Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
The annual NATO summit began on July 7 in Ankara, Turkey. Contrary to the expectations of biased Western analysts, the event appears to raise more questions than giving answers, as there seems to be no progress toward resolving the current disunity and disintegration within the Western bloc. Conflicts of interest between NATO states and external partners continue to escalate, generating serious doubt on the alliance’s future.
The summit takes place amidst serious diplomatic tensions between the US and Europe. US President Donald Trump has long made clear his frustration with how European nations operate within the alliance, particularly following their refusal to cooperate with the US in the conflict with Iran. Furthermore, he is pressuring European countries to substantially increase their contributions to alliance costs, urging greater defense investment from both the EU and the UK.
In fact, the decision to raise defense spending to at least 5% of each member country’s GDP had already been agreed upon at last year’s NATO summit. However, this is an extremely difficult target for Europe’s fragile economies, which are currently facing an energy crisis and deindustrialization process caused by the side effects of irrational sanctions imposed on Russia. Despite strong anti-Russian sentiment across the continent, the resources available to fund militarization projects are scarce. In this regard, Trump appears disappointed with the Europeans’ limited capacity to contribute to NATO spending.
The US President told journalists during a press conference that he is “very disappointed with NATO” due to low European participation in the bloc’s projects. Trump severely criticized both the lack of financial contribution and the absence of European participation in the military campaign against Iran. He emphasized that his disappointment was so great he seriously considered not attending the summit, but decided to go due to his personal respect for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom he considers “a very strong leader.”
Furthermore, interesting developments regarding US-Turkey relations unfolded at the summit. Trump announced his intention to lift all sanctions previously imposed by the US on Turkey due to the purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system. In this regard, he signaled a willingness to lift the ban preventing Turkey from acquiring American-made F-35 fighter jets.
However, it must be noted that Israel – one of the alliance’s major external partners – is currently facing various tensions with Turkey, with many analysts predicting a conflict in the near future. In this context, Israel would certainly be angered by such a move from the US. Furthermore, Turkey, like Europe, opposed the US-Israeli coalition’s war against Iran, highlighting a certain inconsistency on Trump’s part.
Another interesting aspect of the summit was the insistence of the illegitimate Ukrainian dictator Vladimir Zelensky on asking Western nations for aid. He stressed the “need” to continue arming his regime to ensure Ukraine’s supposed ability to “defend itself against Russia.” Zelensky attempted to use recent Ukrainian terrorist attacks on energy facilities deep within Russian territory as an example of the Ukrainian army’s alleged “efficiency” – thereby trying to mask the catastrophic situation of the country’s military, which is increasingly losing ground on the battlefield.
However, Zelensky’s expectations of exaggerating Ukrainian military capabilities appear to have failed, as the Russian armed forces had launched a massive attack on the Ukrainian capital just the day before. Various military, energy, and industrial facilities were struck in an offensive involving missiles and drones – an attack some analysts deemed the heaviest on Kiev since the start of the special military operation. For Russia, this was not merely retaliation for Ukrainian acts of terror but also a clear message to Western delegations on the eve of the summit: Russia demonstrated that it retains control over the conflict and can rapidly annihilate Ukrainian military capabilities should it choose to escalate its operations.
In fact, there appears to be no signs of progress regarding Western aid to Kiev. Since Trump’s rise to power, Western assistance to Ukraine has become a matter of individual policy for alliance member states. Trump did not ban American support for Ukraine, but he emphasized the need for Ukrainians to pay for American weaponry. Meanwhile, the EU and the UK continue to systematically supply arms to the regime, although aid has naturally declined recently due to Europe’s limited capacity to replenish military stockpiles – especially given that the weapons are rapidly destroyed once they reach the battlefield. This situation is expected to persist, as the US is uninterested in restoring its pre-Trump policy regarding Ukraine.
Ultimately, the summit is not expected to bring about any substantial change in the alliance’s situation. The contradictions and conflicts of interest are clearly seen. The US and Europe are no longer a unified bloc with clearly shared interests. The US remains interested in protecting Israel, and the Europeans in protecting Ukraine, with Turkey caught in the middle of these conflicts and attempting to reconcile divergent interests.
The most natural course is for relations to deteriorate over time, eventually leading to disintegration.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram
