# Washington sells its weapons to soothe Europe before Ankara

> Introduction: a summit under heavy budgetary tension

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Column
- Published: 2026-07-04
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/washington-vend-ses-armes-pour-calmer-leurope-avant-ankara

## Introduction: a summit under heavy budgetary tension

### Ankara becomes the epicenter of the Western future

On **July 7 and 8, 2026**, **NATO** leaders are gathering in **Ankara** in a climate no one dares call calm. According to the **Straits Times**, the summit's primary goal is to ease tensions built up with the **Trump** administration, which has multiplied unilateral decisions that have undermined European allies' confidence in their main military protector since **1949**.

This summit arrives at a pivotal moment: **Turkey**, the Alliance's second-largest army, is looking to expand its defense sales as the entire **West** rearms against the combined threats of **Russia**, **China**, **Iran** and **North Korea**, as **Reuters** reports.

### The American bet: sell more to reassure more

According to information relayed by **Euractiv**, major American defense manufacturers are set to jointly announce, in **Turkey**, a series of collaboration projects with the U.S. government, potentially including the sale of **Tomahawk** cruise missiles. The goal is clear: soften the political impact of the gradual withdrawal of American military capabilities from the European continent.

It's a double-edged strategy: reassure through arms contracts what you unsettle through troop withdrawals. A delicate equation, but a revealing one about a deep transition underway in the transatlantic relationship.

*I see in this maneuver a brutal but clear-eyed form of realpolitik: Washington isn't leaving Europe, it's changing the nature of its commitment, from soldier to sales contract. It's uncomfortable, but it isn't abandonment.*

## The Hegseth review, a quiet earthquake

### Six months to redraw the European military map

On **June 18, 2026**, Defense Secretary **Pete Hegseth** announced, at a meeting of **NATO** defense ministers in **Brussels**, a full review of the American military posture in Europe. This assessment, internally nicknamed **"NATO 3.0,"** is expected to last up to six months and will involve direct consultations with the U.S. **Congress**, according to **Reuters**.

Hegseth warned that the **United States** could withhold some of its financial contributions to **NATO** if allies kept benefiting from the system without investing enough in their own defense, a practice he openly calls **"free riding."**

### Allies named directly for their silence during the Iran crisis

The tone escalated when Hegseth criticized certain allies who refused to grant access to their bases and airspace during the American conflict with **Iran**, calling that refusal **"shameful,"** according to **CNN**. He assured that the upcoming review would guarantee clear access rights for American forces going forward.

This public outburst, rare in its bluntness for a diplomatic meeting of this level, shows just how openly the current American administration is now willing to name its frustrations with longtime partners.

*Saying out loud what diplomacy has whispered for years is risky, but at least it's honest. Europe can no longer pretend not to know what Washington really thinks of its military contribution.*

## The raw numbers behind the announced withdrawal

### Fighters, drones and tankers, an inventory that worries

According to military sources cited by **Reuters**, the **United States** will cut by a third the number of **F-15 and F-16** fighters assigned to **NATO**, dropping to **99 aircraft**. The number of **MQ-4 and MQ-9 Reaper** drones will be cut in half, to **12 units**, while **KC-135** refueling tankers will fall from **79 to 63**.

Only a single **aircraft carrier** and a single **strategic bomber** will now be designated for **NATO**, down from two previously. Maritime patrol aircraft will drop from **26 to 15**, and the number of destroyers will fall from **17 to 9**, according to the same sources. A cruise-missile submarine will also be withdrawn from commitments to the Alliance.

### Rutte confirms it, but refuses to call it weakening

**NATO** Secretary General **Mark Rutte** confirmed that this reduction in American capabilities had already taken effect, but insisted it was merely a military planning tool, not an American withdrawal from its commitments. "The question came up yesterday: is this in effect or not? Yes, it is," he said, while noting that the American nuclear guarantee to **NATO** remained unchanged and strong.

Rutte added that other member countries had already filled much of the gap created by these American reductions in the Alliance's crisis response forces, a sign, in his view, that **Europe** is finally shouldering a fairer share of the collective burden.

*Rutte is pulling off an impressive balancing act: reassuring without lying, minimizing without denying. It's high-wire diplomacy, but the numbers themselves never lie.*

## Belgium and others stepping in to fill the gaps

### Francken announces a concrete gesture

Belgian Defense Minister **Theo Francken** announced that **Belgium** would increase its support for **NATO's** crisis response force to offset part of the American withdrawal. This gesture, modest on a continental scale, illustrates a broader trend: several European capitals are actively trying to demonstrate good faith even before the official opening of the **Ankara** summit.

American General **Alexus Grynkewich**, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said this month that **Washington** expects European allies and **Canada** to quickly increase the number of aircraft and ships they contribute to the Alliance's defense strategies.

### Germany and Poland, two symbolic cases

According to **Reuters**, roughly **5,000 American soldiers** will be withdrawn from **Germany** over the coming year, while in **Poland**, reports emerged of the cancellation of a rotational deployment of **4,000 American troops**, before **Trump** himself announced in May the deployment of **5,000 additional troops**, considerably muddying the strategic picture for the allies involved.

This back-and-forth of contradictory announcements feeds persistent anxiety among European military planners, who struggle to build reliable forecasts about America's medium-term commitment.

*This repeated inconsistency between withdrawal and reinforcement announcements worries me more than any clearly stated reduction. Strategic uncertainty sometimes costs more than the reduction itself.*

## Arms contracts, the other face of the transatlantic relationship

### Tens of billions of dollars at stake in Ankara

According to remarks made by **Mark Rutte** before the **Atlantic Council** in Washington and relayed by **Reuters** and the Bulgarian agency **BTA**, the **Ankara** summit is expected to become the stage for defense contract signings totaling tens of billions of dollars. These announcements are explicitly meant to show that the **Alliance** remains a robust industrial and military machine, despite internal political tensions.

**Turkey**, the summit's host, is actively seeking to expand its own defense sales amid this broad rearmament push, according to a separate **Reuters** report published in early June. The country fields **NATO's** second-largest army and intends to capitalize on that strategic position.

### Kyiv also weighs on the announcements

According to **Ukrainska Pravda**, **NATO** members are also expected to pledge billions more dollars in weapons for **Ukraine** at the **Ankara** summit, news that, if confirmed, would send a strong signal of continued Western support against Russian aggression, despite the Alliance's internal turbulence.

This Ukrainian dimension of the summit remains crucial: it's a reminder that despite internal budget disputes, the front line remains the absolute strategic priority for all Western members, including an American administration otherwise highly critical of its partners.

*Whatever the internal tensions over burden-sharing, seeing NATO keep arming Ukraine remains, to me, the one red line that must never be crossed. Everything else is negotiable, that isn't.*

## Trump's double talk on NATO

### Critical on funding, firm on the nuclear guarantee

The **Trump** administration maintains a paradoxical stance toward **NATO**: sharply critical on cost-sharing, but publicly firm on the nuclear guarantee. According to **Deutsche Welle**, **Rutte** explicitly rejected the idea that the United States is withdrawing from the Alliance, insisting that Washington has clearly reaffirmed its commitment, provided other members shoulder more of the responsibility for European security.

This nuance is essential to understanding the logic of the current administration: this isn't an ideological disengagement from **NATO**, but a forceful renegotiation of the terms of American involvement, where every capability cut comes with a heightened demand on partners.

### The Council on Foreign Relations calls it "accelerating decoupling"

The **Council on Foreign Relations** has labeled this dynamic an **"accelerating decoupling"** between the United States and **NATO**, noting that the Pentagon is using internal frustration to justify a gradual withdrawal of capabilities assigned to the Alliance. This analysis, while critical, acknowledges that the withdrawal remains structured, gradual, and paired with compensating commercial efforts.

It is precisely this duality — partial military withdrawal combined with a defense-sales offensive — that defines the current American strategy toward its European partners.

*A calculated disengagement rather than a brutal abandonment, that's how I read this strategy. It isn't comfortable for Europe, but it isn't the betrayal some alarmists are announcing either.*

## Europe's position: absorb the shock or adapt

### Pistorius and the smile that says a lot

According to a **Reuters** analysis published on **June 26**, German Defense Minister **Boris Pistorius** was photographed smiling broadly a few hours after Hegseth accused **NATO's** European members of benefiting from the system without contributing enough. That image, which went viral in certain diplomatic circles, captures the mix of resignation and defiance that characterizes Europe's reaction to American pressure.

According to reporting from the German daily **Die Welt**, confirmed by **Reuters**, the United States had already informed its allies it was cutting the number of fighters allocated to **NATO** from **150 to 100** aircraft, also withdrawing eight refueling tankers and one full carrier strike group.

### The real test: America's command architecture

A commentator cited by **Reuters** noted that American participation essentially functions as the Alliance's **"operating system,"** linking sensors to shooters and providing the data, communications and planning architecture indispensable to any coordinated military operation. This structural dependency makes any American withdrawal, even a partial one, structurally difficult for Europeans to offset quickly.

That's where the real strategic risk for **Europe** lies: not the loss of a handful of fighters or ships, but the gradual erosion of the integrated command architecture that has been **NATO's** strength for decades.

*It's this structural dependency, more than any single isolated figure, that should push Europe to invest massively, and quickly, in its own command and coordination capabilities.*

## Ankara's heightened security, a symbol of a tense world

### A capital turned into a fortress

According to **Bloomberg**, **Turkey** has significantly stepped up security in its capital ahead of the summit's opening, turning **Ankara** into a temporary fortress of sorts. This massive security mobilization reflects not only the usual logistical risks of an international summit of this scale, but also the ambient geopolitical tension surrounding every **NATO** gathering since the start of the war in **Ukraine**.

The international press center will be operational starting **July 5**, with continuous coverage through **July 9**, according to official information published by **NATO**. This impressive logistical operation reflects the scale of media attention expected around this event.

### A geographic symbol that is far from incidental

The choice of **Ankara** as host is not neutral. **Turkey** occupies a pivotal position between **Europe**, the **Middle East** and the Black Sea, a position taking on heightened strategic importance as the war in **Ukraine** continues to reshape the security priorities of the Alliance's eastern flank.

This geographic choice also reinforces the growing diplomatic role **Ankara** seeks to play between the Western and non-Western blocs, an ambition **Turkey** has been cultivating for several years already.

*Seeing NATO choose a capital so strategically positioned sends a clear message to Moscow and Tehran: the Alliance is not retreating geographically, even as it recalibrates its resources.*

## Eastern flank allies under heightened watch

### Fifteen thousand American troops, the silent front line

According to the **Atlantic Council**, roughly **15,000 American troops** are currently deployed across the eastern flank region, with the highest concentration in **Poland**, home to about **10,000 troops**. More than half of the American reinforcement on this strategic border comes directly from U.S. forces, a reality that makes any potential reduction particularly sensitive for the Baltic states and Poland itself.

In total, roughly **68,000 American troops** remain permanently stationed in **Europe**, a number that had peaked at around **100,000** in 2022 in direct response to Russia's full-scale invasion of **Ukraine**, before gradually falling back to just over **80,000** today.

### Deterrence remains the absolute priority

Despite the reductions announced elsewhere on the continent, the reinforcements deployed on the eastern flank remain largely preserved, a clear signal that neither **Washington** nor its allies want to send a message of weakness to **Moscow** at such a critical moment in the Ukrainian conflict.

This priority given to the eastern flank reflects a coherent strategic hierarchy: cut costs where the immediate risk is seen as lower, while firmly maintaining the deterrent posture against the most direct Russian threat.

*As long as the eastern flank stays protected as a priority, I consider Western deterrence against Russia to still be holding. That's the real red line to watch, far more than the overall withdrawal numbers.*

## Turkey, arms seller and diplomatic host

### A defense industry booming

According to **Reuters**, **Turkey** is actively targeting an increase in its defense sales as the entire **West** rearms and traditional alliances get redrawn. American demands for **NATO** members to shoulder a greater share of their own defense responsibilities, combined with plans to withdraw thousands of American troops from **Germany**, present both commercial opportunities and strategic uncertainties for **Ankara**.

This ambiguous position — both neutral diplomatic host and ambitious commercial player in the defense sector — places **Turkey** in a position of growing influence within the Western security architecture, a development worth watching closely in the months ahead.

### A complex but indispensable partner

The relationship between **Ankara** and the rest of **NATO** remains historically complex, marked by repeated disagreements on several regional strategic files. And yet, its geographic position and the size of its military make it a partner the **West** simply cannot do without in today's geopolitical context.

This reality demands a cautious but engaged diplomacy toward **Ankara**, where commercial and security interests are constantly intertwined with sometimes delicate political considerations.

*Turkey remains an imperfect ally, but an essential one. The West doesn't have the luxury of choosing perfect partners against today's threats, only partners that are useful and reliable on what matters most.*

## The Iranian precedent looming over the talks

### A resentment not yet fully settled

The refusal of some European allies to grant access to their bases and airspace during the American conflict with **Iran** continues to weigh heavily on the mood of the preparatory talks for the **Ankara** summit. Hegseth did not hide his frustration, calling that refusal **"shameful"** behavior in front of all the defense ministers gathered in **Brussels**.

This American frustration fits within a broader context where **Washington** believes Western solidarity must extend beyond the European theater alone, including operations against shared threats like **Iran**, considered by the current administration to be one of the West's principal adversaries alongside **China**, **Russia** and **North Korea**.

### A test of solidarity beyond the European theater

This Iranian precedent illustrates a deeper tension: **NATO** was historically designed for collective European defense, but the current American administration appears to want to implicitly broaden expectations of solidarity to other theaters of operation deemed strategically vital by **Washington**.

This divergence in vision could well become one of the most lasting friction points between the two shores of the Atlantic, well beyond simple questions of funding or troop withdrawals.

*Demanding that Europe extend military solidarity beyond its natural theater is a legitimate request in a world of interconnected threats, but it deserves an honest debate, not reproaches lobbed on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting.*

## What the summit must achieve to be a success

### Five priorities identified by Western experts

According to the **Atlantic Council**, several conditions must be met for the **Ankara** summit to be considered a success: clarifying medium-term American commitments, securing concrete financial pledges to **Ukraine**, strengthening transatlantic defense industrial coordination, reassuring eastern flank countries, and displaying unity despite very real internal tensions.

These priorities reflect an implicit recognition that Western unity, though shaken by months of contradictory statements, remains the only credible response to the combined ambitions of **Russia**, **China**, **Iran** and **North Korea**.

### Trump's ambiguous but necessary role

Despite legitimate criticism of his blunt and sometimes unpredictable method, the **Trump** administration is, paradoxically, forcing **Europe** to accelerate a rearmament that many had long considered necessary without ever fully committing to it. This pressure, however diplomatically uncomfortable, is producing concrete results on funding and Western industrial capacity.

It is in this paradox that this administration's most lasting contribution to collective Western security may lie: forcing, through coercion rather than persuasion, a **Europe** long too comfortable in its military dependence on America.

*Trump remains a necessary evil for the West on this specific file: his diplomatic bluntness is producing a European rearmament that years of peaceful speeches never managed to bring about.*

## Western defense industry picks up the pace

### Production lines under pressure

The Western rearmament triggered by the war in **Ukraine** has forced major defense manufacturers to considerably accelerate their production lines. The contracts expected in **Ankara** fit within this broader dynamic, where every new order helps justify the massive industrial investments already committed on both sides of the Atlantic.

This industrial acceleration directly benefits the **United States**, which remains the world's leading supplier of advanced military equipment, but it is also fueling the emergence of a more autonomous European industrial base, a goal **Brussels** has been pursuing since the start of the Ukrainian conflict.

*Watching the Western defense industry finally run at full capacity after decades of chronic underinvestment is one of the rare structurally good pieces of news in this tense geopolitical period.*

### Turkish manufacturers' growing role

**Turkey** itself has developed an increasingly competitive defense industry, capable of producing drones, armored vehicles and air defense systems exported to several regions of the world. This industrial rise further strengthens **Ankara's** negotiating position within **NATO**.

This Turkish industrial momentum, combined with the American and European acceleration, is shaping a more diversified but also more strategically complex Western defense landscape to coordinate.

## What Russia is watching from Moscow

### A divided Alliance would be an invitation to escalate

It must never be forgotten that every sign of division within **NATO** is being closely watched from **Moscow**. **Vladimir Putin** and his military apparatus are actively looking for signs of Western fragility that could justify further escalation on the Ukrainian front or elsewhere along Europe's eastern flank.

That is precisely why **Rutte's** reassuring statements about maintaining the American nuclear guarantee and the overall solidity of the Alliance carry strategic weight that far exceeds routine diplomatic messaging.

*Every word spoken in Ankara will be weighed in Moscow as a signal of strength or weakness. That's why the unity on display, even one forced by circumstance, matters more than ever.*

### China is watching too, silently

Beyond **Russia**, **China** is also closely following the evolution of Western cohesion, aware that any transatlantic fragmentation could be exploited in its own regional strategic calculations, particularly around **Taiwan** and the South **China** Sea.

This global dimension is a reminder that the **Ankara** summit, even while focused on European questions, is part of a far broader geopolitical competition between the **West** and its principal authoritarian rivals.

## Conclusion: an Alliance reinventing itself under pressure

### The true assessment will come after Ankara, not before

The **Ankara** summit alone will not resolve all the tensions that have built up between **Washington** and its European partners since the start of **2026**. But it marks a pivotal moment where the **West** will need to show it can turn uncomfortable American pressure into concrete, lasting European rearmament.

The arms contracts announced, the financial commitments to **Ukraine**, and the expected clarification of the American posture will determine whether this period of transatlantic turbulence ends with a stronger or a more fragmented **Alliance**.

### Unity remains the only option against shared adversaries

Facing **Vladimir Putin's** **Russia**, **China**, **Iran** and **North Korea**, Western division remains the only truly dangerous scenario. Internal tensions over cost-sharing, however real and legitimate, must never overshadow the absolute necessity of a united Western response to these combined threats.

In this respect, Ankara will be a revealing test of the Atlantic Alliance's collective maturity in this new era of global rearmament.

*I close this file with a firm conviction: the West is going through a painful but necessary transition, and Ankara could well mark the beginning of a more balanced Alliance, provided political will follows the rhetoric.*

**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](https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/2026/07/overview---2026-nato-summit-in-ankara-)

- [Reuters — Hegseth announces review of US troops in Europe, scorns some allies — June 18, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/hegseth-announces-review-us-troops-europe-scorns-some-allies-2026-06-18/)

- [Reuters — Allies filling gaps in NATO crisis forces left by US, Rutte says — June 17, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/allies-filling-gaps-nato-crisis-forces-left-by-us-rutte-says-2026-06-17/)

### Secondary sources

- [Straits Times — NATO leaders to gather in Ankara, aiming to smooth over tensions with Trump — July 3, 2026](https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/nato-leaders-to-gather-in-ankara-aiming-to-smooth-over-tensions-with-trump)

- [Council on Foreign Relations — At the NATO Summit, Europe Faces an Accelerating U.S. Decoupling — June 30, 2026](https://www.cfr.org/articles/in-ankara-europe-faces-an-accelerating-u-s-decoupling-from-nato)

- [Reuters — Turkey targets more defence sales as West rearms, alliances shift — June 5, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/turkey-targets-more-defence-sales-west-rearms-alliances-shift-2026-06-05/)

- [Ukrainska Pravda — NATO members to pledge billions for weapons for Ukraine at Ankara summit — June 25, 2026](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/06/25/8041104/)

- [Reuters — The U.S. is not making it simple for European defence to stand on its own feet — June 26, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/commentary/us-is-not-making-it-simple-european-defence-stand-its-own-feet-2026-06-26/)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/washington-vend-ses-armes-pour-calmer-leurope-avant-ankara