# Lithuania's President Hopes for Trump's Sacred Word on Article 5 at Ankara > Just days before the NATO summit set for Ankara on July 7 and 8, 2026, Lithuanian president Gitanas Nausėda voiced, in an - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Reportage - Published: 2026-07-06 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-president-lituanien-espere-un-mot-sacre-de-trump-sur-l-article-5-a-ankara ## Introduction: a word that could change everything ### An expectation hanging on a single term Just days before the **NATO** summit set for **Ankara** on **July 7 and 8, 2026**, Lithuanian president **Gitanas Nausėda** voiced, in an interview with public broadcaster **LRT** on its program **Dienos tema**, an expectation as simple as it is loaded with meaning: to hear **Donald Trump** describe **Article 5** of the **North Atlantic** treaty as "sacred." "We are still waiting for a very clear statement that **Article 5** is unquestionable, sacred," **Nausėda** said, adding: "I hope this will be said in one form or another in **Ankara**." That seemingly modest sentence sums up, on its own, the persistent anxiety of a Baltic country living a few dozen kilometres from the Russian exclave of **Kaliningrad**. ### A clause invoked only once in history It bears repeating that **Article 5**, the collective defence clause stating that an attack on one **NATO** member is an attack on all, has been invoked only once in the entire history of the **Atlantic Alliance**: after the **September 11, 2001** attacks on the United States. This singular precedent gives real symbolic weight to the request coming from **Vilnius**. *I fully understand this Lithuanian anxiety. When you live next door to Kaliningrad, a single word said or left unsaid by the American president can literally change how Moscow perceives the risk of acting. This isn't diplomatic squeamishness, it is plain survival calculus.* ## Ankara, a summit under tension before it even opens ### Thirty-two members expected in the Turkish capital All **32 members** of **NATO** are expected in **Ankara** for this crucial summit, which is set to formalize a collective pledge of **70 billion euros**, roughly **$80 billion**, in military aid to **Ukraine** for **2026**, with a commitment to provide "at least an equivalent amount" in **2027**. According to **Reuters**, NATO ambassadors already approved, on **July 3, 2026**, draft declaration language in which **Trump** and other leaders would affirm an "ironclad commitment" to **Article 5**. If this announcement materializes at the summit, it would represent a particularly welcome signal of collective firmness for eastern flank countries, which have scrutinized every American statement with near-obsessive attention through years of rising tensions with **Moscow**. ### A climate clouded by criticism from Washington This atmosphere of positive expectation is nonetheless clouded by recent statements from **Donald Trump**, who described the state of defence spending within **NATO** as "not reciprocal" and "ridiculous" on his **Truth Social** platform on Thursday, just days before the summit opened. He also criticized spending levels in **Germany**, one of the economic pillars of the **Atlantic Alliance**. *I note, once again, this characteristic split screen of the Trump presidency: budgetary criticism that is often legitimate in substance, paired with a tendency to voice it at the worst possible moment, right before a summit where displayed unity matters enormously to the credibility of the whole Alliance.* ## The turbulent legacy of the Hague summit ### The 2025 "paper tiger" This Lithuanian worry did not come out of nowhere: in **2025**, **Donald Trump** had called **NATO** a "paper tiger" and publicly questioned the "multiple definitions" of **Article 5** at the **Hague** summit. Those remarks sent shockwaves through European allies, before the American president ultimately declared "I support it fully," in a reversal typical of his unpredictable diplomatic style. This back-and-forth between alarming statements and reassuring guarantees remains, for many European leaders, one of the chief challenges of managing transatlantic relations under this presidency, where every summit becomes an occasion for renewed uncertainty about the real solidity of the American commitment. ### The 5% of GDP target, born from that same summit It was also at this **2025 Hague** summit that the collective target of **5% of GDP** devoted to defence by **2035** was set, split between **3.5% in direct military spending** and **1.5% in infrastructure**. This ambitious target now shapes every budgetary debate within the **Atlantic Alliance**, including the recurring criticism from **Washington** toward allies deemed too slow to comply. *I believe this 5% of GDP target, however demanding it may be for certain European economies, remains the only credible answer to a lasting Russian threat. Countries dragging their feet on this issue are taking on a historic responsibility they may one day regret.* ## An unprecedented nuclear ambition for Lithuania ### Toward a historic constitutional amendment Beyond the question of **Article 5** alone, **Lithuania** is now seeking to lift the constitutional ban preventing it from hosting nuclear weapons on its territory. President **Nausėda** himself announced a constitutional amendment initiative aimed at fully integrating his country into the Western nuclear deterrence framework against **Russia**, an unprecedented move since Lithuanian independence. This ambition reflects a profound shift in Baltic security doctrine, which now holds that conventional protection alone, however reinforced, is no longer enough to guarantee full deterrence against a **Russia** armed with nuclear weapons and directly bordering it through the **Kaliningrad** exclave. ### Merz watches the move with cautious respect German chancellor **Friedrich Merz** responded to this initiative by saying he had "noted it with respect," a diplomatic phrase that reflects both an implicit acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Lithuanian request and an assumed caution toward an issue as sensitive as expanding the Western nuclear umbrella in Eastern Europe. *I find this German caution understandable but a little frustrating. If the West genuinely wants to durably deter Russia, it will at some point have to settle these nuclear questions clearly, rather than settle for elegant but noncommittal diplomatic phrasing.* ## Budrys and the conviction that Trump strengthened the Alliance ### A Lithuanian minister defending Trump's record Lithuanian foreign minister **Kęstutis Budrys** offered, in an op-ed published on **May 27** by **Foreign Policy**, a resolutely positive assessment of **Donald Trump's** record on **NATO**: "I am convinced the conclusion will be that President **Trump** made this alliance stronger, not weaker," he wrote, a claim that cuts against the concerns more generally associated with the current American presidency. This position, coming from a policymaker directly exposed to the Russian threat, deserves to be taken seriously: it suggests that, despite his repeated verbal provocations, the **Trump** administration has in fact achieved concrete results in collective European rearmament, a record that the president's own noisy statements sometimes tend to obscure. ### Tangible results despite the divisive style Steadily rising defence spending figures across nearly every European **NATO** country do seem to back this reading: whatever one thinks of **Donald Trump's** style, the pressure he has exerted on European allies has undeniably accelerated their collective rearmament in recent years. *I must admit, even though it costs me to say so, that on this specific point Budrys is not wrong. The sometimes brutal pressure Trump applied on European defence spending has produced concrete results that years of more polished diplomacy had failed to achieve.* ## Hybrid threats intensify in the Baltic ### Smuggling balloons and suspicious drones On the ground, hybrid threats keep multiplying across the Baltic region: smuggling balloons crossing the border from **Belarus**, repeated incursions by Russian drones into neighbouring countries' airspace, suspicious maritime incidents in the **Baltic** Sea. These provocations, though individually limited in severity, help maintain constant psychological pressure on local populations and authorities. This hybrid war, waged without openly crossing the threshold of conventional armed conflict, considerably complicates the task of Baltic authorities, who must respond firmly without handing **Moscow** the pretext for the direct military escalation they are precisely trying to avoid. ### Eastern Sentry and Baltic Sentry missions in support Facing this ongoing pressure, the **Eastern Sentry** and **Baltic Sentry** missions deployed by **NATO** have, according to president **Nausėda** himself, helped reduce the hostile activity observed in the region, a positive record that justifies their continuation and, potentially, their future reinforcement as part of the discussions in **Ankara**. *I believe these surveillance missions deserve far more media visibility. They don't make headlines the way an international summit does, but they form the first concrete line of defence against a hybrid war that Russia wages daily against the Baltic states.* ## Bulgaria and potential fractures within the Alliance ### Dissenting voices on future cohesion Bulgarian press reports have raised fears, voiced by some analysts, that **NATO** could be weakened by uneven military spending among its members, a dreaded scenario fuelling repeated calls for faster budgetary convergence among allies, particularly those on the most exposed eastern flank. These concerns, though a minority view in Western public debate, are a reminder that the cohesion of the **Atlantic Alliance** is never fully secured, and that every summit, including the one in **Ankara**, is an opportunity either to reaffirm or to weaken that collective unity against **Russia**. ### The need for a unified message It is precisely for this reason that Lithuania's request for a clear word from **Donald Trump** on the sacred nature of **Article 5** carries real strategic weight: such a message, delivered publicly in **Ankara**, would send a signal of cohesion hard to ignore, both for allied public opinion and for **Kremlin** leaders who closely watch every potential crack. *I think this question of collective cohesion is underestimated by part of Western public opinion. It isn't just a matter of budget figures: it is the very perception of the Alliance's unity that determines whether Moscow sees an attack as risky or conceivable.* ## What history will remember from this moment ### A pivotal moment for transatlantic credibility The **Ankara** summit therefore looks set to be a potentially pivotal moment for the credibility of the American commitment to its European allies, at a time when **Russia** continues to watch closely for any sign of division or hesitation within the **Atlantic Alliance**. Lithuania's request, however modest it may appear in formal terms, actually crystallizes a major strategic stake for the entire European continent. This diplomatic sequence fits into a broader reshaping of transatlantic balances, in which European countries, while continuing to rely on the American security umbrella, are investing massively in their own defence capabilities so as no longer to depend exclusively on **Washington's** shifting moods. ### A test for the future of collective deterrence Whatever the exact outcome of the summit, this sequence will at least have had the merit of clarifying the expectations of eastern flank countries toward their most powerful allies, while also reminding everyone that collective deterrence rests as much on reassuring public words as on concrete military capabilities deployed on the ground. *I believe this clarification of expectations, even in the form of a simple request for a reassuring word, is itself diplomatic progress. Better an explicit, public request than a silent worry that would end up eroding collective trust from within.* ## China and Russia are watching, as always ### An axis of revisionist powers on alert Beyond the purely transatlantic dossier, it is worth remembering that **China**, **Russia**, **Iran**, and **North Korea** closely follow every sign of weakness or strength within **NATO**. Any impression of Western division, real or merely perceived, could be exploited by these revisionist powers to advance their own respective strategic agendas within their spheres of influence. This global dimension explains why **Nausėda's** request goes far beyond a simple Lithuanian-American bilateral matter: it fits into a wider competition between an international order dominated by the **West** and powers actively seeking to challenge it by every means available. ### Why verbal firmness matters as much as tanks In this context of global competition, the verbal firmness publicly expressed by Western leaders matters almost as much as the number of tanks or launchers deployed on the ground: it directly shapes how potential adversaries perceive the **Atlantic Alliance's** collective determination to defend every one of its members, without exception. *I am convinced this battle of perceptions, intangible as it may seem, weighs just as much as actual military capability. A firm statement from Trump in Ankara would alone be worth several extra battalions in terms of psychological deterrence.* ## The hidden economic stakes behind the diplomacy ### The financial weight of collective rearmament Behind these diplomatic exchanges also lies a considerable economic stake: the collective target of **5% of GDP** for defence by **2035** represents colossal sums for European economies as a whole, with direct repercussions on national budgets, defence industries and, potentially, other public sectors such as health or education. This budgetary reality partly explains the persistent tensions among European allies over the pace of implementing these commitments, with some countries pushing for a more gradual path while others, like **Lithuania**, have already far exceeded the collective targets set for the entire **Alliance**. ### An industrial opportunity for the most advanced allies This massive rearmament also represents a significant industrial opportunity for countries with a solid defence industrial base, notably the **United States**, which directly benefits from arms contracts signed by their European allies, as illustrated by Lithuania's acquisition of **HIMARS** launchers from **Lockheed Martin**. *I note, not without a certain frank cynicism, that this collective rearmament also largely benefits the American defence industry. That does not make the effort any less necessary against Russia, but it would be naive to pretend economic interests play no part in these negotiations.* ## The quiet but crucial role of parliamentary diplomacy ### Exchanges that go beyond heads of state alone Beyond the highly publicized presidential statements, a quiet parliamentary diplomacy continues to unfold between allied capitals, where delegations of Lithuanian, German, and American lawmakers regularly discuss the concrete details of implementing commitments made at successive **NATO** summits. This groundwork, less spectacular than presidential announcements, nonetheless contributes directly to the lasting solidity of collective commitments, providing the technical and budgetary follow-through essential to the long-term credibility of any diplomatic promise made at an international summit. ### A vigilance that must remain constant This parliamentary vigilance, combined with pressure from the public opinion of the most exposed countries, forms an additional safeguard against the risk of commitments made in **Ankara** becoming dead letters once media attention shifts to other international news. *I think this parliamentary diplomacy deserves more attention from Western media. It is often in these quiet exchanges, far from the cameras, that the real solidity of commitments announced with great fanfare at international summits gets decided.* ## How allied capitals view the Lithuanian sequence ### Warsaw and Helsinki are watching closely **Poland** and **Finland**, two other front-line countries facing **Russia**, are following **Vilnius's** requests with particular attention, aware that any clarification the Lithuanians obtain on **Article 5** or on the nuclear question would set a precedent for the entire eastern flank of the **Atlantic Alliance**. This **informal solidarity** among front-line countries, from the Arctic Circle to the Black Sea, illustrates the gradual formation of a coherent regional bloc, united by a shared reading of the **Russian threat** and by a shared determination to keep up the pressure on the Alliance's most powerful members. ### Collective pressure rather than isolated moves This **collective approach**, rather than isolated bilateral moves, considerably strengthens the diplomatic weight of the Lithuanian request, which can no longer be seen as a mere national worry but as the expression of a concern shared across the entire eastern flank of the **Atlantic Alliance** toward **Russia**. This collective dynamic should, according to several observers, weigh directly on the final content of the joint declaration expected at the close of the **Ankara** summit, with the drafters having to take into account the **particular sensitivities** of these geographically most exposed countries. *I see this regional solidarity as an encouraging sign. The more front-line countries speak with one voice, the harder it becomes for Washington or any ally to downplay their legitimate concerns about Russia.* ## The delicate balance between firmness and diplomatic openness ### Not closing every door to future dialogue Despite the **firmness** displayed by the Baltic states, several Western diplomats stress the need not to entirely close the door to future dialogue with **Moscow**, if only to avoid an uncontrolled escalation whose consequences would be unpredictable for the entire European continent. This **delicate balance** between deterrent firmness and residual diplomatic openness has characterized the Western posture toward **Russia** for several years now, a difficult tightrope to walk but one that most allies see as the least bad option available in the current context. ### The Ankara summit as one step in a longer process The **Ankara** summit should therefore not be seen as an end in itself, but as one more step in a long-term process aimed at building a credible, lasting **Western deterrence** capable of adapting to the constantly evolving Russian posture in the region. This long-term view, shared by most serious analysts of the issue, invites us to put into perspective the importance of a single word said or not said by **Donald Trump**, while acknowledging that this word still carries real **symbolic value** for the populations most directly exposed to the Russian threat. *I think this long-term perspective needs to be kept in mind. A reassuring word in Ankara would be welcome, but the real security of the eastern flank will be built over years of consistency, not on a single sentence spoken at one summit.* ## The symbolic weight of words in modern diplomacy ### When a sentence is worth as much as a treaty In contemporary diplomacy, a single sentence spoken by a head of state can sometimes carry as much weight as a formally signed treaty, especially when it comes from the president of the **United States**, the leading military power of the **Atlantic Alliance**. It is precisely this phenomenon that **Lithuania** is seeking to leverage by publicly stating its expectation of **Donald Trump** even before the **Ankara** summit opens. This strategy of public pressure, openly embraced by **Gitanas Nausėda**, illustrates an interesting evolution among small powers within large alliances: rather than passively waiting for decisions from major capitals, they now choose to clearly voice their expectations through the media, forcing a public debate that traditional quiet diplomacy might otherwise have kept confidential. ### A lesson in strategic communication This communication approach, which consists of stating a precise expectation ahead of a major diplomatic event, offers a lesson in communication strategy for other small powers facing similar security challenges from authoritarian neighbours far more powerful than them in strictly military terms. By making its expectation public, **Vilnius** also raises the pressure on **Washington** to honour this request at the summit, knowing that presidential silence on this specific point would now be read, rightly or wrongly, as a negative signal by a large share of public opinion and specialized observers of the transatlantic file. *I find this public pressure strategy rather clever on Nausėda's part. By stating his expectation openly before the summit, he turns a simple diplomatic hope into a public test that Trump can no longer fully ignore without consequences for his standing among European allies.* ## Conclusion: Ankara, a full-scale test for the West ### A word that could reassure an entire continent Whether or not **Donald Trump** utters the word "sacred" about **Article 5** at the **Ankara** summit, this Lithuanian expectation will have had the merit of reminding everyone just how heavily the American president's words continue to weigh on the security of an entire continent. For countries like **Lithuania**, every word counts, every nuance is scrutinized, every silence can be read as a worrying signal by a **Kremlin** forever on the lookout for the slightest crack. ### An Alliance that must prove its solidity through deeds as much as words Beyond the words, it is the **70 billion euros** pledged to **Ukraine**, the brigades stationed in **Lithuania**, the **HIMARS** launchers delivered, and the collective budgetary targets that will determine, over the long run, the real credibility of Western deterrence against **Russia**. The **Ankara** summit stands, in that sense, as a full-scale test for the entire **Atlantic Alliance**. *I close this narrative with a simple conviction: whatever exact word is spoken in Ankara, it is the consistency of the Western commitment in the months and years that follow that will truly determine whether Lithuania and its Baltic neighbours can sleep soundly.* **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 - LRT — Lithuania's president expects Trump to say NATO is sacred at Ankara summit - Reuters — NATO leaders affirm ironclad commitment to collective defence, Ankara summit text, July 3, 2026 - Anadolu Agency — Factbox on NATO defense spending ahead of the Ankara summit ### Secondary sources - Fakti.bg — Lithuanian president raises risk of NATO fragmentation - Wikipedia — 2026 Ankara NATO summit - Forbes — What defense leaders will discuss at the 2026 NATO summit, July 1, 2026 - Foreign Policy — Op-ed by Kęstutis Budrys, Lithuanian foreign minister, May 27, 2026 - Deutsche Welle — Merz responds to Trump's criticism at Baltic event --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-president-lituanien-espere-un-mot-sacre-de-trump-sur-l-article-5-a-ankara