# Watching NATO Debate the 2% Target While Kyiv Runs Out of Patriots > Days before the NATO summit in Ankara, set for July 7 and 8, 2026, the question of burden-sharing among allies is once - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Profile - Published: 2026-07-07 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/regarder-l-otan-discuter-du-2-pendant-que-kyiv-manque-de-patriot ## 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 interceptors** **Kyiv** 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 ### 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 - 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 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/regarder-l-otan-discuter-du-2-pendant-que-kyiv-manque-de-patriot