“NATO 3.0”: Defense spending commitments face test under President Trump

NATO is facing a major test of its credibility and future viability, with a summit in Turkey this week and Europe’s new defense spending targets facing unprecedented scrutiny from the White House.

This week’s summit, which begins Tuesday, will consider whether Europe can convert larger budgets into military power quickly enough to keep President Donald Trump engaged while preparing for a future in which Washington plays a smaller role in the continent’s security.

Last year’s summit in The Hague was seen as a landmark after allies committed to spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, including 3.5% on core defense requirements and 1.5% on broader security needs.

But at this year’s summit in Ankara, discussion is expected to move from commitments to implementation. This includes questions about procurement, industrial capacity, support for Ukraine, and the political structure of what the Trump administration calls “NATO 3.0.”

“This is really the NATO summit where NATO moves from burden-sharing to burden-shifting,” Ulrike Franke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told CNBC.

The summit comes as NATO faces pressure to maintain support for Ukraine and adapt to a battlefield shaped by rapid technological developments in drones, air defense and industrial capabilities.

Here are five major issues facing NATO leaders.

European governments widely accept that, under pressure from the White House, they must spend more, produce more and take greater responsibility for their national security.

But because NATO has been built around U.S. power for 77 years, the issue is as much a political issue as it is a military one, said Max Bergman, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Even if the United States does not leave, Europe will face tougher problems if the United States withdraws, he told reporters at a press conference last week, including how to organize its defense without putting the United States at the center.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is focused on keeping President Trump engaged while moving forward with the burden shifting plan. But Bergman said there was little discussion of a “Plan B” in case the U.S. decides it doesn’t want to become deeply involved.

Franke said another priority for Europe is clarity. If the United States intends to withdraw troops, assets, and capabilities, allies need a roadmap and schedule. That may be difficult for President Trump, whose approach toward allies is often unpredictable.

European countries are also keen to present a united front in public, especially on defense spending, Franke said. Spain and France have already faced criticism over their defense budgets. Meanwhile, the UK and France face serious fiscal constraints, despite recognizing the need to do more.

NATO’s spending drive is already changing momentum in Europe’s defense sector. Poland, the Baltic States and the Nordic countries are the fastest moving countries, reflecting their proximity to Russia. But the larger economy is moving more slowly, constrained by fiscal pressures and domestic politics.

“There’s money in the system right now, but we need to be able to spend it,” Franke said. “Europe needs to be able to produce things.”

Europe’s defense industry remains fragmented and constrained by supply chains, bureaucracy, labor shortages and years of underinvestment. In theory, collaborative procurement has the potential to reduce costs, improve interoperability, and increase scale. The fact is that the government still wants domestic contracts, jobs and tax revenue.

Franke cited Franco-German defense projects as an example of how national political motivations can delay cooperation, even when co-production makes strategic sense.

Ukraine is expected to be a focal point for Ankara, with discussions focusing on long-term military support, Kiev’s own defense industry and what NATO can learn from the country after more than four years of all-out war.

It happened while Russia was suffering heavy losses on the battlefield. “The data shows that Russia will do badly in 2026,” said Seth Jones, director of the CSIS Defense Security Agency, citing increased casualty rates and ground loss.

Kiev has also stepped up long-range drone and missile attacks into Russia, targeting energy, military, and logistics infrastructure, showing that Ukraine is making progress in developing domestic strike capabilities.

Franke said NATO needs to stop viewing Ukraine only as a recipient of Western aid. Kiev is now a source of military innovation, especially drones, anti-drone systems, and battlefield data on how to fight Russia.

“Ukraine has the cards for drones and counter-drone systems,” Franke said.

If that happens, NATO’s discussion could shift from how the alliance supports Ukraine to how Ukraine helps NATO prepare for modern warfare.

The summit follows months of tension between the United States and its European allies, with President Trump complaining of insufficient European support during the Iran conflict.

Franke said Iran could play the match in Ankara. This could include discussions on potential European contributions to any peace agreement, including maritime security and mine-sweeping operations. But he said such contributions were likely to be limited and partly symbolic, as European countries were still not fully aligned with the US approach.

Franke said European unity would be important if President Trump singled out countries on spending, but that would be difficult because perceptions of the threat vary widely across Europe.

There are also issues regarding the future structure. The NATO summit has not traditionally been an annual event, but it has been held every year since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Bergman said he wouldn’t be surprised if this was the last NATO summit of Trump’s presidency, given the uncertainty over next year’s Albanian interim summit and the 2028 U.S. election schedule.

That possibility could raise the stakes. If this summit is a “last hurray,” the message President Trump chooses to send at this NATO summit could be important far beyond Turkey.

Türkiye’s role as host country adds further complexity.

Like previous hosts, Turkey is likely to use the summit to raise its security concerns and defense industry.

For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a successful summit would demonstrate Turkey’s centrality, avoid a major diplomatic breakdown, and strengthen Ankara’s claim to access to defense procurement as European military spending increases.

“Defense procurement (and) legitimizing the regime are probably Turkey’s core goals,” Bergman said, pointing to the backsliding of democracy under Erdogan.

He said Turkey may be concerned about being excluded as the EU directs more defense spending to European producers, adding that since Turkey is in NATO but not the EU, access to future contracts and joint projects could be a priority.

As NATO seeks to keep the United States involved, arm Europe more quickly, and preserve Ukraine, Turkey will likely assert its own claims. Europe’s new security architecture still requires the Turkish government to be at the table.