitical context surrounding this meeting. Tensions notably concern burden-sharing on finances and American complaints about insufficient allied involvement in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

These frictions are a reminder that the unity on display in official communiques often masks very real disagreements between Western capitals, both on strategic priorities and on how to achieve them.

The defense industry, a blind spot ignored for too long

Production capacity struggling to keep pace

Raising budgets is not enough if industry cannot produce fast enough. According to analysis relayed by Bloomberg and echoed in specialized reporting, the American defense industry, like its European rival, is struggling to speed up production to meet rising demand. Giants like Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, KNDS, and ThyssenKrupp find themselves swamped with orders they struggle to fulfill within reasonable timeframes.

This industrial reality may be the biggest hidden risk of the 5% commitment: promising money is one thing, turning that money into functioning howitzers, munitions, and air defense systems is another, far more logistically complex, matter.

Massive American arms purchases as bargaining chips

According to Le Monde, NATO allies are also expected to announce major arms purchases, notably American ones, worth tens of billions of dollars, in an explicit effort to win favor with the White House. This strategy, though pragmatic, raises questions about the balance between European industrial sovereignty and continued dependence on American suppliers.

It is a balancing act: strengthening the Alliance while avoiding a total sacrifice of long-term European industrial autonomy, a dilemma that will likely run through debates for years to come.

The 2029 review, a decisive milestone to watch

An oversight mechanism without real sanctions

The The Hague agreement calls for a collective review of progress in 2029, after the next American presidential election, according to official NATO documentation. Yet, as the NATOWatch group's report points out, these new spending targets amount to a political commitment without a binding enforcement mechanism. In other words, nothing formally prevents a country from missing its targets without direct consequence.

This is where the agreement's real fragility lies: its strength rests entirely on political will and peer pressure, not automatic institutional sanctions. A future, less committed government could theoretically slow its efforts without immediately paying the price.

Why public pressure must continue

This is precisely why I am writing this letter to you, NATO's leaders: European and North American citizens must remain vigilant and keep demanding accountability for these commitments, year after year, summit after summit. Democracy requires institutional memory, not just one-off promises celebrated with triumphant communiques.

I commit, as a columnist, to keep tracking this file with the same rigor, regardless of which party holds power in the capitals concerned. Collective security should never be a partisan issue.

Displayed unity against real fractures

The risk of a summit without major incident, but without major ambition

According to a report from US News, NATO is even considering ending its annual summits, worn down by repeated tensions from its complicated relationship with Donald Trump. The The Hague summit, which had concluded without major incident, was already viewed as a positive outcome in itself, given how low expectations had sunk for transatlantic cooperation.

This shift in expectations, from ambitious success toward the mere absence of diplomatic catastrophe, says a great deal about the fragile state of relations within the Alliance, even as the budget numbers keep moving in the right direction.

What history will remember about this pivotal moment

Ten years from now, historians may judge this Ankara summit as the moment when Europe finally stopped taking its security for granted. Or, in a darker scenario, as a missed opportunity where fine words never translated into the promised budget actions.

The fate of this commitment will depend on the concrete political choices made in each national capital over the coming years, far more than on the speeches delivered in Ankara on July 7 and 8.

The Polish and Baltic example, a lesson for everyone

Living close to the threat changes everything

It is no accident that the countries geographically closest to Russia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, are already far exceeding their targets. According to the factbox from the Anadolu Agency, these countries understood, often since 2022 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, that geographic proximity imposes a budgetary urgency that more distant nations tend to underestimate.

This geographic contrast reveals an uncomfortable truth: transatlantic solidarity works better when the threat is perceived as immediate, and fades when it seems distant, even though security experts agree the Russian threat concerns the entire European continent, not just its eastern border.

What Western capitals should take from this

Governments in Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Rome should draw inspiration from this Baltic and Polish urgency, rather than treating their 2035 targets as a distant horizon with no immediate pressure. The strategic time available before a possible major escalation is not infinite, and military investments take years to translate into concrete operational capability.

This is a message I want to send directly to my Western readers: your collective security depends on budgetary decisions made today, not in ten years, when the window of opportunity may already have closed.

The trap of budgetary complacency

Five percent, a figure that could also become an empty slogan

I want to end this section with a sincere warning: the 5% figure could, in the years ahead, become a hollow political slogan if governments settle for including spending loosely tied to security, such as relabeled civilian infrastructure, to artificially inflate their statistics. The SIPRI report notes that the exact definition of what counts toward the additional 1.5% remains vague.

This definitional ambiguity poses a real risk of watering down the original commitment. Without strict, verifiable criteria, some governments could be tempted to disguise ordinary spending as defense investment to satisfy the statistics without actually strengthening military capability.

The demand for transparency I make on behalf of citizens

This is why, in this letter, I am calling for total transparency about the exact nature of spending counted toward this 5% target. Citizens who are funding this colossal effort through their taxes deserve to know precisely where their money is going, not just aggregated percentages presented at triumphant press conferences.

Without this transparency, there is a risk that the The Hague target becomes an empty statistical shell, satisfying indicators without actually strengthening deterrence against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

The West against its global strategic rivals

Deterrence that goes beyond the Russian file alone

This Western rearmament effort is not about Russia alone. China continues to rapidly modernize its military arsenal, while Iran and North Korea pursue programs that worry Western intelligence services. The 5% target must be understood as a global response to an increasingly unstable multipolar world, where Western democracies can no longer afford the strategic naivete of the post-Cold War decades.

The coherence of this rearmament doctrine requires that Western allies, including beyond NATO itself, coordinate more closely with partners like Japan, Australia, and South Korea, who also face direct regional threats.

Why the West must remain the strategic center of gravity

I continue to believe, against fashionable relativist arguments, that the West must remain the strategic and normative center of gravity of the world. This does not mean ignoring legitimate criticism directed at Western democracies, but flatly rejecting the idea that authoritarian regimes like those in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, or Pyongyang represent an acceptable alternative to the rules-based international order.

This conviction underlies this entire letter, and explains why I consider the 5% commitment, despite its flaws and gray areas, fundamentally necessary for the future of our free societies.

Public support, a variable too often ignored

Public opinion still divided over the budgetary effort

Beyond the summit halls, public buy-in for this rearmament effort remains uneven from country to country. In several Western democracies, recent polls show majority support for backing Ukraine, but weaker support when it comes to accepting cuts in other budget areas to fund defense spending. This tension between geopolitical solidarity and internal social trade-offs should not be underestimated by the governments negotiating in Ankara.

European leaders will need to explain, in their own parliaments and to their own voters, why these colossal sums are justified, or risk seeing the The Hague commitment run into electoral resistance in the years ahead, especially if populist parties exploit fiscal discontent.

Why strategic public education remains essential

This is where the role of political leaders, but also of columnists and analysts like myself, becomes central: to explain, tirelessly, why this public money, however considerable, concretely protects lives and free societies. Without this constant public education, the risk of a political backlash against rearmament remains real in several Western capitals.

I believe this battle for public opinion will ultimately prove just as decisive as the budget negotiations themselves for the durability of the commitment made to NATO and to Ukraine.

Conclusion: a letter of demands, not of flattery

What I concretely expect from the Ankara summit

In closing this letter, dear leaders of NATO, I ask you to turn Ankara's words into verifiable budgetary action, year after year, without waiting for the 2029 review to be held accountable. The citizens of your respective countries, who will fund this colossal effort, deserve total transparency about how these considerable sums are used.

I also ask you never to forget that these abstract figures ultimately represent human lives protected, whether in Ukraine today or potentially in a Baltic country tomorrow, should deterrence falter.

A final word to my Western readers

And to you, readers of this letter, I ask that you remain vigilant and demanding toward your own governments. Collective security is not a topic reserved for experts in international relations, it is a fundamental democratic question that deserves your constant attention and ongoing citizen pressure.

History does not forgive repeated strategic naivete. Let us collectively hope that this Ankara summit marks a lasting turning point, and not just one more episode in a long series of broken promises.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I am a columnist and analyst, not a neutral journalist in the classic sense. I hold a pro-Western and pro-Ukraine editorial line, and I consider collective military deterrence necessary against the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean authoritarian regimes. On the specific military file covered in this letter, I credit Donald Trump for his pressure in favor of European rearmament, while remaining critical of other aspects of his domestic policy, which I address in other pieces.

I have never personally attended NATO meetings nor obtained direct confidences from officials present in Ankara. My information comes exclusively from public, verifiable sources cited in this article.

What I do not know, and my method

I cannot predict with certainty whether the 5% targets will actually be met by 2035, nor how the relationship between Washington and its European allies will evolve over the next decade. These uncertainties are real, and I prefer to acknowledge them rather than claim a clairvoyance I do not have.

My method consists of systematically cross-checking multiple primary and secondary sources before advancing a fact or figure, and always clearly distinguishing corroborated facts from my personal opinions, explicitly marked as such in the text.

Sources

Primary sources

Forbes, what defense leaders will discuss at the 2026 NATO summit — July 1, 2026

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

NATO, defense investment and the 5% commitment — official document

Al-Monitor, NATO leaders including Trump to affirm ironclad commitment to collective defense in Ankara — July 3, 2026

Secondary sources

The Straits Times, NATO leaders gather in Ankara aiming to smooth over tensions with Trump

Anadolu Agency, factbox on where NATO allies stand ahead of the Ankara summit — July 1, 2026

SIPRI, NATO's new spending target, challenges and risks

Carnegie Endowment, ahead of the Ankara summit, NATO's mood has shifted — July 1, 2026

Kyiv Post, UN chief condemns Russia's deadly attack on Kyiv — July 3, 2026