Commentary

Mark Rutte’s unusually flattering tone toward President Trump, uncharacteristic of Northern European political culture, drew considerable criticism for appearing overly submissive. Yet, many recognised it as a deliberate diplomatic strategy aimed at securing what mattered most: an unambiguous, public endorsement of NATO’s core guarantees. The effort appeared to pay off: not only did President Trump remain at the summit until the end, without citing domestic distractions, but he also seemed visibly pleased with the proceedings. The Hague Summit introduced a set of far-reaching commitments, particularly on defence investment, industrial cooperation, and support for Ukraine, that signal NATO’s intention to shift from crisis response to structural readiness. For Europe, these decisions should represent a turning point. They underscore a growing recognition that the continent must assume greater responsibility for its security, while still preserving the transatlantic bond as the foundation of collective defence. Crucially, the Summit identified both Russia and terrorism as enduring threats to Euro-Atlantic security.” This recognition signals that NATO’s posture is not limited to short-term crisis management, but is instead shifting toward strategic endurance. This article examines the key takeaways from the summit, beginning with the historic new defence investment pledge that could redefine NATO’s credibility and deterrence posture for the next decade.

“All for one and one for all”.

The final Declaration of the Summit opened with a strong message: “We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all.” This paragraph is difficult to understand without its broader political context in full. What is stated here is NATO’s foundational principle—Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—and its unusually prominent emphasis in such a brief final communiqué would not have been necessary if not for President Trump’s repeated ambivalence and manipulation regarding America’s commitment to the Alliance. European unease was further amplified by President Trump’s ambiguous response to a journalist aboard Air Force One en route to The Hague. When asked directly about Article 5, he replied: “Depends on your definition. There are numerous definitions of Article 5.” While questions about the United States’ commitment to NATO have become increasingly common in recent years, the interpretation of Article 5 has traditionally been regarded as unequivocal. It is precisely for this reason that the reaffirmation of Article 5 featured so prominently in the final document of the Summit. The use of language reminiscent of the motto of the Three Musketeers was a carefully chosen rhetorical device, underscoring the enduring principle of collective defence as the bedrock of the Alliance. Yet despite its central role in NATO’s founding document, Article 5 has been triggered only once and in a context that defied its Cold War origins. Ironically, it was not invoked for its originally intended purpose of the United States defending Europe, but rather in defence of the United States by its European allies following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

A New Benchmark for Defence Investment

One of the most significant outcomes of the Hague Summit was the adoption of a bold new defence spending framework. NATO Allies committed to investing 5% of GDP annually by 2035 in a broad category of defence and security-related spending, going far beyond the previous 2% benchmark that had guided Alliance planning since 2014. This 5% target is not a symbolic aspiration—it is a structured commitment, with clear categories, reporting mechanisms, and a mid-term review built in. The investment pledge is split into two main components:

• At least 3.5% of GDP will go directly toward core defence requirements, based on NATO’s established definition of defence expenditures, a level that, notably, was common among European countries during much of the Cold War. This includes force generation, readiness, capabilities, and meeting NATO Capability Targets.
• Up to 1.5% of GDP may be allocated toward broader resilience and preparedness efforts, a category that reflects the changing nature of security in the 21st century. This includes measures to protect critical infrastructure, enhance cybersecurity, improve civil defence, foster innovation in emerging technologies, and strengthen national defence industries.

While this expanded scope acknowledges that modern security challenges go far beyond traditional military threats, it also introduces a degree of flexibility that may lead to divergent interpretations among member states. The broad and somewhat ambiguous definition creates space for what some critics might call “creative accounting,” allowing governments to include spending that may only loosely align with NATO’s core defence priorities. As such, rigorous transparency and regular review will be essential to ensure that these allocations genuinely contribute to the Alliance’s collective readiness and resilience. Importantly, member states agreed to submit annual plans detailing their step-by-step progression toward meeting the 2035 target. A review is scheduled for 2029, the post-Trump period, providing an opportunity to assess whether the current trajectory remains aligned with the strategic environment and updated NATO capability targets. Putting these pledges on paper was probably the easiest part of the task. The real challenge begins when heads of state return home and must persuade national parliaments and ultimately their constituencies that modern security threats demand a fundamental reallocation of public funding. As Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski aptly pointed out at the NATO Public Forum in The Hague, “…the closer you are to Russia, the more you spend. We have a saying in Poland that every country has an army, either your own or a foreign one. In the medium to long term, your own is cheaper.” His remarks captured the core dilemma facing many NATO countries: how to persuade their citizens that investing in security is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for sustaining everything else—healthcare, education, and social welfare. Spain has already formally requested an exemption from the 5% defence spending commitment in The Hague. While not formally opting out, Belgium and Slovakia also expressed reservations, and more might follow. Is meeting this challenge feasible? At the very least, it is not impossible. As Gerlinde Niehus argues, “the EU has mobilised a massive multi-tier support package of ca. € 3.2 trillion in total fiscal response in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Today’s security challenges are far greater. There is no justification other than political inertia to not embrace an ambitious and robust approach now.”

Strengthening Deterrence: Forces, Capabilities, and Readiness

The Summit was not only about money; it was about power and readiness. NATO’s strategic credibility depends not merely on promises but on tangible capabilities that can deter adversaries and defend member states if necessary. The Declaration made it clear: “Our investments will ensure we have the forces, capabilities, resources, infrastructure, warfighting readiness, and resilience needed to deter and defend.” This renewed emphasis on deterrence builds on the Alliance’s three core tasks: deterrence and defence, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security. Each of these pillars is being redefined for a world in which military confrontation, hybrid warfare, and great power competition are no longer abstract risks, but daily realities. The Hague Summit reinforced NATO’s determination to:

• Accelerate the implementation of the New Force Model, which ensures that a larger pool of Allied troops is pre-designated for rapid deployment.
• Expand and modernise military infrastructure, especially on the eastern flank, including forward bases, mobility corridors, and logistics hubs.
• Bolster interoperability and readiness, with an emphasis on high-intensity, full-spectrum warfare.
• Invest in emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, space capabilities, and autonomous systems, to maintain NATO’s qualitative edge.

These measures are not just military; they are strategic signals aimed at adversaries, primarily Russia, as well as any state or non-state actor questioning NATO’s resolve. At a time when deterrence by punishment is no longer sufficient, NATO is shifting toward deterrence by denial: possessing the real capacity to prevent aggression before it begins. Importantly, NATO’s defence transformation is also about time. It’s about being able to respond quickly and decisively, with the right forces in the right place. The Hague Summit put a premium on readiness, not just quantity. That marks a return to the fundamentals of collective defence in an age of unpredictability.

Ukraine’s Security Is Europe’s Security—and NATO’s Credibility

Perhaps the clearest message from The Hague was the linkage between Ukraine’s survival and NATO’s security. As the Declaration explicitly states: “Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours.” What began as a moral and political imperative, supporting a sovereign country under attack, has now become a security necessity. Ukraine is not just a partner; its stability, territorial integrity, and resilience are central to Europe’s future security architecture. The summit introduced two essential elements in this context:

1. Ukraine-related spending will count toward the new 5% defence investment target. This is a recognition that bolstering Ukraine’s defence capability is not external aid—it is an integral part of NATO’s deterrence posture.
2. Allies committed to supporting Ukraine’s defence industry. This is a long-term shift away from ad hoc arms donations toward sustainable, industrial-scale defence partnerships. Helping Ukraine develop its production capacity will reduce dependency and build resilience for the years ahead.

While the Declaration stopped short of offering Ukraine a concrete membership timeline, the underlying message was clear: Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic future remains a strategic objective. By integrating Ukraine into NATO’s security and industrial planning, the Alliance is creating facts on the ground, even in the absence of formal accession. This commitment also sends a powerful deterrent message to the Kremlin: NATO is not fatigued. On the contrary, the West is preparing for strategic endurance. For Ukraine, the task now is to continue aligning with NATO standards while defending its sovereignty. For NATO, the challenge is to maintain political unity while integrating Ukraine more deeply into its operational and strategic frameworks.

Building a Transatlantic Defence Industry Without Borders

One of the most forward-looking aspects of the current Summit was the call to deepen transatlantic defence industrial cooperation. This emphasis reflects a growing realisation within the Alliance: credible deterrence and long-term security are impossible without a robust, interoperable, and agile defence industrial base. The declaration outlines a shared commitment: “to rapidly expand transatlantic defence industrial cooperation and to harness emerging technology and the spirit of innovation to advance our collective security.” Beyond rhetoric, this marks a strategic pivot from relying on legacy systems and fragmented procurement to building a coordinated, modernised, and innovation-driven defence economy. Specifically, NATO leaders pledged to:

• Eliminate defence trade barriers among Allies to ensure the smooth flow of critical materials, technologies, and capabilities.
• Promote joint research, development, and procurement, leveraging the strengths of both European and North American industries.
• Invest in next-generation defence technologies, including AI, space, cyber resilience, and unmanned systems.
• Strengthen national and Allied defence production capacity, especially in response to the war in Ukraine, which exposed severe shortages in ammunition, drones, and spare parts.

If NATO successfully strengthens European and transatlantic defence manufacturing, it will reduce its vulnerability to global supply chain disruptions and political risks from third countries. It will also increase resilience against economic tactics such as export controls, energy leverage, and industrial espionage. For Europe, achieving this means taking on greater responsibility not only in defence spending but also in production and innovation. If realised, building a competitive and resilient European defence industrial base will become a central element of NATO’s long-term deterrence capabilities. Moreover, the Summit’s industrial agenda has clear implications for NATO’s relationship with the European Union. As the EU also moves toward deeper defence cooperation through initiatives like the European Defence Fund and PESCO, the coordination or potential friction between NATO and the EU will become increasingly important.

Focus on Southern and Balkan Security

NATO also reaffirmed its regional outreach by announcing upcoming summits in Türkiye and Albania. These choices are not just logistical; they are geopolitical signals. Türkiye plays a pivotal role in NATO’s southern flank and Black Sea security. Albania represents the Alliance’s continuing commitment to the Western Balkans, a region still vulnerable to destabilisation and hybrid threats.

Conclusion

For now, the Hague Summit accomplished its primary political objective: obtaining public reaffirmation of the United States’ commitment to NATO’s European allies. This allows European leaders a brief moment of relief and cautious reassurance. However, in the long term, certainty remains elusive. Given President Trump’s well-known unpredictability and tendency to shift positions, the durability of U.S. support cannot be taken for granted. Moreover, the Summit left critical questions unanswered—questions that will heavily influence NATO’s future cohesion and effectiveness. How committed is the United States to European security, both politically and militarily, especially as the U.S. reconsiders its global troop deployments? Will the U.S. apply meaningful pressure on Russia to deter further aggression, or will it retreat from sanctions and punitive measures? Can the United States and its allies maintain steady, long-term support for Ukraine amid shifting global and domestic political winds? And crucially, will NATO allies be able to forge a unified approach to the growing challenges posed by China, even as momentum with Indo-Pacific partners stalls? How these core issues are addressed in the coming months and years will determine NATO’s ability to meet current and future threats. While the 2025 Summit marked a symbolic success in terms of unity and financial commitments, it also highlighted the significant work that remains ahead. European allies must now take ownership of defence spending targets and turn promises into action. Sustained political will, funding, and public support are crucial for building a lasting deterrence. For Europe, strategic clarity must translate into momentum, as NATO’s security relies as much on European resolve as on American commitment.

David Dondua
June 2025