The NATO summit will take place against the background of a major split between the countries. And here's why

The NATO Summit will be held in The Hague from 24 to 26 June. Against the background of increasing internal disagreements, the member states of the alliance are trying to maintain a semblance of unity. However, due to the unstable international situation, the changing conditions of global security and the protectionism of US President Donald Trump, the organization faces serious challenges. What exactly complicates the work of NATO is in the Izvestia article.

New introductory

• The NATO Summit in The Hague, which is scheduled for June 24-26, has undergone many changes even before its start. For a long time, the issue of the participation of President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, who was an honored guest at previous summits, was in limbo. At the end of May, the invitation was nevertheless sent, but he will not have a full-fledged work program and official meetings with the leaders of the states. Moreover, the meeting of the Ukraine—NATO Council was removed from the program, and, according to Western press reports, the organizers are doing everything possible to prevent the meeting of the Ukrainian president with American leader Donald Trump. Judging by the fact that Zelensky himself has not yet announced his participation, his office also doubts the expediency of the trip.

• In general, the upcoming summit has been reduced from a traditionally eventful three-day event to just one and a half hour long working session. It will adopt a communique with a minimum number of mentions of Ukraine, and the only solution will be a promise to raise military spending to 3.5% of GDP. However, this decision has already been softened, postponing its implementation for 10 years, after the active indignation of the countries of Southern Europe, and above all Spain, — their defense spending does not even reach the 2% barrier. This drastic reduction is being carried out in order to encourage Donald Trump to attend the summit until the end and avoid a repeat of the events at the G7 meeting in Canada (we discussed in more detail how and why that summit failed here).

• The alliance's member states have reason to fear for the outcome of the meeting in The Hague. After the crisis in the Middle East began to gain momentum and the United States joined it by attacking Iran, this conflict came to the fore for Washington, pushing Ukraine and the needs of European defense aside. Against this background, Trump's long-standing demands that the European Union invest more in its own defense become particularly relevant for the White House. In this regard, there are also growing fears in Europe about a possible sudden withdrawal of American troops from Europe.

• The Asia-Pacific countries have dealt another blow to the summit. So, it is already known that the newly elected president of South Korea and the Prime Minister of Japan will miss it.

Financing of the organization

• All this is happening against the background of growing contradictions among Western countries due to the difference in national interests and approaches to security. In particular, this is why the G7 summit in Canada turned out to be inconclusive. Disputes are likely to arise at the upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands, including over the allocation of financial obligations. Due to the fact that not all Member States spend 2% of GDP on defense, as stipulated in the agreements, other participants are dissatisfied with this. In particular, in 2024, only 22 of the 32 NATO states spent at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

• The protectionist course characteristic of Donald Trump's foreign policy rhetoric implies a reassessment of international obligations in terms of economic benefits and equity in burden sharing. In the past, Trump has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the level of contributions from European allies to the NATO defense budget, raising the issue of fair payment for collective security. Although there is no formal mechanism for the rapid withdrawal of the United States from the alliance — lengthy internal procedures and coordination with Congress are needed, and Washington is unlikely to decide on this — rhetorical pressure on allies and the threat of reduced participation in alliance affairs may lead to a decrease in the effectiveness of interaction and internal tension.

• Without the United States, the alliance's potential would be drastically reduced: it is America that provides a significant part of the military power, intelligence resources, logistics and global presence. Against the background of the conflict of interests between Brussels and Washington, European states are forced to significantly increase their own spending, review strategic guidelines and accelerate the processes of European defense integration.

Learning trail: two US ships prematurely left the NATO Baltops-2025 maneuvers

The destroyer Paul Ignatius and the headquarters ship Mount Whitney left the Baltic Sea after the start of the Iran-Israel conflict

• However, the creation of a powerful military defense system in the EU faces a number of limitations that reduce the likelihood of forming a full-fledged "national" defense in the foreseeable future (we wrote about this in more detail here). In particular, there is no unified view within the union on the nature of threats and priorities of foreign policy. In addition, the military potential of the member States remains fragmented. Financial constraints and competition with other priorities, such as the energy transition, social policy, and migration challenges, also hinder a large-scale increase in military spending.

The main threats

• There are also differences in NATO's assessment of external threats: European countries focus on the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, while the United States focuses on the confrontation between Iran and Israel. At the same time, the issue of support for Ukraine is actively discussed due to differences in the amount of assistance, the degree of involvement, as well as the assessment of the long-term consequences of the conflict for the security of Europe. Trump insists on the need for negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, at the same time, the Europeans consider the diplomatic end of the conflict at the current stage to be a sign of weakness towards Russia.

• As for the instability in the Middle East, for European countries, this conflict also touches on the themes of migration and the fight against terrorism. However, the United States is primarily interested in supporting its key partner in the region, Israel. At the same time, the humanitarian crisis that has resulted from the aggravation of the situation in the region hardly affects Washington.

• In addition, questions are being raised in the alliance about the mechanisms of expansion — the admission of new members and related security guarantees, especially in the context of growing geopolitical tensions. First of all, this concerns the European promise to include Ukraine in the alliance. Trump has already noted that this was one of the reasons for the conflict, although both Washington and Brussels understood that these plans were not destined to come true in the near future.

Virtual thunderstorm: NATO is changing military scenarios based on the experience of the Ukrainian conflict

The second stage of the NATO Defender 25 exercises starts in southeastern Europe. What exactly will they practice?

The future of the alliance

• Given the accumulated disagreements between Europe and the United States, the most likely scenario for the development of NATO in the near future will be the adaptation of the alliance to the redistribution of responsibilities between its members. Against the background of the desire of European countries for greater strategic autonomy and internal strengthening of defense capabilities, the importance of initiatives to develop the European component within the bloc is increasing. However, this faces the problem of financing and the fragmentation of the military systems of European countries. At the same time, the United States, while remaining a key player, will increasingly shift certain functions to its partners, especially in regional matters.

• Despite the common desire to strengthen collective security, the Union is faced with the need to constantly work out compromises between national interests and allied discipline. The main disagreements in NATO arise on issues related to the allocation of defense spending, the definition of security priorities, the expansion of the alliance and cooperation with external partners. The financial burden is one of the sensitive topics, as not all Member States comply with the agreed rate of 2% of GDP for defense, which causes periodic discussions about the fairness and uniformity of contributions.

When writing the material, Izvestia interviewed:

• Dmitry Drobnitsky, an American political scientist;
• American political scientist Malek Dudakov.