# Rutte Confirms It, Zelensky Will Wait on the Sidelines of the Ankara Summit > Introduction: a confirmation that surprises no one anymore - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Column - Published: 2026-07-03 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/chronique-rutte-confirme-zelensky-attendra-en-marge-du-sommet-dankara ## Key takeaways - Rutte's June 17, 2026 confirmation follows a pattern seen at The Hague summit last year. - The announcement came the day after a Brussels Defense ministerial where U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth criticized European allies' low military investment. - The author says the plenary is the most solemn part of a summit, so excluding Zelensky carries heavy symbolic weight. - Poland, the Baltic states and the United Kingdom reportedly favor faster Ukrainian integration, while other capitals fear escalation with Russia. - The article notes no high-level NATO-Ukraine Council meeting is currently scheduled in Ankara, which worries some analysts cited by the Atlantic Council. ## Introduction: a confirmation that surprises no one anymore ### An expected, almost routine announcement On **June 17, 2026**, NATO Secretary General **Mark Rutte** confirmed what many already suspected: **Volodymyr Zelensky** will not take part in the general meeting of the **32 allied leaders** at the **Ankara** **summit**, scheduled for **July 7 and 8, 2026**, according to **News Front**. The Ukrainian president will instead get a separate program, with multiple bilateral meetings organized alongside the main **summit**. This announcement, made without much theater at a press briefing, confirms a **pattern** already seen last year at **The Hague**. But the simple fact that this question requires an official clarification says a lot about the lingering sensitivity surrounding Ukraine's place within the collective bodies of the Atlantic Alliance. ### Why every word from **Rutte** matters on this file Mark **Rutte** has occupied a tightrope-walker position since his appointment: he must reassure the **allies** most wary of a direct confrontation with **Russia**, while maintaining a credible posture of support for **Kyiv**. His June 17 statement perfectly illustrates this permanent diplomatic balancing act. Every **nuance** in his speech is scrutinized closely, both by Western capitals and by the **Kremlin**, which systematically looks for signs of cracks in the Alliance's displayed unity against Russian aggression. ## The immediate context of this confirmation ### A tense Defense ministerial in **Brussels** This clarification on the **Ankara** format comes the day after the Defense ministerial in **Brussels**, marked by the fiery speech of U.S. Secretary of War **Pete Hegseth**, who sharply criticized the lack of military investment by several European **allies**. This climate of transatlantic tension makes handling the Ukraine file all the more delicate for Rutte. In this already loaded context, adding another **controversy** over **Zelensky's** participation could have further weakened the Alliance's cohesion ahead of the July **summit**. ### A tight schedule before **Ankara** The three weeks separating this announcement from the summit itself leave little time to adjust the format or organize the multiple bilateral meetings promised to **Zelensky**. This scheduling constraint partly explains why the Alliance preferred to reuse an already tested format rather than innovate just weeks before the deadline. Still, this logic of **organizational simplicity** does not entirely dispel the unease felt by some observers over the repetition of this pattern of partial exclusion. ## The symbolic weight of the 32-member **plenary session** ### What this table of heads of state really represents The **plenary session** bringing together **NATO's** **32 leaders** is the most solemn moment of any allied summit: it is where, in principle, the most structural decisions for the Alliance's future are made. Not having access to it concretely means being excluded from the very heart of the collective decision-making process. For a country at **war** for more than three years, whose strategic future depends directly on decisions made by this same Alliance, this **protocol exclusion** carries a particularly heavy weight of meaning. ### The contrast with declarations of displayed solidarity This contrast between Western declarations of unwavering solidarity with **Ukraine** and the protocol reality of its exclusion from the plenary table is not without irony. Words of support, however sincere, sometimes struggle to translate into the most visible symbolic gestures. It is a gap that **Volodymyr Zelensky**, whose resilience in this situation commands respect, has learned to manage with remarkable pragmatism since the start of the **war**. ## Bilateral meetings, the real **diplomacy** of **Ankara** ### A dense program of strategic one-on-ones The separate program planned for **Zelensky** is expected to include a series of bilateral meetings with the leaders of the countries most committed to military support for **Ukraine**, a method that has historically often delivered concrete commitments faster than collective plenary declarations. These direct exchanges offer the advantage of **flexibility**: each leader can address specific files, whether **arms deliveries**, long-term **security** guarantees, or support for Ukrainian economic reconstruction. ### The diplomatic art of turning a constraint into an opportunity The Ukrainian government has clearly chosen to turn this protocol constraint into a diplomatic opportunity, maximizing the impact of each bilateral meeting rather than lamenting the lack of access to the **plenary session**. This pragmatic approach reflects a diplomatic maturity earned at great cost since 2022. Still, this workaround strategy, however effective in practice, does not resolve the underlying question: why does **Ukraine** continue to be treated differently from the Alliance's other strategic partners? ## The Alliance's internal divisions on this file ### Advocates of accelerated integration Several **allies**, notably **Poland**, the Baltic states, and the **United Kingdom**, have long pushed for faster, more visible integration of **Ukraine** into **NATO** structures. Their geographic position, close to the theater of **war**, makes them particularly sensitive to any form of excessive caution toward **Moscow**. These countries believe every **protocol hesitation** sends a signal of weakness to **Vladimir Putin**, one likely to encourage a prolongation of the conflict rather than a quick resolution in **Kyiv's** favor. ### Proponents of persistent diplomatic caution Conversely, other capitals favor a more measured approach, fearing that too rapid an integration of **Ukraine** into NATO structures could trigger uncontrollable **escalation** with **Russia**. This internal rift, real but rarely admitted publicly, complicates any consensus on a more inclusive format. The result of these **tensions** plays out, summit after summit, as cautious compromises that fully satisfy neither camp within the Alliance. ## How **Moscow** views this protocol management ### The **Kremlin** scrutinizes every sign of Western division It would be naive to think the **Kremlin** is unaware of these protocol subtleties. Every sign of Western caution toward integrating **Ukraine** into allied structures directly feeds the Russian narrative that Western unity remains, deep down, fragile and open to manipulation. This reading, even if partly exaggerated by Russian propaganda, rests on tangible elements: the repetition of this **restricted format** across several consecutive summits offers very real rhetorical material to **Kremlin** communicators. ### The stakes of symbolic consistency against propaganda Every ambiguous protocol decision becomes, in the hands of Russian propagandists, proof of a hesitant, divided West. This is precisely why the Alliance's symbolic consistency toward **Ukraine** matters almost as much as concrete **arms deliveries** on the ground. Vladimir **Putin** has bet from the start on the erosion of Western determination; every ambiguous signal, however minor, reinforces this long-term strategic calculation. ## What this means for the future of Ukrainian **membership** ### A question carefully avoided This **restricted format** inevitably points back to the broader and more sensitive question of **Ukraine's** future **membership** in **NATO**, a file that most allied leaders prefer to avoid addressing head-on, fearing an uncontrollable reaction from **Moscow**. As long as this underlying question stays in diplomatic limbo, formats for Ukrainian participation in summits will likely continue to reflect this structural unease rather than genuine strategic clarity. ### The trap of a prolonged status quo The danger, in my view, lies in the indefinite prolongation of this uncomfortable status quo, which satisfies the Alliance's short-term crisis-management needs but keeps postponing a structural decision that the severity of Ukraine's situation has long demanded. Every additional year of status quo objectively benefits those in **Moscow** who hope time will gradually erode Western determination to fully integrate Ukraine into its collective **security** architecture. ## **Trump's** role in this diplomatic equation ### An American administration with scattered priorities The **Trump** administration approaches this file with attention divided among several competing priorities: pressure on European allies over burden-sharing, managing the Iran file, and growing strategic rivalry with **China** in the Indo-Pacific. Ukraine, without disappearing from the agenda, must now share American attention with these other urgent files. This **dispersal** of American priorities complicates **Washington's** ability to use its full diplomatic weight to change the format of Ukrainian participation at Alliance summits. ### A necessary evil whose attention remains fluctuating I continue to view **Donald Trump** as a necessary evil for the West in the current geopolitical context, but his fluctuating attention to the Ukraine file, compared to his more consistent firmness on other **fronts**, illustrates the limits of this administration's strategic consistency. This may be the real challenge for **Kyiv**: keeping **Washington's** attention on its file while so many other international crises compete for American presidential priority. ## Lessons from the **The Hague** summit applied to Ankara ### What worked, what still needs fixing The format used last year at **The Hague** avoided any major diplomatic incident, while giving **Zelensky** several bilateral meetings that Ukrainian diplomats themselves called productive. On this strictly practical level, reusing this format for Ankara follows a logic of reassuring continuity. But this protocol continuity should not stop the Alliance from seriously considering a future evolution, once the geopolitical context allows, toward fuller inclusion of Ukraine in its decision-making bodies. ### The worrying absence of the high-level **NATO-Ukraine** Council Unlike some previous summits, no high-level meeting of the **NATO-Ukraine Council** is currently scheduled in Ankara, an omission that worries several analysts specializing in transatlantic relations, notably those cited by the **Atlantic Council**. This absence, if confirmed through the summit, would represent a symbolic step backward from previous formats, a signal that neither **Kyiv** nor its most committed supporters should accept without firmly pushing back. ## What this affair reveals about the Alliance's governance ### A 32-way consensus that slows any symbolic boldness The need to reach consensus among **32 members** with sometimes opposing diplomatic sensitivities partly explains why **NATO** struggles to quickly evolve its protocol treatment of the Ukraine question. Every decision, even a symbolic one, must contend with the reluctance of the most cautious member of the group. This lowest-common-denominator dynamic, inherent to any multilateral organization of this size, structurally limits the Alliance's ability to adopt bold postures, even when the situation on the ground would call for a more determined response. ### The price of a united façade This constant concern for preserving a united façade among the **32 allies** comes at a cost: slowness and excessive caution in the face of a war that, itself, knows none of these procedural constraints. While the Alliance negotiates its protocol formats, **Russia** continues its offensive against Ukraine relentlessly. It is this time lag between urgency on the ground and allied bureaucratic slowness that should, in my view, alarm Western leaders more than the mere question of a summit format. ## Kyiv's legitimate expectations for the future ### A demand for lasting institutional clarity The Ukrainian government, through several diplomats, has expressed the wish to eventually obtain permanent institutional clarity on its status within **NATO** bodies, rather than having to negotiate, summit after summit, the precise terms of its participation. This demand, perfectly legitimate given the sacrifice Ukraine has made since 2022, would deserve a more structured response from all **32 allies**, beyond mere one-off protocol adjustments. ### The test of Western consistency over the long term At its core, this question of the Ankara format is only a symptom of a much broader issue: the West's ability to maintain, year after year, strategic and symbolic consistency toward **Ukraine**, regardless of each member country's internal political fluctuations. It is this consistency, more than any one-off declaration of support, that will ultimately determine the lasting credibility of Western commitment against Russian aggression. ## The Ankara summit as a test of collective credibility ### A packed agenda that goes beyond the Ukraine question alone Beyond the format reserved for **Zelensky**, the **Ankara** summit will need to settle several crucial files: the military spending commitments of the **32 members**, the collective response to American criticism voiced by **Pete Hegseth**, and the future coordination of support for Ukraine amid a war that keeps dragging on. This packed agenda risks pushing the Ukrainian protocol question into the media background, even though its symbolic importance remains, in my view, far from negligible for the future of relations between Kyiv and the Alliance. ### What history will remember of this summit In a few years, historians will probably judge the Ankara summit less on its protocol format than on the concrete commitments made regarding military support and **defense** production for **Ukraine**. But how the Alliance symbolically treats its Ukrainian partner will also remain a revealing indicator of its true collective determination. It is this dual reading, symbolic and substantive, that should guide our assessment of this summit once its conclusions are officially published in early July. ## Historical precedents of partial exclusion within the Alliance ### Non-member partners already facing this dilemma Ukraine is not the first strategic NATO partner to experience this kind of **restricted format**. Other partner countries, without full member status, have already faced similar protocol arrangements at previous summits, generally tied to difficult-to-reach internal consensus among the **32 allies**. But Ukraine's situation stands apart sharply because of its urgency: none of these historical precedents involved a country engaged in an existential conflict of this scale against a nuclear power like **Russia**. ### Why this precedent should not apply as-is to Kyiv Comparing **Ukraine's** situation to older, less urgent NATO partnerships amounts, in my view, to seriously minimizing the specificity of its current fight. Kyiv is not asking for a symbolic honorary status: it is asking for a seat at the table where its own strategic survival is concretely being decided. This essential distinction is one the Alliance should keep in mind before simply reusing formats designed for far less urgent diplomatic contexts. ## What allies could still change before July ### A narrow but still open window Despite **Mark Rutte's** confirmation, there theoretically remains a three-week window before the summit's official opening to adjust certain elements of the program, notably the possibility of reintroducing a high-level meeting of the **NATO-Ukraine Council** currently absent from the schedule. This window, though narrow, still offers room to maneuver for the diplomats most determined to fix what they see as a symbolic gap in the treatment given to Ukraine. ### A call to mobilize the most committed allies The countries most committed to supporting **Kyiv**, notably **Poland** and the Baltic states, could still push, behind diplomatic closed doors in the coming weeks, to enrich the program reserved for **Zelensky**, beyond the bilateral meetings already announced. The success of this mobilization will depend largely on these allies' political will to pressure more cautious capitals, in the very few weeks left before the summit's opening. ## Conclusion: between pragmatism and unfinished symbolism ### A format that satisfies the form, not the substance **Mark Rutte's** confirmation closes, at least temporarily, the uncertainty over **Volodymyr Zelensky's** participation format at the **Ankara** summit. But this protocol clarification does nothing to resolve the underlying question: the real place the West is willing to give Ukraine in its collective **security** architecture, today and in the years ahead. Kyiv's diplomatic pragmatism, choosing to maximize the impact of bilateral meetings rather than directly contesting this format, deserves recognition. But it should never excuse the Alliance from seriously considering a future evolution of this protocol treatment. ### The real reckoning remains concrete action In the end, what will really matter for **Ukraine** after the Ankara summit will not be the seating chart at the plenary session, but the real scale of commitments made on **arms deliveries**, **defense** production, and long-term **security** guarantees. It is on these concrete criteria, not on protocol, that history will judge the sincerity of Western support for a country that keeps paying, every day, the price in blood for the security of an entire continent. **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 - [News Front — Zelenskyy to take part in a separate meeting of NATO leaders, Rutte confirms — June 17, 2026](https://en.news-front.su/2026/06/17/zelenskyy-to-take-part-in-a-separate-meeting-of-nato-leaders-rutte/) - [Caliber.az — NATO confirms restricted format for Zelenskyy at Ankara summit — June 17, 2026](https://caliber.az/en/post/nato-confirms-restricted-format-for-zelenskyy-at-ankara-summit) ### Secondary sources - [Euronews — Ukraine's President Zelenskyy invited to NATO summit in Ankara, Rutte confirms — May 22, 2026](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/05/22/ukraines-president-zelenskyy-invited-to-nato-summit-in-ankara-rutte-confirms) - [Atlantic Council — NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the Ankara Summit Agenda — June 26, 2026](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/nato-secretary-general-mark-rutte-on-the-ankara-summit-agenda/) - [BBC News — Hegseth renews Nato criticism and says US will review presence in Europe — June 18, 2026](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vy5l62622o) - [Reuters — Hegseth blasts NATO members, announces review of US forces in Europe — June 18, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/world/hegseth-blasts-nato-members-announces-review-us-forces-europe-2026-06-18/) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/chronique-rutte-confirme-zelensky-attendra-en-marge-du-sommet-dankara