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

> Dear leaders of NATO, I am writing you this open letter just days before the Ankara summit, scheduled for July 7 and

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Open letter
- Published: 2026-07-05
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-l-otan-qui-ose-enfin-viser-5-du-pib-pour-sa-defense

## Key takeaways

- The Hague summit in June 2025 committed all 32 members, except Spain (which secured a waiver), to 5% of GDP by 2035: 3.5% for core military spending and 1.5% for broader security spending.
- The author credits Donald Trump's pressure with forcing European rearmament, while criticizing other aspects of his record.
- Poland and Latvia are cited as already exceeding or nearing their targets, and all 32 members met the 2% threshold in 2025.
- SIPRI projections suggest the Alliance could need roughly 2.7 trillion dollars more per year by 2035 to reach the full 5%, and critics such as Paul Taylor call the target unrealistic.
- The Ankara declaration reportedly includes 70 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine for 2026, with at least equivalent levels planned for 2027.

## 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.

*I will say it upfront: I have never been gentle toward European governments that enjoyed the American security umbrella for decades without paying their fair share. This letter is not an exercise in flattery, it is a deliberate reckoning, paired with genuine respect for those who are finally opening their wallets.*

## 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.

*I won't hide my satisfaction writing this: watching countries like Poland and the Baltic states blow past their targets years ahead of schedule is exactly the kind of strategic wake-up call Europe should have had back in 2014. Those still dragging their feet no longer have a credible excuse.*

## 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.

*I know this stance will upset readers who want uniform criticism of Trump on every front. But I refuse the caricature: on the military file, and on the pressure that finally made Europe pay its share, the man was right, and it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge it.*

## 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.

*I prefer clear-eyed optimism to blind enthusiasm. Yes, the 5% target is ambitious to the point of seeming unreasonable for some countries, but the alternative, continuing to underinvest while Russia rearms massively, would be a far more dangerous existential gamble than a few years of consented budgetary austerity.*

## 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.

*I refuse to treat this war as a distant conflict that does not concern Western Europe directly. Every strike on Kyiv is a message sent to Warsaw, to Vilnius, to Berlin. Anyone who still believes Putin's Russia would stop at Ukraine's border in the event of victory is living in dangerous denial.*

## 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.

*I believe Europe must accelerate its own strategic autonomy, not to replace NATO, but to strengthen it. An ally capable of defending itself is a more reliable ally, not one abandoning the transatlantic ship.*

## 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.

*I find Turkey's position fascinating and revealing: a country sometimes criticized for its authoritarian domestic drift finds itself acting as a strategic mediator between Washington and an anxious Europe. Geopolitics has no use for absolute moral consistency, it feeds on converging interests.*

## 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.

*I believe this dependence on American industry, while it reassures Washington in the short term, weakens Europe in the long run. Investing in its own defense industrial base is not a nationalist whim, it is a basic strategic necessity.*

## 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.

*I deeply believe citizen vigilance is the only real enforcement mechanism available here. Without constant public pressure, these fine summit commitments risk dissolving into Brussels bureaucratic routine, like so many promises before them.*

## 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**.

*I want to believe in the sincerity of this commitment, but I will remain a demanding observer. The history of military alliances is littered with broken promises; this one has the potential to be different, provided the pressure, internal and external, never lets up.*

## 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.

*I deeply respect the strategic courage of the Baltic states and Poland, who have accepted budgetary sacrifices that other, richer nations farther from the Russian border still refuse to make. It is a lesson in humility for the major Western capitals.*

## 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**.

*I always prefer critical clarity over blind enthusiasm, even on a file where I fundamentally support the direction taken. Applauding without checking would betray my role as a columnist as much as it would weaken democratic accountability.*

## 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.

*I know this stance will be labeled West-centric by some critics, and I fully accept that label. I do not believe in a moral equivalence between the imperfect democracies of the West and authoritarian regimes that repress their own populations while threatening their neighbors.*

## 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**.

*I believe Western governments have too often neglected this educational battle, preferring spectacular announcements to patient explanation. Without durably convincing their own citizens, these budgetary commitments will remain vulnerable to future electoral reversals.*

## 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.

*I end this letter with a simple conviction: the West's credibility is now measured in percentages of GDP as much as in speeches. Ankara will be a test, not an end in itself, and I will keep demanding accountability, summit after summit.*

**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

- 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

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-l-otan-qui-ose-enfin-viser-5-du-pib-pour-sa-defense