Watching NATO Debate the 2% Target While Kyiv Runs Out of Patriots

Introduction: a summit arriving at a moment of truth

Ankara, a tense gathering

Days before the NATO summit in Ankara, set for July 7 and 8, 2026, the question of burden-sharing among allies is once again front and center. Since the The Hague summit in 2025, members of the Atlantic Alliance have committed to an ambitious target of 5% of GDP devoted to defense and security spending by 2035, a dramatic jump from the old 2% threshold.

According to data compiled by Anadolu Agency, some countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Türkiye, Germany and Italy already clearly exceed 2% of GDP, with rates ranging from 2.01% to 2.40%. But not every member of the Alliance shows the same budgetary discipline.

A persistent two-speed Alliance

This disparity among allies, documented for years by NATO's annual reports, reflects a persistent divide within the organization: some countries shoulder a disproportionate share of the collective defense burden, while others still struggle to reach the minimum thresholds set collectively, year after year, budget cycle after budget cycle, with little consequence for the laggards. This gap has widened rather than narrowed in recent years, even as the war next door to the Alliance's eastern flank should have settled the argument once and for all, leaving little room for the comfortable ambiguity that once let underspending slide.

It is indecent that some Alliance members are still dragging their feet on the bare minimum of 2% while Ukraine fights with dry Patriot stockpiles. This imbalance is no longer tolerable in 2026.

What the numbers reveal about Europe's defense industry

A real but uneven rise

According to Anadolu Agency's tally, the combined defense spending of the European Union's twenty-seven countries rose from 288 billion euros in 2023 to roughly 381 billion euros in 2025, a notable increase reflecting a collective awakening to the Russian threat since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Military equipment purchases have also jumped, reaching 88 billion euros in 2024, an increase of 39% over the previous year, an encouraging sign of Europe's determination to rebuild its defense industrial capacity after decades of relative underinvestment that left production lines idle and stockpiles thin precisely when they were needed most.

Clearly identified industrial champions

The United Kingdom stands out as Europe's largest defense producer, devoting roughly 36% of its military budget to equipment, while France remains one of the few countries able to design and produce nearly every major category of weaponry on its own, from fighter jets to submarines to satellites.

These numbers look impressive on paper, but they mask a harder truth: while some countries are building a genuine defense industry, others are settling for the strict symbolic minimum.

American pressure on European allies

Rutte and the doctrine of urgency

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has demanded clear, concrete and credible plans from every member to reach the new spending targets, noting that U.S. President Donald Trump expects an immediate acceleration from all allies toward the 5% threshold.

This American pressure, applied insistently since Trump's return to the White House, comes with concrete moves, including the announced withdrawal of roughly five thousand American troops stationed in Germany, part of a broader review of the U.S. military posture in Europe that has unsettled several capitals long accustomed to relying on Washington's permanent presence as an unshakable guarantee rather than a conditional commitment subject to renegotiation.

A message that isn't unanimously welcomed

Some European leaders see this American pressure as legitimate given the security emergency, while others view it as a disguised form of American disengagement that would force Europe to fill, on its own, a strategic vacuum Washington might leave behind.

Trump is right to push Europe to pay its fair share, even if his method is blunt. An ally who doesn't pay its share isn't really a reliable ally in a major crisis.

The stark contrast with Ukraine's reality

Kyiv fighting with dry stockpiles

While Western delegations debate budget percentages in Ankara, Ukraine keeps absorbing nightly waves of drones and missiles amid a chronic shortage of Patriot systems, a reality repeatedly documented by Ukraine's Ministry of Defense in recent weeks.

This contrast between the muffled budget discussions in Western capitals and the raw reality of the Ukrainian front reflects a striking disconnect Kyiv keeps calling out at every diplomatic meeting with its partners in the Atlantic Alliance. Percentage points and pie charts mean little to a family sheltering from drones in a Kyiv basement at three in the morning.

Zelensky, a voice that doesn't weaken

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has voiced hope that the Ankara summit won't turn into a hollow diplomatic exercise, calling for concrete commitments rather than mere verbal declarations of solidarity toward his country at war.

Zelensky is right to fear a hollow summit. NATO's recent history is full of solemn promises followed by deliveries too slow, too timid, for a country counting its dead every night.

The strategic stakes for the entire Alliance

Collective credibility at stake

NATO's ability to enforce its own spending targets directly shapes its credibility against adversaries like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, all of which watch closely for the slightest sign of division or weakness within the Western Alliance, ready to exploit any hesitation for their own strategic advantage.

Every country slow to honor its budgetary commitments sends, intentionally or not, a signal of vulnerability to authoritarian regimes that never hesitate to exploit the smallest crack in Western cohesion to advance their own strategic interests.

The hidden price of under-contribution

Countries that invest below the set thresholds effectively shift part of the security burden onto their European neighbors and the United States, a dynamic that fuels internal tension within the Alliance and weakens its long-term cohesion.

Every country that doesn't pay its fair share puts the weight of its security on its neighbors' shoulders. That's a form of strategic selfishness Ukraine has never had the luxury of indulging in.

What the Ankara summit could concretely change

Commitments that need to become action

The Ankara summit is an opportunity for Western leaders to turn their budgetary commitments into concrete action, notably by speeding up deliveries of air defense systems Ukraine desperately needs to close its current interceptor shortage.

Analysts cited by Time Magazine note that this summit's credibility will be measured less by the speeches given than by the precise delivery timelines announced for the following months, a test several Western allies have already failed in the past, leaving Ukrainian officials to count promised shipments that never arrived on schedule.

A window of opportunity that won't last forever

The momentum created by current geopolitical tensions, between the war in Ukraine and uncertainty over long-term American commitment to Europe, offers a rare window of opportunity to speed up burden-sharing reform within NATO.

This window of opportunity will not stay open indefinitely. If the West doesn't seize this moment to reorganize collectively, it could bitterly regret it when the next major crisis hits.

The specific role of Belgium and Luxembourg in this debate

Two small countries under the diplomatic radar

Belgium and Luxembourg, despite their modest size within the Atlantic Alliance, illustrate a broader dynamic seen among several small member states: the difficulty of quickly mobilizing enough budgetary resources to close the gap on the military spending targets NATO has set collectively.

This situation, however marginal it may seem next to the massive budgets of the United Kingdom or France, nonetheless weighs on the Alliance's collective credibility, with each laggard feeding the narrative of a divided Europe facing today's security emergency.

Real budget constraints, but not a sufficient excuse

The internal budget constraints of these small states, often tied to competing social priorities, can no longer serve as sufficient justification given the scale of the Russian threat now weighing on the entire European continent, including states geographically farthest from the Ukrainian front.

I understand the internal budget constraints of small countries like Belgium or Luxembourg, but collective security isn't something you negotiate à la carte based on everyone's domestic priorities.

How this lag affects solidarity with Ukraine

A direct link between national budgets and deliveries to Kyiv

Insufficient national defense budgets mechanically translate into a reduced capacity to supply military equipment to Ukraine, creating a direct link between certain allies' internal budgetary shortfalls and the persistent shortage of Patriot interceptorsKyiv suffers from every night.

This connection, rarely spelled out in official speeches, deserves to be named clearly: every missing percentage point in a member country's defense budget can potentially translate into additional Ukrainian lives lost for lack of adequate air defense systems.

A collective responsibility that goes beyond national borders

Given this reality, the responsibility of supporting Ukraine can no longer be treated as a simple matter of each country's voluntary generosity, but must be recognized as a collective obligation directly tied to the budgetary commitments made by every member of the Atlantic Alliance.

We need to stop treating support for Ukraine as an optional act of charity. It is a strategic and moral obligation directly tied to the budgetary commitments every NATO country has freely signed.

Conclusion: the real test isn't budgetary, it's moral

Numbers that must serve a greater cause

Beyond percentages and comparison tables, the real question posed in Ankara is as moral as it is budgetary: is the West ready to collectively bear the cost of its own security, at the exact moment Ukraine pays that cost every night in human lives.

An Alliance that must choose its side in the eyes of history

This summit must mark a clear turning point: either NATO finally turns its commitments into fast, concrete deliveries for Kyiv, or it risks validating, through its continued inaction, Vladimir Putin's cynical bet that Western democracies always tire out before autocracies do.

I close this testimony with a simple conviction: every percentage point of GDP a NATO ally fails to invest gets paid for elsewhere, in Ukrainian lives. Ankara must be the summit where this equation stops being ignored.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My acknowledged biases

I write this testimony as an observer convinced that the West must remain the strategic center of the free world and that every NATO member has a moral responsibility to contribute fairly to collective defense, particularly at a time when Ukraine is fighting for its survival.

What I don't know

I do not have precise, recent official figures on the exact share of GDP each specific laggard country in the Alliance devotes to defense, as available sources do not systematically break down every national case. This analysis relies on verifiable data and official reports from NATO and recognized news agencies.

Sources

Primary sources

NATO — Overview: 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, July 2026

Anadolu Agency — Factbox: NATO's defense industry, who builds the Alliance's military power, 2026

Ukraine's Ministry of Defense — statements on air defense needs, 2026

Secondary sources

Time Magazine — What to expect at the NATO summit, July 6, 2026

Foreign Policy — analysis of burden-sharing within NATO, 2026

The Guardian International — coverage of the NATO summit in Ankara, 2026