EDITORIAL: Hegseth's six-month review — the blackmail fracturing the alliance

EDITORIAL: Hegseth's six-month review — the blackmail fracturing the alliance

Introduction: Six months to decide whether Europe is worth defending

The announcement that chilled allied capitals

Some announcements change the climate of an alliance. One of them came before the Ankara summit: Pete Hegseth, the American Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, announced a 6-month review of American presence and contributions in Europe. Reported by The Guardian on June 27, 2026, this announcement planted deep anxiety among allies who, according to the same outlet, «fear they can no longer rely on US help if Russia attacks».

A «review»: the term is bureaucratic, almost innocuous. But in the context of a war in Ukraine, a Russian threat on the eastern flank, and an alliance still massively dependent on American military power, this review is a sword of Damocles. It says: in six months, we will decide whether Europe deserves our presence. And this conditionality — unprecedented in NATO's history — is blackmail wrapped in the language of administrative management.

Hegseth, instrument of a doctrine

Pete Hegseth does not act alone. He is implementing a consistent Trump doctrine since the first term: NATO must pay. Allies who do not spend enough are not entitled to unconditional American protection. This doctrine has a transactional logic that Trump fully assumes — and that directly contradicts the fundamental character of a collective alliance, where security is indivisible.

The Trump-Hegseth doctrine: transaction against solidarity

NATO as seen from Washington: an underpriced insurance contract

The Trump administration's vision of NATO is fundamentally transactional. The alliance is not a community of shared values and interests — it is a collective insurance contract whose premiums the United States pays at a rate too high relative to the others. Trump wants allies to pay their «fair share» — an ambiguous term that can mean 2% of GDP, 5%, or any other target depending on the political need of the moment.

This vision is not entirely wrong in its diagnosis: European allies did genuinely under-invest in their defense for decades, sheltering under the American umbrella without contributing proportionally. But the proposed remedy — creating uncertainty about American reliability — is potentially worse than the disease. An alliance that one of its members threatens to leave is an alliance weakened before its adversaries.

What the six months mean for allied military planners

Concretely, a 6-month review of American presence in Europe creates operational uncertainty for allied military planners. Joint exercises, defense plans, and command structures all depend on the presence of American forces on European soil. If that presence is called into question, deep revisions of collective defense plans become necessary.

The countries of the eastern flank — Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania — are most directly affected. The presence of American forces on their territory is not symbolic: it constitutes a credible deterrent because any Russian attack would immediately touch American soldiers. Questioning this potentially alters Moscow's risk calculation.

The fracture in the alliance: how far can it widen

Strategic trust: a fragile resource

Strategic trust between allies is a precious resource, difficult to rebuild once eroded. NATO functioned for 75 years on the basis of an American commitment perceived as reliable — not because the United States particularly liked its European allies, but because that commitment was consistent and predictable. This predictability was itself a tool of deterrence.

The deliberately unpredictable policy of Trump/Hegseth destroys this resource. Even if the 6-month review concludes in favor of maintaining American presence unchanged, the damage is done: allies now know that the question can be asked, that presence can be conditional, and that they cannot plan on the certainty of American commitment. That doubt does not disappear with a reassuring communiqué.

Allied responses: between adaptation and protest

Faced with this uncertainty, allies are responding in different ways. Some — Poland, the Baltic states — are accelerating their own defense spending to make their security less dependent on the United States. Others are seeking to strengthen intra-European bilateral partnerships as a partial substitute for the American umbrella. And a few, diplomatically, choose not to push Trump too hard, to avoid having him translate his rhetoric into action.

This diversity of responses reveals a fragmentation of allied coherence — precisely what Putin seeks to provoke. Dividing NATO, creating cracks between Washington and European capitals, pushing each ally to manage its relationship with the United States individually: this is the classic Russian strategy of disunity — and Hegseth's policy is involuntarily fueling it.

The allies with the most to lose: portrait of an asymmetric fear

The Baltics: the existential, again

For Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the question of American disengagement is not a matter of budget or prestige — it is an existential one. These countries of a few million inhabitants, with no strategic depth, surrounded by or bordering Russia, know that their independence depends on the credibility of NATO's collective guarantee. If that guarantee wavers, their vulnerability is immediate and total.

Their response has been a massive increase in defense spending — beyond 3% of GDP for Estonia, heading toward 5% in time. But no amount of local spending can replace American military capability in a conflict against Russia. These countries are staking their survival on the reliability of a partner whose behavior has become calculably unpredictable.

Germany: the hesitant power that must choose

Germany is in a different position. It is Europe's largest economy, but its history from World War II has created deep inhibitions toward military power. The Zeitenwende («turning point») announced by Chancellor Scholz in 2022 began to overcome these inhibitions — with a significant increase in the German defense budget and weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

But Germany has not yet made the leap toward fully autonomous commitment. It oscillates between reassuring Atlanticism — despite its uncertainties — and the demands of a growing European strategic autonomy. Hegseth's review is pushing it toward the latter direction, whether it wants to or not. And this movement, painful as it is, may be the most important transformation the current geopolitical moment is forcing on Europe.

What Hegseth's review should produce — and what it probably will not

The ideal scenario: pressure that works

In the best-case scenario, Hegseth's review produces exactly what it aims for: European allies massively increase their defense spending, the 5% of GDP becomes reality, and the United States maintains its presence in Europe before an alliance that is contributing equitably. In this scenario, American pressure worked — and the result is a more balanced and more robust alliance.

This scenario is not impossible. European spending is rising. The Gdansk Declaration of June 25, 2026 reaffirms the 5% objective. The Ankara summit is going to announce «tens of billions» in contracts according to Rutte. Pressure has produced effects — but at what price to alliance coherence?

The probable scenario: an uncertainty that endures

The more probable scenario is that Hegseth's review concludes in favor of maintaining American presence — but with conditions and implicit threats for the future. This conclusion does not solve the underlying problem: trust is eroded, uncertainty persists, and Putin continues to calculate that NATO will not hold in the face of a real crisis.

And in that scenario, every future incident — every ambiguous Trump statement on Article 5, every Hegseth disengagement threat — recharges this uncertainty. The alliance survives, but it lives under permanent pressure from its own most powerful member. This is a state of chronic discomfort that exhausts diplomatic energies and harms strategic coherence.

What history teaches us about alliances under pressure

The structural dimension of the stakes

Beyond the immediate decisions of the Ankara summit, there is a structural dimension to the current challenge that military analysts regularly highlight: Western collective security rests on a combination of political will, actual military capabilities, and strategic coherence. These three elements are simultaneously under strain — which makes this moment more critical than usual.

The decisions made at Ankara in July 2026 will be set against a backdrop where every signal sent to Moscow, to Beijing, and to allies counts twice over. The credibility of the alliance is a public good built over time and destroyed quickly. The responsibility of those gathering at Beştepe is therefore considerable.

The actors who will shape the decisions

The outcome of the Ankara summit will depend on a few key players: Rutte to maintain the coherence of the alliance's agenda, the leaders of the eastern flank to press the urgency of their concerns, and the Trump administration to define how far it pushes its demands without breaking what it claims to want to strengthen. Each has distinct interests — and the negotiation between those interests will define the outcome.

Ukraine is not directly at the table — but it is present in every conversation. Its 40 days of strikes, its enemy refineries in flames, its soldiers holding the front: all of this is the invisible backdrop to every decision that will be made at Ankara.

The responsibility of European leaders in the face of the crisis

The external pressure that forces decisions

Beyond the internal dynamics of the alliance, the Ankara summit is taking place in a global geopolitical context that extends beyond the European theater alone. China is watching NATO and calibrating its own behavior toward Taiwan based on what it sees. Iran is negotiating with the United States while maintaining its partnerships with Moscow. North Korea is supplying ammunition to Russia and developing its military capabilities.

This multi-threat context is precisely what justifies the 5% of GDP objective: NATO is not facing a single localized threat, but an arc of instability stretching from Moscow to Pyongyang via Tehran. The alliance must therefore prepare for a more dangerous world on several fronts simultaneously — which makes budgetary under-preparation all the more serious.

The long-term consequences of Ankara's decisions

Future historians will look back at the Ankara summit as a moment of choice. In one scenario, the alliance decided there to rearm seriously, to support Ukraine through to a just peace, and to build a robust deterrent against the multiple threats that are accumulating. In another, it produced communiqués and deferred the hard decisions for later.

These two scenarios have very different consequences for European security in the decades ahead. The first builds peace through strength. The second invites predators to test the limits. And the choice between them is made at Ankara, in July 2026, by men and women in politics who bear a historic responsibility.

Rutte's response: preserving unity at all costs

The Secretary General's diplomacy in the face of internal crisis

Mark Rutte is in a delicate position. He must manage the concerns of eastern flank allies without antagonizing Washington. He must push for increased spending while maintaining alliance cohesion. And he must prepare an Ankara summit that produces results solid enough to reassure allies without going too far in identifying the American threat.

His strategy appears to be foregrounding positive results — the $1.2 trillion spent since 2016, the «tens of billions» to come, the +20% in spending in 2025 — to demonstrate to Washington that allies are paying more. It is a prevention strategy: if Europe demonstrates quickly enough that it is investing seriously, perhaps Hegseth's review will conclude in favor of maintaining the status quo.

Zelensky's role in this triangle

In this triangle of Washington-NATO-Ukraine, Zelensky plays a particular role. His 40-day operation, his strikes on Russian refineries, his demonstration of autonomous military capability: all of this is also an argument addressed to Washington. An Ukraine that strikes at 1,300 km with its own drones is not a country that begs — it is an active partner generating results.

This demonstration of capability makes it harder for Hegseth to justify disengagement. Abandoning an ally that fights with such effectiveness and innovation would carry a considerable political and symbolic cost — even for a Trump administration. That may be the most finely calculated play by Zelensky on this complex chessboard.

Conclusion: NATO must leave Ankara stronger than it arrived

The test of Hegseth's review on the alliance

Hegseth's 6-month review is a fracture in the alliance — not yet a rupture. The Ankara summit is the opportunity to seal this fracture with concrete demonstrations: the «tens of billions» in contracts, reinforced commitments on the eastern flank, national trajectories toward 5% of GDP. If Ankara delivers all of this, Hegseth's argument for disengagement weakens.

But this will not resolve the underlying problem: NATO is too dependent on an American partner whose commitment is now conditional. The real answer — an Europe that defends itself sufficiently on its own to no longer be vulnerable to American blackmail — will take years. Ankara can lay the foundations. The construction itself is the work of a decade.

What we owe Zelensky and Ukraine

At the center of all this is a country that is fighting and dying while allies debate their budgets and engage in mutual pressure tactics. Zelensky's Ukraine deserves better than to be the pretext or the stakes in intra-Western quarrels. It deserves unconditional support, weapons delivered on time, and a security guarantee that does not depend on the mood of an American Defense Secretary.

If Hegseth's review forces Europe to take charge — to increase its spending, build its capabilities, think through its autonomy — then it will have produced a good despite itself. But this good news will only be secured at the price of dangerous uncertainty about the reliability of the alliance. And that price is paid first by Ukrainians, Balts, and Poles — in their flesh and in their daily fear.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

What I know and what I interpret

The information on Hegseth's review and the concerns of NATO leaders comes from The Guardian of June 27, 2026. This source is credible and has provided quality reporting on American defense policy. Rutte's statements come from official NATO sources. My analysis of the consequences of Hegseth's review is an editorial interpretation based on these facts — and on my reading of defense policy over several years.

My editorial position

I am critical of the Trump/Hegseth policy toward NATO. I believe the conditionality of American commitment weakens the alliance and favors Putin. I say this directly in this editorial, because the precise role of an editorial is to express a clear and openly held point of view.

Sources

Primary sources

The Guardian — NATO leaders fear they can no longer rely on US, Hegseth 6-month review — June 27, 2026

NATO/Rutte — Atlantic Council transcript, $1.2T, +20%, tens of billions — June 25, 2026

Gdansk Declaration — 5% GDP — June 25, 2026

Secondary sources

European Parliament — Ankara summit briefing — June 26, 2026

US News/Reuters — Rutte billions in new defense contracts — June 25, 2026

Post-Gazette/AP — NATO summit Turkey defense spending — June 26, 2026

Brookings — A rebalancing NATO gathers in Ankara — June 24, 2026