# Zelensky at the NATO Dinner in Ankara, but Shut Out of the Plenary Session > Ahead of the NATO summit set for July 7 and 8, 2026 in Ankara, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed his attendance at - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Investigation - Published: 2026-07-06 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/zelensky-au-diner-de-l-otan-a-ankara-mais-ecarte-de-la-session-pleniere ## Introduction: a **variable-geometry invitation** for Kyiv ### A dinner yes, a plenary no Ahead of the **NATO** summit set for **July 7 and 8, 2026** in **Ankara**, Ukrainian President **Volodymyr Zelensky** confirmed his attendance at the dinner hosted by Turkish President **Recep Tayyip Erdogan** on the summit's sidelines, without taking part in the official plenary session bringing together the Alliance's **thirty-two heads of state** and government. This unusual arrangement, where **Ukraine** finds itself invited to a social moment but excluded from the summit's institutional core, illustrates the **delicate diplomacy** **NATO** must now navigate to preserve both its **historic support** for Kyiv and its relationship with the **American administration**. ### What this investigation will show This piece traces the origins of this decision, identifies who made it and why, and situates this partial exclusion within the broader context of **ongoing tensions** among Western allies over continued **military support** for **Ukraine** against **Russia**. According to **Channel News Asia** and the **Anadolu** agency, this decision above all reflects **NATO's** desire to avoid any further friction with **Washington**, as U.S. President **Donald Trump** himself is set to attend this historic summit, held for only the second time by **Turkey** since the **2004 Istanbul summit**. *I'll say it plainly: sidelining Zelensky like this, even dressed up as a reasonable diplomatic compromise, sends a troubling signal about the actual place Ukraine holds in the Atlantic Alliance's priorities right now.* ## The institutional backdrop of this **thirty-sixth NATO summit** ### Ankara, the second Turkish city to host this historic gathering The Ankara summit is the thirty-sixth summit in **NATO's** history and only the second hosted by **Turkey**, after the one held in **Istanbul** in 2004, a fact that gives this event particular symbolic weight for the current Turkish government. According to **Daily Sabah**, hosting this summit in Ankara fits into a broader Turkish strategy aimed at asserting its central diplomatic role within the Atlantic Alliance, amid a particularly tense and complex regional geopolitical context. ### An agenda dominated by **defense spending** The summit's official agenda is largely dominated by the question of member countries' defense spending, with an ambitious target under discussion of reaching **5% of gross domestic product** devoted to defense by **2035**, according to information reported by the **Anadolu** agency. This ambitious budgetary target, well above the historic goal of two percent of GDP, reflects pressure exerted for several years by the American administration for **European and Canadian allies** to shoulder a larger share of the financial burden of collective Western defense. *I understand the budgetary logic behind this ambitious target, but I note with some irony that this same summit, devoted to collective military reinforcement, is keeping its main frontline ally at arm's length from its official negotiating table.* ## The stated reasons behind this partial sidelining ### A decision confirmed by NATO's secretary general NATO Secretary General **Mark Rutte** had already confirmed back in June, according to the Russian news agency **TASS**, that President **Zelensky** would not take part in the summit's official plenary session, a confirmation that drew mixed reactions among Western observers of the Ukrainian file. This decision, made well ahead of the summit itself, suggests deliberate planning rather than a simple last-minute logistical hiccup, reinforcing the idea of a precise diplomatic calculation aimed at avoiding any open tension with certain key partners within the Alliance. ### The explicit desire to placate **Washington** According to several analyses picked up by the **Straits Times**, this diplomatic arrangement directly reflects **NATO's** desire to avoid any public confrontation with President **Donald Trump's** administration, whose position on the level of continued **American commitment** to Ukraine remains a sensitive subject within the Alliance. This calculated diplomatic caution clearly illustrates **NATO's** persistent difficulty in maintaining a unified and coherent position on the Ukrainian file, while simultaneously avoiding publicly exposing internal disagreements among its members on this highly sensitive issue. *This desire to placate Washington at all costs, however understandable on a strictly diplomatic level, should never come at the expense of publicly recognizing the central role Ukraine plays in defending Western values.* ## A **bilateral meeting** between Trump and Zelensky nonetheless planned ### A one-on-one confirmed on the sidelines of the official summit Despite his absence from the official plenary session, President **Zelensky** is still expected to meet directly with President **Donald Trump** on the summit's sidelines, according to information reported by **CNBC** and confirmed by the **Anadolu** agency, a bilateral meeting that could prove decisive for the future of American support for Kyiv. This parallel meeting comes in a format similar to the one planned with new Syrian President **Ahmed al-Sharaa**, suggesting the American president now favors direct **bilateral diplomacy** over the Alliance's traditional large-scale institutional multilateral gatherings. ### The real stakes behind this bilateral meeting This bilateral meeting could prove, according to several observers of the file, more decisive for the concrete future of American military support to Ukraine than the official plenary session itself, since the most significant decisions on military aid are generally negotiated in this kind of restricted format rather than during more formal protocol sessions. This diplomatic reality highlights just how much **NATO's** traditional institutional formats sometimes lose relevance against the direct **personal diplomacy** favored by certain current Western leaders, notably the American president himself. *I remain convinced that this bilateral meeting, however strategically important, should never replace the full institutional recognition Ukraine deserves within the Atlantic Alliance's official structures.* ## Erdogan's dinner, a diplomatic door that stays open ### A strong symbolic gesture from Turkey The maintained invitation to the dinner hosted by Turkish President **Recep Tayyip Erdogan** is a significant diplomatic gesture from **Turkey**, which has consistently maintained a distinctive and relatively balanced relationship with both **Ukraine** and **Russia** since the current conflict began. This gesture allows Kyiv to maintain a visible diplomatic presence at the summit, even without full access to the official plenary discussions, a form of compromise that partially satisfies all parties involved in this delicate protocol negotiation. ### Turkey, a constant mediator since the conflict began **Turkey** has played a constant mediating role since the start of the Russian invasion, notably through the **Black Sea grain deal** negotiated in **2022**, an accumulated **diplomatic expertise** that partly explains why Ankara continues to play a privileged intermediary role between the different parties to the current conflict. This Turkish diplomatic balancing act, though occasionally criticized by some Western allies who take a firmer stance toward Moscow, paradoxically helps maintain useful **communication channels** that other Western countries probably could not preserve as effectively. *I readily acknowledge the diplomatic usefulness of the balancing role played by Turkey, even though I still believe firmness toward Moscow should remain the absolute priority for the entire Western camp.* ## Ongoing tensions within the Alliance over the Ukrainian file ### Diverging positions between European and American allies This Ankara summit comes amid ongoing tensions between European allies, generally more favorable to continued and strengthened military support for **Ukraine**, and the current American administration, whose stance on long-term commitment remains more ambiguous and subject to **frequent reversals**. This underlying divergence, far from being purely theoretical, translates concretely into protocol decisions like the one seen in Ankara, where **NATO** appears to prioritize preserving its **internal cohesion** at the expense, at least symbolically, of fully recognizing Ukraine's institutional role. ### The decisive weight of the military funding question Discussions on raising defense spending to **5% of GDP** occupy such a central place at this summit that, according to several analysts cited by **Forbes**, they seem to partly overshadow substantive discussions on concrete and immediate military support for Ukraine against continued **Russian aggression**. This internal **budgetary prioritization** within the Alliance, however legitimate from a long-term strategic standpoint, risks paradoxically diverting some of the diplomatic attention that should normally remain focused on the urgent and immediate needs of the current **Ukrainian front**. *I'm concerned to see the Alliance's internal budget discussions take up so much space on this summit's agenda, when the urgency of immediate support for Ukraine should, in my view, remain the absolute and non-negotiable priority.* ## What this arrangement reveals about Trump's diplomacy ### A bilateral rather than multilateral diplomatic style The structure of this summit, with its bilateral meetings running parallel to the official plenary session, clearly illustrates President **Donald Trump's** characteristic diplomatic style, which generally favors direct **person-to-person negotiations** over more binding institutional multilateral frameworks that are slower to produce concrete results. This diplomatic style, though sometimes criticized for its institutional **lack of predictability**, also offers the potential advantage of unlocking certain concrete decisions more quickly, as shown by the bilateral meeting planned with the Ukrainian president on the sidelines of the official summit. ### A **military merit** acknowledged despite domestic criticism On the strictly military front and in terms of the Western posture toward **Russia**, President **Trump's** confirmed presence at this **NATO** summit and his willingness to meet directly with President **Zelensky** reflect an American commitment that, despite its apparent ambiguities, remains present and active on the Ukrainian file at this precise stage of diplomatic negotiations. This continued presence, though imperfect and sometimes frustrating for the European allies most committed to Kyiv, is better than a **complete American withdrawal** from the file, a scenario several Western observers seriously feared in the months leading up to this summit. *I'll admit, not without some reservation, that Trump's continued presence on this specific military file deserves credit, even as I continue to firmly criticize his more troubling positions on other domestic American issues.* ## Reactions within **Ukrainian civil society** ### Understandable frustration over this partial exclusion Several Ukrainian commentators and analysts have expressed understandable frustration over this partial exclusion of their president from the official plenary session, seeing it as a potentially troubling signal about the real place granted to **Ukraine** within **NATO's institutional structures** at this critical moment in the conflict. This frustration, though largely understandable given the context of an **existential war** for Ukraine's **national survival**, must nonetheless be weighed against the maintained bilateral meeting with the American president, which retains real **strategic value** despite its less formal nature. ### Western **popular support** that remains largely intact Despite the protocol-level diplomatic tensions seen in Ankara, popular support for **Ukraine** remains largely intact in most **NATO** member countries, an important **political factor** that continues to weigh on the decisions of Western governments despite the protocol hesitations observed at this particular summit. This steady popular support serves as a significant **political counterweight** to institutional diplomatic hesitations, reminding Western leaders that **public opinion** remains largely favorable to continued support for Kyiv, regardless of the **protocol calculations** seen at this specific summit. *I believe this legitimate frustration deserves to be fully acknowledged, while also noting that Western popular support for Ukraine remains a considerable diplomatic asset that Kyiv should never underestimate in its future strategic calculations.* ## Conclusion: a diplomacy of compromise with uncertain outcomes ### What to take away from this Ankara summit The **NATO** summit in **Ankara** perfectly illustrates the current diplomatic complexity surrounding the Ukrainian file: a maintained invitation to the protocol dinner, exclusion from the official plenary session, but a significant bilateral meeting preserved with the American president on the sidelines of the main event. This nuanced arrangement above all reflects **NATO's** desire to preserve its internal cohesion amid ongoing tensions among its members, while simultaneously avoiding fully abandoning Ukraine at this particularly delicate diplomatic moment for the conflict's future. ### A test to watch in the coming days The concrete results of the bilateral meeting between Presidents **Trump** and **Zelensky**, planned on the sidelines of this summit, will likely determine the immediate future of Western support for Ukraine far more than the official protocol discussions of the plenary session itself. The outcome of this Ankara summit, caught between cautious diplomatic symbolism and very real military stakes, deserves to be closely followed by all observers watching the future of Western support against continued Russian aggression in Ukraine. *I close this investigation with a firm conviction: Ukraine deserves better than a seat at the dinner table without a seat at the decision-making table, and the West will one day have to choose clearly between diplomatic caution and fully assumed commitment.* **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 - Channel News Asia, coverage of the NATO summit and support for Ukraine — July 2026 - Anadolu Agency, status of allies' defense spending ahead of the Ankara summit — July 2026 ### Secondary sources - Straits Times, analysis of tensions within NATO ahead of the summit — July 2026 - CNBC, confirmation of the Trump-Zelensky bilateral meeting — July 5, 2026 - TASS, Mark Rutte's confirmation of Zelensky's exclusion from the plenary — June 17, 2026 - Daily Sabah, official schedule of the historic Ankara summit — July 2026 - Wikipedia, reference page on the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara — 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/zelensky-au-diner-de-l-otan-a-ankara-mais-ecarte-de-la-session-pleniere