The NATO Ankara Summit: Delivery over Drama

Few NATO summits in recent memory have convened amid such deep uncertainty about the future of the transatlantic relationship. Disputes over burden shifting, Greenland, Iran, Ukraine, and a prospective U.S. force posture review led many observers to view Ankara less as a routine NATO gathering and more as a potential stress test for alliance unity.

In the aftermath, critics have characterized the summit communiqué as uninspiring and have argued that the gathering represented a missed opportunity. Some analysts concluded NATO might be better served by fewer summits and more implementation, arguing that avoiding the drama of annual gatherings would allow greater focus on capability delivery rather than political spectacle.

This interpretation misses the larger story. An alternative—and less fashionable—view is that the Ankara summit was a significant success, not because it solved NATO’s enduring challenges, but because it demonstrated that the alliance remains capable of adapting under pressure while delivering tangible outcomes on some of the hardest issues facing European security.

In many respects, Ankara was less about announcing a new NATO than demonstrating that a new model for the alliance is already taking shape. The real test was whether NATO could translate political consensus into practical adaptation—maintaining transatlantic cohesion, advancing the shift of responsibility from the United States to Europe, and strengthening deterrence against Russia. Judged by those measures, the summit performed far better than many expected.

Why the Communiqué Matters

Communiqués can be criticized for containing few surprises and avoiding contentious questions, reflecting the compromises required to achieve consensus among 32 allies. These criticisms are not entirely wrong. Communiqués are deliberately negotiated documents designed to reflect consensus rather than innovation. Yet in an era of strategic volatility, consensus has value.

The Ankara communiqué reaffirmed NATO’s “ironclad commitment” to Article 5 and collective defense. While such language may appear routine, it is precisely the language allies and adversaries alike monitor for signs of weakening resolve. It also reaffirmed that Russia remains the primary threat to Euro-Atlantic security and reiterated support for Ukraine’s freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. A few years ago, such formulations were less certain: Debates over escalation management, differing threat perceptions, and concerns about provoking Moscow often constrained allied messaging. Today, there is far less ambiguity.

Perhaps most importantly, the declaration reflected how much the burden sharing debate has evolved. A decade ago, European dependence on U.S. military support was the defining feature of the transatlantic relationship. In 2022, few would have predicted that Europe and Canada would eventually finance the vast majority of security assistance flowing to Ukraine. Yet NATO now explicitly recognizes this reality, demonstrating that burden shifting is no longer merely rhetorical.

The communiqué also reflected the pragmatic nature of democratic alliances. NATO members do not agree on every issue, nor should they. What matters is whether differing interests can be accommodated within a broader framework of strategic cooperation. Despite continuing disagreements on issues such as Greenland, burden shifting, and Middle East policy, allies were still able to reach consensus on the alliance’s core security priorities. The recognition of the need for the alliance to adapt to the broader security environment—including the threat from terrorism—and the affirmation that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon demonstrate that NATO can address multiple security challenges simultaneously without losing strategic coherence.

Beyond the Communiqué, Ankara Delivered Capabilities

The most important outcomes from Ankara were not found in the communiqué itself, but in the capability announcements surrounding the summit.

For years, analysts have argued that Europe must replace or supplement critical U.S.-provided enabling capabilities if it is to assume greater responsibility for its own security. These capabilities—strategic lift, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, missile defense, air command and control, and long-range strike—are precisely the areas where European dependence has traditionally been greatest and the most difficult to replace.

Ankara saw meaningful movement in several of these domains:

• Eleven NATO allies agreed to jointly procure Saab GlobalEye aircraft to replace part of NATO’s aging airborne warning and control system fleet. While less visible than combat aircraft announcements, airborne warning and control systems are among the alliance’s most critical strategic enablers, providing the command and control architecture necessary for large-scale operations.
• Seven allies expanded strategic airlift and tanker capacity through multinational Airbus A400M and A330 MRTT initiatives. Strategic transport and aerial refueling have long been among Europe’s most significant capability shortfalls. Multinational procurement offers a practical method for addressing these gaps while reducing costs.
• Intelligence and surveillance received similar attention. Northern European allies also announced plans to procure up to five MQ-4C Triton aircraft, significantly improving NATO’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. The initiative reflects growing recognition that situational awareness is becoming just as important as traditional force structure.

The summit also sought to address industrial constraints that have increasingly become a central challenge for deterrence:

• Secretary General Mark Rutte’s launch of the NATO Front Door for Industry and NATO Engine initiatives aims to improve communication between governments and defense manufacturers while creating stronger demand signals for industry. The lesson from Ukraine is clear: Deterrence depends not only on military forces but also on the ability to produce weapons, ammunition, and equipment at scale.
• Similar logic underpinned NATO’s new critical minerals initiative, involving 12 allies. Modern defense production relies on supply chains that are often vulnerable to disruption. Strengthening access to essential raw materials is therefore increasingly viewed as a security issue rather than simply an economic one.
• Meanwhile, allied efforts to develop interoperable 155 mm ammunition production and ground-based precision-strike capabilities addressed another critical lesson from Ukraine: Long-range fires and ammunition stockpiles matter.

Taken together, these announcements reveal a common theme. NATO is increasingly focusing on the enabling capabilities required to sustain deterrence rather than merely expanding headline force numbers.

Ukraine Remains Central

For Ukraine, Ankara provided more than symbolic support. At a time when concerns persist over the future of Western assistance, the summit generated important momentum. The most significant outcome was a two-track approach to Patriot air defense: emergency support to meet Ukraine’s immediate operational needs and efforts to expand production capacity within Ukraine itself. The first helps Ukraine survive today; the second helps ensure it can sustain the fight over the longer term.

Beyond air defense, Ankara also reinforced the shift toward more predictable, long-term support for Ukraine. Allied leaders pledged €70 billion ($80 billion) in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine in 2026 and committed to sustaining at least equivalent levels in 2027. Significantly, much of this support is now being financed by European allies and Canada, reflecting the broader evolution of burden sharing within the alliance.

Equally important was the broader political context. For much of 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration sought to position itself as a facilitator of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. However, the continued absence of meaningful progress toward a ceasefire, combined with Russia’s ongoing missile and drone campaigns, has increasingly shifted attention back toward the practical requirements of sustaining Ukraine’s defense.

In that environment, U.S. support remains strategically significant. Ensuring that Ukraine retains the ability to defend its population, protect critical infrastructure, and impose costs on Russian military operations remains central to the broader goal of preventing Russia from translating battlefield pressure into political victory.

For Kyiv, maintaining allied political support is often as important as obtaining any individual weapons system. By delivering new assistance and reaffirming continued backing for Ukraine’s sovereignty and security, Ankara signaled that support for Ukraine remains a central element of Euro-Atlantic security policy.

Summits Create Decisions

Another overlooked benefit of alliance summits is their role as forcing functions. Major political decisions that might otherwise languish in bureaucratic processes frequently receive final approval because leaders are gathering and expectations for deliverables increase.

The long-awaited UK defense investment plan is one example. The summit provided a deadline against which governments could align domestic decisions and announce new initiatives, including a $50 billion investment over the next decade in deep precision-strike capabilities.

Similar dynamics occurred across the alliance. Canada, alongside Luxembourg and other allies, launched the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, a new multinational financing mechanism intended to mobilize public and private capital for defense investment and industrial expansion. Such initiatives demonstrate how summits can convert political commitments into practical mechanisms for implementation rather than merely producing political declarations.

Without Ankara, many of these decisions would likely have proceeded eventually. But one of the advantages of summits is their ability to compress timelines and accelerate delivery. Deterrence depends not only on what is purchased, but on how quickly decisions are made and capabilities are fielded.

There is also an underappreciated diplomatic dimension of the Ankara summit. Decisionmaking within the current U.S. administration is highly centralized. The combined presence of President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth created opportunities that cannot easily be replicated. The most valuable outcomes from summits are often not reflected in communiqués; they occur in bilateral meetings, informal conversations, and impromptu exchanges that allow leaders to clarify intentions, dispel misconceptions, and avoid talking past one another. At a time when strategic misunderstandings can carry significant consequences, these interactions have real value.

What Comes Next?

The summit did not resolve all of NATO’s challenges. Most notably, it did not provide a detailed road map for how and when Europe will assume greater responsibility for its own defense as the United States reassesses its military posture in Europe.

The next major milestone will be the anticipated force posture review over the coming six months. The hope is that this transition proceeds in an orderly and coordinated manner, ensuring that any adjustments to the U.S. military presence are matched by improvements in European capabilities and informed by a clear understanding of the progress already being made by European allies and Canada. The numerous bilateral meetings held in Ankara will likely prove just as important as the summit’s formal decisions, helping leaders align expectations ahead of what could become one of the most consequential transatlantic defense discussions in decades.

The objective should not be to replace every U.S. capability one-for-one. Such a standard is both unrealistic and unnecessary. The more important question is whether Europe and Canada can assume greater responsibility for their own security while remaining embedded within a strong transatlantic framework. Ultimately, the measure of success is not strategic autonomy from the United States, but the development of a stronger European pillar within NATO—one capable of contributing more to collective defense, deterring Russia, and reinforcing NATO’s long-term credibility.

Measured against expectations, Ankara moved the alliance in that direction. It maintained political cohesion, advanced capability development, supported Ukraine, and accelerated efforts to strengthen Europe’s contribution to collective defense. Most importantly, it demonstrated that NATO adaptation continues even amid political uncertainty and strategic turbulence.

Without the summit, many of the capability initiatives, industrial agreements, financing mechanisms, and Ukraine support packages announced in Ankara would likely have occurred eventually. Yet in an increasingly dangerous security environment, “eventually” is not a strategy. Deterrence depends on shortening timelines, accelerating delivery, and turning political commitments into military capability.

The Ankara summit was not a missed opportunity. It was evidence that NATO remains capable of adaptation, delivery, and strategic renewal—and that NATO 3.0 is already taking shape.

Jonathan Burchell is a visiting fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.