# NARRATIVE: The Berlin E5 Summit — Europe's five forge their armor before NATO's Ankara

> On that Wednesday, June 24, 2026, in Berlin, the German Federal Chancellery hosted an unprecedented diplomatic format: for the first time, the five major military powers of Europe were meeting at the level of heads of state and government. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had invited his counterparts to a gathering whose symbolism and decisions could be remembered as a turning

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Reportage
- Published: 2026-06-27
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/recit-le-sommet-e5-de-berlin-l-europe-a-cinq-forge-son-armure-avant-l-otan-d-ank

## Introduction: Berlin, **June 24, 2026** — five leaders to redraw a continent

### The Federal Chancellery as a stage for history

On that Wednesday, **June 24,** 2026, in **Berlin**, the German Federal Chancellery hosted an unprecedented diplomatic format: for the first time, the **five major military powers of Europe** were meeting at the level of heads of state and government. German Chancellor **Friedrich Merz** had invited his counterparts to a gathering whose symbolism and decisions could be remembered as a turning point in the history of European defense. Around the table: French President **Emmanuel Macron**, outgoing British Prime Minister **Keir Starmer**, Italian Prime Minister **Giorgia Meloni**, and Polish Prime Minister **Donald Tusk**. On video call from Washington: NATO Secretary General **Mark Rutte**.

The official objective of the meeting was to prepare the **NATO** summit to be held in **Ankara on July 7** and 8. But the significance of what happened in Berlin goes far beyond routine preparation. In one intensive working day, the five leaders formulated a joint commitment across **five strategic axes** that are reshaping European geopolitics.

### The E5 format: genesis of a framework born of necessity

The **E5** format was not born from a treaty or an institutional decision. It was born from necessity. In **2024**, faced with American pressure to take on a growing share of European defense — and with the war in Ukraine redefining security priorities — the defense ministers of Europe's five largest military powers began to coordinate more closely. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Poland together represent **the principal economies and the principal defense budgets** of European member states and partners. Their coordination, even informal, carries a critical mass that the E3 format (France-Germany-UK) could not achieve. **June 24,** 2026 marks the first meeting of this format **at the leaders' level**.

*What is happening in Berlin that day is not just diplomatic preparation. It is Europe deciding to give itself the means to defend its own interests — without waiting for permission from Washington or agreement from all 27 EU members. Five countries, strong enough together to sketch a new security architecture. This is a quiet revolution.*

## The five messages from Berlin: an ambitious strategic program

### The European pillar of NATO strengthened

The first of the five axes of the Berlin E5 declaration addresses **European leadership and burden-sharing** within **NATO**. The five leaders committed to building "a stronger European role within NATO, with Europe taking on greater responsibility for our common transatlantic security." This formulation, apparently technical, is in reality politically revolutionary. It means that Europeans are embracing the logic of "**NATO 3**.0" promoted by **Rutte**: the Alliance remains transatlantic, but Europe takes charge of more of its own defense.

Chancellor **Merz** was explicit about the numbers at the final press conference: **Germany is increasing its defense spending to 3.5%** of GDP and aims to reach this target as early as **2029**. France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Poland were also making "**massive investments**" in their defenses. Merz put the intention plainly: "we want our neighbors to feel more secure when Germany grows stronger." The message to Putin was equally clear: "Ukraine will remain strong, and Europe's support will not falter."

### Collective security and deterrence against Russia

The second axis addresses **collective security** and strengthening the Alliance's deterrence and defense posture. The five leaders affirmed their intention to "proactively strengthen the Alliance's deterrence and defense posture" and to increase contributions to NATO's deterrence activities, "in order to respond to the most significant and direct threat from Russia." This direct reference to Russia as "the most significant threat" is remarkable in its absence of diplomatic circumlocution. The adversary is named.

*Naming Russia as the primary threat, in writing, in a joint statement by Europe's five major powers — this is a political act that would have been unthinkable in **2021**. Putin thought his war would divide Europe. It has welded it together. That may be his greatest strategic miscalculation since the conflict began.*

## Armament and industry: long-range precision strike at the heart of the agenda

### Defense industrial cooperation: accelerating shared capabilities

The third axis — and one of the most concrete — addresses **defense industrial cooperation**. The Berlin declaration explicitly lists priority areas of cooperation: **air defense, unmanned systems, and artificial intelligence**, among others. But the most significant formulation is this: the five leaders "commit to accelerating their engagement in the European joint development and acquisition of **long-range precision strike capabilities**." This sentence is a revolution in European defense law.

For years, the question of jointly acquiring European long-range missiles was taboo in several capitals, notably Germany, due to historical sensitivities and fears of escalation. Berlin has just formalized its commitment to this program. Long-range precision strike capability — the ability to reach military targets deep behind Russian lines — is now an openly acknowledged and common objective of Europe's five major powers.

### Military AI as a technological priority

The explicit mention of **artificial intelligence** among the axes of E5 defense industrial cooperation is also significant. It reflects an awareness that the war in Ukraine has turned into strategic certainty: the next war will be won as much in algorithms as on the ground. The Ukrainian drones striking Moscow's refineries use guidance systems and autonomous navigation capabilities that are improving rapidly. Russian countermeasures too. Future military power depends on the ability to integrate AI into weapons systems, command and control systems, and logistics.

*Europe has a technological lag in military AI compared to the United States and China. This lag is not fatal — but action must be taken now. The fact that Europe's five major powers are committing jointly to this domain is an encouraging signal. Let us hope the words translate into euros, laboratories, and filed patents.*

## Support for Ukraine: a commitment reaffirmed and reinforced

### Financial commitments to Kyiv

The fourth axis of the E5 declaration addresses **support for Ukraine**. The five leaders committed to "substantially supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression, notably through sanctions and economic pressure on Russia." But the most concrete proposal came from **Merz** himself: the German Chancellor proposed that European **NATO** partners commit to financing Ukrainian armed forces "reliably and massively" for the following year as well. This proposal for predictable multi-year funding is crucial for Ukrainian military planning.

The declaration also stipulates enhanced support for "**JATEC and NSATU**" — **NATO** initiatives that organize the training of Ukrainian soldiers and assistance in modernizing Ukraine's armed forces — and reaffirms the commitment to deepen the **NATO**-Ukraine partnership. The formulation on "the vital contribution Ukraine is making to Euro-Atlantic security" is particularly powerful: it acknowledges that Ukraine is fighting for all of Europe, not just itself.

### The question of NATO membership: between ambition and realism

The Berlin declaration does not take the leap of proclaiming Ukraine's imminent accession to **NATO** — the opposition of certain Alliance members to this prospect, notably linked to fears of direct escalation with Russia, is well known. But it reaffirms the commitment to "bring Ukraine closer to the Alliance" and to recognize its importance to Euro-Atlantic security. That is a positive signal for Kyiv, even if the concrete conditions for accession remain to be defined.

*Ukraine deserves a clear and rapid path toward NATO membership. It has been fighting the Russian military for more than four years with exceptional courage. Denying it membership out of fear of provoking Putin amounts to rewarding the aggressor and punishing the victim. Berlin took a step in the right direction. Ankara must go further.*

## The five personalities: portrait of a historic group

### Merz, host and architect

Chancellor **Friedrich Merz** had taken the initiative to convene this meeting, and his performance at the final press conference showed a leader comfortable in his role as the natural leader of European diplomacy. A man often presented as an Atlanticist conservative, he chose Berlin as the platform for a refounding of European defense — demonstrating that Europe's rise within NATO is not an anti-American project, but a more balanced partnership. His formulation on Russia as a "direct threat" and on Ukraine that "will remain strong" may be the most memorable phrase of the day.

Merz also announced that he would personally brief President **Trump** on the results of the meeting — a sign that Berlin considers the transatlantic relationship as the reference framework, even while building stronger European autonomy. This dual articulation — strong Europe, strong NATO — is the signature of the German chancellor during this pivotal period.

### Macron, Meloni, Tusk, Starmer: four voices for one Europe

**Emmanuel Macron** referenced the "Évian moment" — alluding to the G7 summit — where American and European leaders had demonstrated their unity. He also signaled that Europeans were ready to participate in a military operation in the Strait of Hormuz if conditions were met. **Giorgia Meloni**, Italy's Prime Minister, emphasized "the global security architecture changing at an extreme pace" and the need to deepen shared instruments. Her more cautious tone on certain subjects did not prevent a firm joint signature. **Donald Tusk**, the Pole, whose country lives with the permanent anxiety of sharing a border with Russia via Kaliningrad, made no effort to hide his relief at seeing Europe unite. As for **Keir Starmer** — who had just announced his resignation as Labour leader but remained in office during the transition period — the words of the other leaders had been warm, almost moved.

*There is something moving about the image of these five leaders gathered around a table in Berlin — a city that was once the symbol of Europe's division — signing a joint defense commitment. History has a sense of irony that I never tire of appreciating.*

## The unexpected dimension: Iran in the E5 declaration

### The Iran-US MOU welcomed with caution

One of the most surprising elements of the Berlin E5 declaration is its **fifth axis**, devoted to Iran. The five leaders had "welcomed the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, secured under the leadership of President Trump," calling it "a moment of opportunity to restore regional stability and stabilize the global economy." This formulation is significantly more muted than the triumphalist celebrations of certain American officials. The Europeans welcome the agreement, but with restraint.

More importantly, the declaration reaffirms that "Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon" and expresses commitment to "support the implementation of the MOU in the context of an urgent and comprehensive follow-through that delivers lasting peace." The five leaders also confirm their commitment to participate in the **multinational military mission** to secure the Strait of Hormuz — under Franco-British command — "as soon as conditions allow." This last formulation explicitly conditions European participation on the satisfaction of certain guarantees.

### Freedom of navigation: a vital European interest

The question of the **Strait of Hormuz** is not an abstract subject for Europeans. The strait's closure had directly contributed to the energy price spike that had forced the **ECB** to raise rates on **June 11**. European industries dependent on Persian Gulf oil had suffered. Restoring free navigation in the strait is a vital economic interest for Europe — hence the E5's insistence on this point and their commitment to participate militarily if necessary.

*The "multinational military mission" in the Strait of Hormuz may be the least-noticed decision to come out of Berlin but one of the most important. For the first time in a long while, Europeans are committing to project military power outside the Euro-Atlantic space to defend their economic and commercial interests. That is not imperialism — it is strategic maturity.*

## The context of Ankara preparation: what the E5 want from the summit

### The **5%** GDP objective: keeping commitments

NATO Secretary General **Rutte** announced on **June 25** during an Atlantic Council address that the Ankara summit would allow for the announcement of **tens of billions of dollars** in new defense contracts. Allies had agreed at the **The Hague** summit in **2025** to reach the target of **5% of GDP** in defense spending by **2035**. Ankara will be the first "accountability summit" — where the question is whether commitments translate into concrete action. Rutte also confirmed that Ukrainian President **Zelensky** would attend Ankara, where "we will show him that our support endures."

The E5 had specifically affirmed in their Berlin declaration their welcome of "the significant progress made by Allies in implementing the Hague Defence Investment Pledge." All five were now above the **2% of GDP** threshold in military spending and were committing to higher levels. European NATO members had collectively increased their defense spending by **more than 20**% in **2025** — the largest increase ever recorded.

### Trump in Ankara: the great unknown

The central question mark over the Ankara summit remains **Donald Trump**'s behavior. Secretary of State **Marco Rubio** had stated in June that Trump would attend the summit in person, calling it "probably the most important meeting in NATO's history." But Trump is unpredictable. He could arrive in Ankara with new demands on defense spending, on the American role in Europe, or on the posture to adopt toward Ukraine — demands that could create tensions with European allies.

*The Europeans did their homework before Ankara — that is what Berlin signaled. They arrive at the summit with a common position, concrete commitments, and a shared vision. Trump may well show up with his usual surprises: he will find a united, prepared, and determined Europe ready to defend its interests. That is a remarkable transformation from two years ago.*

## The geopolitical significance: strategic Europe, at last?

### From a paper pillar to a real partner

For decades, Europe was mocked as an economic giant but a strategic dwarf. The inability to act without the United States, insufficient military spending, national divergences on defense and foreign policy — all structural weaknesses that had led **Kissinger** to ask his famous question: "Does Europe have a phone number?"

On **June 24,** 2026 in Berlin, five European powers answered that question: Europe has a number, and it goes through Berlin, Paris, London, Rome, and Warsaw. This is not yet a European army, nor a truly unified foreign policy. But it is a hard core of strategic cooperation among the most important military and economic powers on the continent — capable of articulating a common vision and concrete commitments.

### The outgoing Starmer and the future British Prime Minister

One human element deserves highlighting: the presence of **Keir Starmer** in Berlin despite his announced resignation as **Labour** leader. He would remain in office until a successor was designated — potentially several months away. The warm farewells from his counterparts — Macron saluting his "sound strategic choices," Tusk ready to "forget Brexit" given how much Starmer had contributed to European unity — testified to the importance of the British contribution to this security architecture. The next British Prime Minister, whoever they may be, will inherit a country deeply reintegrated into European security structures — a major change from the post-Brexit isolationism.

*Brexit or not, Russian missiles do not stop at the English Channel. Keir Starmer understood what Theresa May and Boris Johnson had failed to articulate: that the United Kingdom, island nation or not, is a European country whose security is inseparable from that of its neighbors. He is leaving having reintegrated Britain into its continent's security architecture. That is not a bad legacy.*

## The limits and fragilities of the E5 format

### The absentees: the other EU and NATO members

The **E5** format has a structural fragility: it explicitly excludes the other members of **NATO** and the EU — **29 Alliance members** do not participate in this format, and **22 EU members** are not represented in Berlin. This situation can generate jealousies, feelings of exclusion, and political resistance. The Baltic states, which are on the front line of the Russian threat, were not invited. The Nordic countries recently integrated into NATO — **Sweden and Finland** — were not there. **Romania** and the countries on the Alliance's eastern flank do not participate in this format.

These absences do not diminish the decisions taken in Berlin, but they serve as a reminder that the European security architecture cannot rest on five countries alone, however powerful they may be. The E5 format will be judged on its capacity to bring the others along in its wake — not to substitute itself for existing structures.

### Translating commitments into real capabilities

The other fundamental limitation is the gap between declarations and industrial reality. Promising to jointly develop long-range precision strike capabilities is one thing — delivering those capabilities within a strategically useful timeframe is another. Europe has a fragmented defense industry, complex national procurement procedures, and an industrial culture not accustomed to the speed required in a degraded security environment. Translating Berlin's commitments into metal, integrated circuits, and operational software will be the real test.

*I have heard many ambitious declarations on European defense over the past several years. What makes me cautiously optimistic about Berlin this time is that the commitments are accompanied by concrete figures — GDP percentages, announced contracts, specific areas of cooperation. Rhetoric has a geography. Hope does too.*

## The impact on Ukraine: a direct message from Berlin to Kyiv

### Berlin as a strategic signal to both Putin and Zelensky

The Berlin E5 declaration is a message addressed simultaneously to three recipients. To **Ukraine**: Europe will not abandon it, financial and military support will continue. To **Russia**: Europeans have the means, the will, and the commitments needed to maintain pressure indefinitely. To **Trump** and the United States: Europe is taking its share of the burden, European allies are reliable partners, not dependents.

For **Zelensky**, who will be in **Ankara** on July **7** and **8,** Berlin represents a concrete guarantee: even if Trump adopts an ambiguous posture at the summit, Europe's five major powers are maintaining their commitment. Ukraine is not alone. And the coalition that supports it has not only held together — it has grown stronger, with more precise, more concrete, and more durable commitments than before.

### Drone strikes in the background

The E5 meeting of **June 24** took place against a particularly tense backdrop. Two days earlier, Ukrainian forces had struck Russian targets with a new drone wave. The Kapotnya refinery had been burning in public memory since **June 18**. And less than two hours after the E5 press conference in Berlin concluded, the first reports of the massive attack of **660 Ukrainian drones** on the night of June **25** to 26 began circulating. Berlin was preparing Ankara while Kyiv was showing Moscow what it was capable of. Politics and war were unfolding in parallel.

*There is something dizzying about watching these two simultaneous realities: leaders in a carefully arranged Berlin conference room signing solemn pledges, while Ukrainian engineers launch 660 drones toward Russia the same night. Diplomacy and war never stop for each other. They advance in parallel, each feeding the other.*

## NATO 3.0: what Ankara must accomplish

### Translate pledges into deliveries

Secretary General **Rutte** had summed up the Ankara stakes in one phrase: the **The Hague 2025** summit had produced pledges. Ankara must produce **results**. "It is great to have pledges — and The Hague was a great success — but then honoring those pledges — and this is what I see happening at Ankara — is even more important." This logic of accountability — taking stock, measuring progress, demanding concrete delivery — is at the heart of the "**NATO 3.0**" vision presented by US Defense Secretary **Hegseth** at the defense ministers' meeting in Brussels in June.

Berlin contributed to this result by bringing concrete commitments — on spending, on industrial cooperation, on capabilities. Ankara will need to capitalize on this momentum and formalize the commitments within the broader Alliance framework. The challenge is to maintain Berlin's momentum in the larger and more complex context of a summit involving **32 members**.

### Erdogan's role: referee or brake?

The Ankara summit will be hosted by **Recep Tayyip Erdogan**, whose role in the Alliance is deeply ambiguous. Turkey maintains economic ties with Russia, long delayed Sweden's NATO accession, and pursues a foreign policy that often runs parallel to Alliance interests. But Erdogan sees in this summit an opportunity to showcase Turkey as an indispensable power at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. He confirmed he would seek a bilateral meeting with Trump — and the Trump-Erdogan relationship is well known for its warmth. This unlikely pair could be the key variable at Ankara.

*Erdogan is hosting the NATO summit while maintaining economic ties with Russia. He votes to admit new members while temporarily blocking them. He is pro-Palestinian while maintaining relations with Israel. He is the most skilled navigator of strategic ambiguity in the Western world. At Ankara, he will hold the table. That is not entirely reassuring.*

## The economic balance sheet of the E5 format: figures and concrete commitments

### Defense budgets in figures: the **3.5%** revolution

Beyond the political declarations, the **Berlin** E5 meeting produced concrete budgetary commitments worth placing in perspective. **Merz**'s **Germany** commits to reaching **3.5% of GDP** in defense spending by **2029**. For a country whose **GDP exceeds €4 trillion**, this means an annual military budget of more than **€140 billion** — compared to roughly **€90 billion** today. That is an increase of more than **50%** in a few years, a figure that would have seemed unthinkable in **2021**. For **Poland**, already at **4% of GDP**, the trajectory toward **5%** is more advanced than for any other NATO member state.

The total defense commitments of the five E5 countries, based on available projections, will represent by **2030** a combined military budget exceeding **€500 billion per year**. For context: Russia is spending approximately **$150 billion per year** on defense in **2026**, despite its war effort. Europe's five will spend more than three times as much. If these commitments translate into real capabilities — and that is a big "if" — NATO's conventional military superiority over Russia will be overwhelming.

### The European defense industry: consolidate to compete

One concrete challenge from Berlin is organizing the European defense industrial base. Europe has capable defense companies — **Rheinmetall** in Germany, **Thales** and **Safran** in France, **Leonardo** in Italy, **BAE Systems** in the UK — but their national fragmentation limits economies of scale. The development cost of a tank or a combat aircraft is prohibitive for a single country, but viable when shared among five. Joint programs such as the **MGCS** (Franco-German tank), **SCAF** (future combat aircraft), and **MALE RPAS** (reconnaissance drone) are progressing — slowly, but progressing. Berlin gave additional momentum to this cooperation logic.

*The European defense industry is like the European automotive industry in the 1960s: solid national players, but insufficiently integrated to compete with American and now Chinese giants. Consolidation is inevitable. Berlin is accelerating that movement. The question is whether national logics — contracts for domestic jobs, industrial sovereignty — will allow this necessary merger.*

## The E5 dialogue and the European Union: institutional tensions

### The E5 and EU institutions: complementarity or competition?

The **E5** format creates a subtle institutional tension with the **European Union** and its defense structures — notably the **Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)** and the **European Defence Fund**. The five countries represented in Berlin are all EU members (or close partners in the UK's case post-Brexit), but their decisions within the E5 are made outside the EU's institutional structures. This can create duplication, inefficiencies, or tensions with the 22 other EU member states not participating in the format.

The response from E5 supporters is simple: major decisions are always made by the countries with the critical mass to implement them. This is a reality of international politics. The E5 can serve as a "locomotive" to bring the other EU and NATO member states toward higher levels of ambition — provided it does not function as an exclusive directorate that marginalizes the others. The Berlin declaration emphasizes its articulation with NATO and the EU — a necessary rhetorical precaution to avoid ruffling sensitivities.

### Post-Brexit UK: back in Europe through the security door

The presence of **Keir Starmer** in Berlin illustrates a reality that Brexit did not erase: the United Kingdom remains a European country whose security interests are inextricably linked to those of its neighbors. Since Russia's **2022** invasion, the UK has progressively reintegrated into European defense cooperation structures — not through the EU, of which it is no longer a member, but through bilateral and multilateral formats like the E5, the Lancaster House agreements with France, and enhanced cooperation with NATO. This pragmatic return through the security door may be the most viable form of British reintegration into the European architecture after Brexit.

*Brexit or not, Russian missiles do not stop at the Channel. Keir Starmer understood what his predecessors refused to admit: that the security of the United Kingdom runs through deep cooperation with continental Europe. This is not betraying Brexit — it is being pragmatic about what actually guarantees British security.*

## The historical memory: Berlin as a symbol of European renaissance

### From a divided city to a capital of European security

**Berlin** has a particular relationship with the history of European division and reunification. Divided by the Wall from **1961 to 1989**, then reunified as a symbol of democracy's triumph over dictatorship, it now hosts the meeting of Europe's five major military powers to strengthen their common defense against a new authoritarian threat from the East. The historical irony is not merely rhetorical — it is deeply significant. The city that symbolized the front line of the Cold War has become the place where Europe decides to give itself the means to never again be divided by the force of an authoritarian regime.

The Federal Chancellery, where the E5 meeting was held, is a modern building constructed after reunification to symbolize the transparency and openness of a Germany reconciled with its history. That it is in this building that five major European democracies decided to invest massively in their collective defense is not a coincidence. It is a continuation of history — the same Germany that had caused two world wars now choosing to build collective European security, with its neighbors, against aggressors from the East.

### Strategic Europe: an idea that took 70 years to mature

The idea of a **strategic Europe** — capable of acting collectively in the domain of defense and security — has been debated since the earliest years of European construction. The European Defence Community had been rejected by the French parliament in **1954**, blocking military integration for decades. Successive attempts — the **Eurocorps**, the **CSDP**, **Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)** — had produced structures but not real capabilities. Russia's **2022** invasion of Ukraine did what decades of institutional debate had failed to accomplish: convinced Europeans that their security depends on their own capacity to defend themselves.

*It took the return of war to Europe for Europe to finally take responsibility for itself. This is a bitter lesson. I would have preferred this awakening to have come differently. But it is here now, embodied in Berlin's commitments. Strategic Europe is no longer a dream — it is a construction site. And construction sites, at least, exist.*

## Conclusion: Berlin **2026**, the birth of strategic Europe

### What has changed after June 24

After **June 24, 2026**, European defense is no longer quite what it was before. Five major countries have signed precise commitments on military cooperation, defense spending, support for Ukraine, and their vision of the Alliance. This is not the end of a process — it is the beginning of a strategic architecture that will need to be built, brick by brick, in the months and years ahead. Ankara will be the next step. And the steps that follow will come, as long as the political will holds.

### A continent learning to defend itself

The great lesson of Berlin — and of these four years of war in Ukraine — is that **Europe can learn to defend itself**. It long believed that the United States would always guarantee its protection, that economic prosperity would make military conflicts impossible, that the dividends of peace could be collected indefinitely. Russia's **2022** invasion of Ukraine shattered those illusions. Berlin in **2026** marks the moment when Europe collectively decided to draw the consequences. History may remember this day as the moment the continent began to forge its armor.

*Berlin, **June 24, 2026**. A page of European history was turned in that conference room. Not spectacularly — without fanfare or declarations of war. But with a quiet determination that takes nothing away from the importance of what happened: Europe decided to fight for itself. Finally.*

**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

- [French Ministry of Foreign Affairs — E5 leaders' statement on Euro-Atlantic security, Berlin, June 26, 2026](https://uk.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-leaders-commit-euro-atlantic-security-and-transatlantic-bond)

- [German Federal Government — Merz hosts heads of government for the E5 meeting, June 24, 2026](https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/e5-treffen-2444908)

- [Reuters via Internazionale — Rutte announces billions in new defense contracts at the summit, June 25, 2026](https://www.internazionale.it/ultime-notizie-reuters/2026/06/25/nato-s-rutte-says-billions-in-new-defense-contracts-will-be-announced-at-summit)

- [RBC-Ukraine — NATO's next summit will send a powerful message to Putin, June 26, 2026](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/nato-s-next-summit-will-send-a-powerful-message-1782467107.html)

### Secondary sources

- [Euronews — Europe's five largest military powers meet ahead of key NATO summit, June 24, 2026](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/06/24/europes-five-largest-military-powers-meet-ahead-of-key-nato-summit-with-ukraine-in-mind)

- [Al Jazeera — European leaders vow strong support for Ukraine ahead of NATO summit, June 24, 2026](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/24/top-european-leaders-vow-strong-support-for-ukraine-ahead-of-nato-summit)

- [Epoch Times — We want to strengthen our European pillar in NATO, says German chancellor, June 25, 2026](https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/we-want-to-strengthen-our-european-pillar-in-nato-says-german-chancellor-6053229)

- [CSIS — The NATO Ankara Summit: NATO 3.0 in practice, June 9, 2026](https://www.csis.org/analysis/nato-ankara-summit-nato-30-practice)

- [Straits Times — Erdogan says bilateral talks with Trump likely at NATO summit, June 24, 2026](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/erdogan-says-bilateral-talks-with-trump-likely-at-nato-summit-in-turkey)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/recit-le-sommet-e5-de-berlin-l-europe-a-cinq-forge-son-armure-avant-l-otan-d-ank