The stakes are high for the NATO summit this week. The ongoing Russian war against Ukraine and escalating tensions around the globe, including the recent bombings in Iran, have shifted this once perfunctory gathering of leaders into a pivotal decision point. This year, the alliance’s goal should be to ensure its 2025 gathering is remembered as the steadfast summit.
At its 2022 summit, NATO began responding to the new reality, agreeing to an enhanced eastern flank presence. The 2023 summit focused on implementing those decisions. Last year’s summit in Washington aimed to convey continuity, tying NATO’s 75th anniversary to its rearmament.
But Russia’s expanding shadow war and political uncertainty resulting from President Joe Biden’s decline eclipsed that message.
In the upcoming summit — the first since President Donald Trump’s return to office — leaders in the Hague should aim for a quiet display of trans-Atlantic unity.
Presenting a steely resolve to defend the freedom of the trans-Atlantic community (which is under extreme pressure from authoritarian states) will send a clear signal to our adversaries.
In other words, keep calm and carry on.
The alliance is already expected to agree to increased defense spending: 3.5% of GDP for defense, plus 1.5% for related activities like cybersecurity, infrastructure, intelligence and preparations for total war, such as Germany’s bunker refurbishments. A call for alliancewide spending of 5% on defense-related activities would’ve seemed preposterous just years ago. Today, it’s nearly reality.
President Trump can take a victory lap. Whether fear of Russian attack or U.S. abandonment spurred Europe to act is ultimately unimportant. Trump’s return and focus on defense spending has helped push new commitments over the top.
They will be needed. U.N. Secretary-General Mark Rutte recently called for a “quantum leap” in NATO’s collective defense. In addition to proposing a 400% increase in air and missile defense, he stated: “Our militaries also need thousands more armored vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support.”
Beyond spending targets, European nations must roll up their sleeves in order to meet capability targets recently set by NATO defense ministers. This could take a decade or more of sustained effort and investment. Expanding the defense industrial base, securing key components, training workers and cutting red tape will be essential.
NATO allies will also need to grow their militaries considerably, a task that is likely to require some form of conscription. Front-line allies like Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden have either recently reintroduced or recently expanded these measures. They understand that freedom must be defended.
Heading into the summit, the U.S. role in NATO remains secure. U.S. officials have reiterated America’s commitment to Article V. This includes defending allies in the Baltics, who were recently praised by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth alongside Poland as “model allies.”
Beyond political signaling, U.S. forces continue to train alongside their NATO counterparts. In May, 4,100 U.S. forces took part in the exercise Swift Response 25, focused on reinforcing the critical Baltic and Nordic flanks of the alliance.
As the Defense Department continues its force posture review, NATO leaders should take the opportunity to impress upon the president the critical nature of U.S. boots on the ground in Europe, particularly key enablers. Their withdrawal, especially if done in haste before European capabilities have had time to adequately grow, will undermine deterrence. The military and political value of U.S. presence is unsurpassed.
On the hybrid front, NATO should continue bolstering its efforts to monitor Russian shadow fleets, which transport sanctioned oil and target critical infrastructure. NATO should remain resolute and craft creative responses to gray zone warfare.
Keeping hybrid threats high on the agenda will allow delegations to exchange ideas on most effective responses, while signaling to the Kremlin that its aggression has consequences — even when it remains below the threshold of a conventional attack.
Finally, NATO needs to avoid stumbling into trans-Atlantic quicksand over disagreements on Ukraine. Secretary-General Rutte was right in inviting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the summit. But to ensure this invitation has its desired effect, European NATO allies need to take the lead in reaffirming alliance support for Ukraine.
The Trump administration appears to have accepted that quick peace is not feasible. But whereas Europe sees the Russian war against Ukraine and NATO’s future as indelibly linked, Trump views them as distinct. The demise of Trump’s peace effort is therefore more likely to result in U.S. disengagement than a bold new policy trajectory.
This means that it will be up to Europe to keep Ukraine’s future NATO hopes alive at the summit. Of far more immediate consequence, European NATO members will need to commit to the continued material support to Ukraine without the U.S. A Ukrainian victory is both achievable and in NATO’s long-term interest. It will be up to European NATO leaders to make this case in the Hague.