To NATO's Allies, Before Ankara Becomes a Missed Rendezvous

Introduction: a letter addressed to Brussels, not Ankara

Why this letter, and why now

Dear leaders of the Atlantic Alliance, I am writing this open letter just days ahead of the NATO summit set to take place in Ankara on July 7 and 8, 2026, a summit that Turkish PresidentRecep Tayyip Erdogan himself has called the "strongest platform for sharing experience," according to Anadolu Agency. Thirty-two NATO leaders, along with officials from Gulf and Asia-Pacific partners, are expected in the Turkish capital, according to Reuters.

I am not writing to praise Turkey's merits or to downplay its historical ambiguities toward Russia. I am writing because this summit arrives at a hinge moment: the war in Ukraine continues, Iran remains a major source of instability in the Middle East, and China is watching every sign of division within the West with close attention. What you decide in Ankara will carry consequences far beyond the diplomatic reception halls.

What Erdogan is asking for, and why he's right to ask

Lifting restrictions on the defense trade

President Erdogan has been blunt: "If we want to meet the challenges we face, we must lift the restrictions on defense industry trade while ensuring a fair and balanced burden-sharing," he said according to Reuters. This demand isn't new: Turkey has long complained about American and European restrictions and embargoes on defense industry trade, imposed over differences in regional policy and Ankara's ties to Russia.

Dear allies, I'll say it directly: these restrictions, however justified they may look on paper, undermine the Alliance's real cohesion at the exact moment it needs it most. Boxing out Turkish defense capacity over narrow political interests, as Erdogan put it, "benefits no one."

A burden-sharing record Turkey says it's already carrying

"On burden-sharing, we are doing our part and will keep doing so," Erdogan insisted according to Anadolu Agency. The facts largely back him up: Turkey is increasing its defense spending and ranks among the top five contributors to NATO's missions and operations, in line with the commitments made at the Hague summit in 2025.

With a powerful military, modern military capabilities, and an advanced defense industry, Turkey stands among NATO's top-tier contributors to Alliance security for more than 70 years. Ignoring that contribution out of political calculation would mean punishing precisely the ally doing the most — a disastrous signal to send to the entire Alliance.

The geography that makes Turkey an irreplaceable ally

More than 1,800 kilometers of border with crisis zones

Erdogan pointed to a geographic fact too many Western allies underestimate: Turkey shares a land border of more than 1,800 kilometers with regions in crisis, according to Anadolu Agency. This unique border position makes Ankara the ally that "best understands the spirit of the new era," confronting daily security realities that Western European capitals only face through intelligence briefings.

This geographic proximity to regional instability is not a burden to manage with suspicion, but a strategic asset the Alliance should fully leverage. Turkey brings its allies both its "exceptional capacity to manage regional crises" and its deep experience within NATO.

A security environment at a historic turning point

The Turkish president described Euro-Atlantic security as passing through "a historic turning point," as war, crises, terrorism, and irregular migration along NATO's eastern and southeastern borders demand that the Alliance rethink its security approach, according to Anadolu Agency. "Old patterns and assumptions are collapsing one by one, while what will replace them isn't yet clear," he warned.

This assessment, coming from a leader who manages borders exposed daily to Syrian, Iranian, and Caucasian instability, deserves to be taken seriously by Western capitals sometimes more preoccupied with their internal budget balances than with the real gravity of the global geopolitical situation.

Turkey's diplomatic role in the Russia-Ukraine war

A phone call before the summit that speaks volumes

On June 29, 2026, Erdogan informed German ChancellorFriedrich Merz that Ankara was actively working to restart negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, according to the Turkish Directorate of Communications, cited by Euromaidan Press. "We are making efforts so that the war between Russia and Ukraine ends with a lasting peace, and we are working to restart negotiations and revive the diplomatic process," Erdogan said.

This announcement, made just days before the summit Ankara will host, illustrates Turkey's strategy of positioning itself as an indispensable mediator in this conflict, keeping open channels with Kyiv and Moscow since the full-scale invasion of 2022. It's a diplomatic card Erdogan plays skillfully, and one the West would be wrong to underestimate or dismiss out of excessive distrust.

The Istanbul precedent, between hope and disappointment

Negotiations between Ukrainian and Russian delegations had already taken place in Istanbul in May and June 2025, covering ceasefire terms, prisoner exchanges, and the broader terms of peace, according to Euromaidan Press. No ceasefire agreement resulted, but the talks did produce prisoner-of-war exchanges and the repatriation of fallen soldiers' remains.

That mixed record shouldn't discourage a fresh attempt: every freed prisoner, every set of remains returned to a family, is a tangible human outcome, even without a major diplomatic breakthrough. Ukrainian PresidentVolodymyr Zelensky has confirmed he will personally lead the Ukrainian delegation at the Ankara summit, a sign that Kyiv still trusts Turkish mediation despite the limited results so far.

What the summit must deliver for Ukraine

Arms contracts worth billions expected

According to Euromaidan Press, citing European Pravda, Alliance members are expected to commit at the Ankara summit to new arms-supply contracts worth billions of dollars and to increased weapons production, including for Ukraine. That is exactly the kind of concrete commitment Kyiv has been waiting on for months, beyond symbolic declarations of solidarity.

Erdogan himself said he hopes the summit will demonstrate "a strong commitment" to strengthening European defense on a NATO foundation and to preserving what he called the "transatlantic bond." These words matter, but it's the signed contracts and the actual deliveries that will determine whether Ankara is remembered as a summit of words or a summit of results.

Ukraine must not become a bargaining chip

I'll say this plainly to my readers and to the leaders involved: Ukraine cannot afford for this summit to become a communications exercise with no substance. Every additional month of war costs Ukrainian lives, and every delay in promised arms deliveries extends Russia's ability to sustain its war effort against a country that, in reality, is defending the democratic values of the entire West.

If Ankara is to be the site of a diplomatic step toward peace, that peace must be just and lasting, defined on Kyiv's terms, not imposed by Western exhaustion or media fatigue over a conflict now in its fifth year.

The other burning issues on the summit agenda

Iran, the Gulf, and 360-degree security

The summit will also tackle regional and global developments, notably Iran, the Gulf, and Gaza, in line with NATO's 360-degree security approach, according to Anadolu Agency. Tensions already exist within the Alliance over burden-sharing, defense spending, and American complaints about the limited involvement of some allies in reopening the Strait of Hormuz during the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, according to Reuters.

These internal tensions, real as they are, must not eclipse the summit's central goal: maintaining NATO's deterrence and strengthening solidarity among allies against shared adversaries, whether Russia in Europe or Iran in the Middle East. China, meanwhile, is watching closely for any sign of division to exploit elsewhere in the world.

The Kurdish question and the fight against the PKK

Ankara also expects greater support from its allies to end the more than 40-year insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), according to Reuters. This request, while politically sensitive for some Western partners, follows the same logic as Turkey's other demands: recognizing that a frontline ally facing direct security threats deserves consistent support rather than shifting positions based on each capital's diplomatic interests of the moment.

I understand the reservations some European governments have on this complex file, but I also believe Western inconsistency on Turkish security concerns feeds precisely the sense of abandonment Erdogan regularly invokes to justify his occasional overtures toward Moscow.

Turkey's integration into European defense initiatives

A European pillar being artificially kept at arm's length

Erdogan expressed the wish that Turkey be included in the defense and security initiatives announced by the European Union, noting that "excluding Turkey's defense capacity over narrow political interests benefits no one," according to Anadolu Agency. "As a nation with a say in developing the European pillar of the Alliance, we have the will to join every defense and security initiative on the continent," he added, according to Reuters.

This partial exclusion of Turkey from European defense architecture, driven largely by political considerations tied to EU accession and relations with Cyprus, deprives Europe of a rapidly expanding Turkish defense industry and considerable military capacity, at the exact moment the continent is trying to strengthen its strategic autonomy against Russia.

A European contribution routinely underrated

"Despite our contributions, it's also true that the indispensable benefits Turkey brings to European security are sometimes overlooked in certain situations," Erdogan lamented, according to Reuters. Far from a simple diplomatic complaint, that remark points to a real strategic inconsistency: how can Europe claim to be building a robust, autonomous defense while sidelining one of the most capable military actors in its immediate neighborhood?

Fixing this inconsistency doesn't mean giving Ankara a blank check on all its regional policies, but pragmatically recognizing that European security is built more effectively with Turkey than in spite of it.

Gaza, Palestine, and the Alliance's moral credibility

A firm position on the two-state solution

Erdogan also used his address to state that "lasting peace cannot be achieved in our region unless the occupation ends and Israel's ever-expanding land grab stops," advocating for an independent, sovereign, and territorially whole Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, according to Anadolu Agency. He referenced "recent deadly violence, particularly in Gaza and Lebanon," which he said had deeply wounded humanity's conscience.

This position, though I don't necessarily share every nuance of Turkish diplomacy on this complex file, points to an unavoidable truth: the West's moral credibility on the world stage cannot be built solely on defending Ukraine while ignoring civilian suffering elsewhere, including when that suffering involves Western partners.

A moral consistency the West sometimes struggles to show

I believe deeply that the West must remain the center of gravity of a rules-based international order, but that order loses credibility every time it applies a double standard depending on the nationality of the victims or the aggressors. Turkey's position on Gaza, even if it also serves Ankara's own regional diplomatic interests, points to a real tension the West should confront rather than ignore.

None of this changes my unwavering support for Ukraine against Russian aggression: both cases demand moral consistency, not a hierarchy of selective compassion based on the geopolitical alliances of the moment.

The challenge of mutual trust

What Turkey still needs to prove

This letter would not be honest if it failed to acknowledge the persistent gray areas of Turkish policy: its economic and energy ties with Russia, its controversial past purchase of Russian S-400 defense systems, and its recurring tensions with certain NATO members over Mediterranean disputes. These elements justify continued Western vigilance, not systematic punitive exclusion.

Mutual trust within a military alliance is never built through naivety, but it isn't built through permanent suspicion of an ally who, on the ground, has concretely contributed to collective defense for seven decades. Balancing vigilance and trust remains the most delicate diplomatic exercise this summit will have to navigate.

What the West must prove in return

Reciprocally, the West must prove to Ankara that its membership in the Alliance is not conditional on total obedience on every regional file. An alliance built on mutual respect requires that every partner, including the most powerful ones, genuinely listen to the legitimate concerns raised by its most geographically exposed members facing regional crises.

The Ankara summit offers a rare chance to restore that balance of trust, provided Western leaders don't show up simply to check a diplomatic box, but with a real willingness to address the structural demands raised by their Turkish host.

What this summit means for deterrence against Russia

A signal of cohesion Moscow is watching closely

Every NATO summit is scrutinized in Moscow with particular attention, looking for the slightest crack in the Alliance to exploit diplomatically or militarily. An Ankara summit marked by public disagreements over Turkish defense trade, burden-sharing, or Ankara's European integration would send exactly the kind of division signal the Kremlin hopes to see.

Conversely, a summit that manages to substantively address Turkish demands while maintaining a united front on Ukraine would send a message of Western cohesion worth, in deterrence terms, far more than any symbolic military deployment.

Deterrence is also built through internal coherence

I'll remind my readers and the leaders involved: Western military deterrence against Russia doesn't rest solely on weapons and deployed troops, but also on the perception of cohesion and collective resolve. A frustrated and marginalized ally, even one that remains technically a member of the Alliance, weakens that perception of cohesion in a subtle but very real way.

That's why this Ankara summit, despite looking like just another diplomatic gathering, carries strategic weight that extends far beyond Turkish issues themselves: it will test the West's ability to maintain substantive rather than merely symbolic unity.

A direct appeal to the leaders gathering in Ankara

Three concrete demands for a successful summit

Dear NATO leaders, I am putting three concrete demands to you before your arrival in Ankara. First, commit firmly to the new arms contracts for Ukraine referenced by European Pravda, without further delay or dilatory political conditions. Second, open a serious, structured dialogue on progressively lifting defense-trade restrictions with Turkey, in exchange for transparency guarantees on its future acquisitions.

Third, concretely integrate Turkey into the European defense initiatives under discussion, rather than keeping it in an institutional gray zone that serves neither Ankara's interests nor those of the whole continent facing a persistent Russian threat.

What history will remember about this summit

History will judge this summit not on the quality of its opening speeches, but on the substance of its concrete commitments and their actual implementation in the months that follow. An Ankara summit that produces signed contracts, accelerated arms deliveries for Ukraine, and deeper Turkish integration will mark real progress for Western security.

A summit that settles for declarations of unity with no concrete follow-through will, by contrast, confirm the worst fears of those who doubt the West's ability to turn its words into actions against adversaries who, for their part, never hesitate to act.

Why this letter is also addressed to you, the reader

Geopolitics is never a distant spectacle

Finally, I am speaking directly to you, the reader, because what gets decided in Ankara won't stay confined to diplomatic reception rooms. Every arms contract signed or delayed, every step forward or setback in Turkish mediation between Kyiv and Moscow, will have concrete repercussions on the length and outcome of a war that is already shaping the world order for decades to come.

Understanding these stakes, even from your own home, far from NATO's hushed corridors, lets you see why maintaining Western cohesion isn't a technocratic abstraction, but an essential condition of the collective security we all live under, directly or indirectly.

The urgency of a united West against coordinated rivals

Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are each, in their own way and according to their own interests, coordinating steady pressure on the international order that the West remains the principal guarantor of. Against this coordination, even an informal one, among authoritarian regimes, the smallest crack within the Atlantic Alliance represents an opportunity these adversaries won't hesitate to exploit.

This is the urgency I want to convey through this letter: the Ankara summit is not just another diplomatic gathering, it is a test of the West's ability to stay united in an increasingly dangerous and fragmented world.

The Hague summit precedent and the lessons to draw from it

Commitments made that must now be delivered

The Hague summit in 2025 had already set ambitious defense-spending targets for all NATO members, targets Erdogan explicitly cited while stressing Turkey's full compliance, according to Anadolu Agency. This precedent should serve as a reference point for Ankara: a summit is only worth as much as the actual implementation of its commitments in the months that follow, not just the quality of its closing communiqués.

Too often, NATO summits end with ambitious declarations that later struggle to translate into approved budgets and actual deliveries. Ankara must break this pattern, or the credibility of the NATO summit process itself will keep eroding among Western publics that are growing increasingly skeptical of unfulfilled promises.

A Western public that needs convincing

Citizens of NATO member countries, asked to fund growing defense budgets, deserve to see concrete results rather than repeated cycles of solemn summits with no measurable follow-up. This demand for results isn't rhetorical luxury, it's a condition for the long-term political sustainability of the Western defense effort against adversaries who face no such democratic constraint.

Convincing that public requires greater transparency about the progress of commitments made at The Hague and those to be made in Ankara — a transparency Western leaders should fully own rather than relegate behind the summit's official photos.

The role of allied parliaments in implementation

A responsibility that goes beyond heads of state

Erdogan reminded delegates, at the parliamentary summit held in Istanbul ahead of the heads-of-state summit, that "parliamentarians carry a major responsibility in helping guarantee the right to life," one of the most fundamental human rights, according to Anadolu Agency. This remark highlights an often overlooked aspect of NATO diplomacy: it is ultimately national parliaments that pass defense budgets and ratify arms contracts, not just heads of state gathered at a summit.

Without solid parliamentary backing in each member capital, the commitments made in Ankara will remain dead letters, no matter how solemn the speeches delivered at the summit. That's why mobilizing allied parliaments, far less prominent in the media than heads-of-state meetings, remains an equally essential condition for this summit's real success.

An example of parliamentary cooperation worth following

The Istanbul parliamentary summit, described by Erdogan as "a valuable sign of cooperation and solidarity among the parliaments of allied nations," according to Anadolu Agency, illustrates a dimension of NATO diplomacy that deserves more public attention. This interparliamentary cooperation, far from being a mere protocol exercise, directly shapes the Alliance's ability to translate its commitments into concrete budget actions.

Strengthening these parliamentary ties between allies, beyond heads-of-state summits alone, should become a structural priority for NATO, ensuring that decisions made in Ankara survive changes of government and electoral swings in each member capital.

Conclusion: Ankara, a credibility test for the entire West

What must change after this summit

The NATO summit in Ankara, on July 7 and 8, 2026, arrives at a moment when the West can no longer afford purely symbolic summits. Between the war in Ukraine demanding accelerated military support, persistent tensions with Iran, and Turkey's legitimate demands on defense trade and European integration, every issue on the Ankara agenda calls for concrete decisions rather than convenient diplomatic formulas.

This open letter does not claim to dictate the exact solution to every dispute to the leaders gathered there, but it demands, on behalf of a Western public increasingly aware of the geopolitical stakes, that this summit produce measurable results rather than mere statements of intent.

A final message to the allies

Dear leaders gathering in Ankara, history will not remember the quality of your speeches, but the solidity of your actions. Ukraine is waiting for weapons, Turkey is waiting for fair recognition of its contribution, and the whole world is watching to see whether the West still knows how to turn its proclaimed values into concrete decisions against adversaries who never hesitate to act.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I am a pro-Western, pro-Ukraine columnist, convinced that NATO remains the most essential security architecture for containing the ambitions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. On military and defense issues, I give the Trump administration credit when the Western posture stays solid, while acknowledging the real tensions its erratic diplomacy can sometimes create within the Alliance.

This open letter relies exclusively on Erdogan's public statements as reported by Anadolu Agency and Reuters, as well as information about the Erdogan-Merz call reported by Euromaidan Press. I did not invent a single quote or fact in this piece.

What I don't know, and my method

I don't know whether Turkish-mediated negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow will produce a concrete result this time, nor whether Western allies will actually respond to Turkish demands on defense trade. My method is to cross-reference official Turkish statements with independent reporting from Reuters and Euromaidan Press, avoiding speculation beyond what these sources explicitly confirm.

Sources

Primary sources

Reuters (via Internazionale), Turkey's Erdogan says NATO summit must emphasise unity and resilience — June 29, 2026

Anadolu Agency, NATO summit in Ankara to serve as strongest platform for sharing experience: President Erdogan — June 29, 2026

Secondary sources

Euromaidan Press, Erdoğan tells Merz Turkey is working to restart Russia-Ukraine peace talks ahead of Ankara NATO summit — June 29, 2026

Kyiv Independent, ongoing coverage of Western support for Ukraine — accessed July 2026

Foreign Policy, analysis on Turkish diplomacy within NATO — accessed July 2026

Military Times, background on NATO burden-sharing and defense spending — accessed July 2026