NATO summits are typically designed to present a united front, with outcomes largely predetermined in advance. The upcoming summit at The Hague, orchestrated by newly appointed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, is no exception. In fact, the event appears to be carefully planned to avoid any confrontations with NATO’s most influential member, the United States. The core item on the agenda is a pledge by European allies to increase their defence spending—precisely what President Donald Trump has long demanded.
While this commitment is expected to take center stage, it comes with a mix of compromises and vague concessions. However, even a carefully managed summit cannot entirely obscure the ongoing rifts between Trump and many European leaders over issues like trade, Russia, and the deepening Middle East conflict.
Donald Trump, with his “America First” doctrine, has never been particularly enthusiastic about multinational institutions. His skepticism extends to NATO itself. During his first term, he not only criticized the alliance but also questioned its very foundation: collective defence. At his inaugural NATO summit, he openly scolded European allies for underfunding their militaries and claimed they owed the U.S. “massive amounts of money.” On that front, Trump has maintained a consistent stance throughout his political career.
Mark Rutte, known for maintaining a positive relationship with Trump, has made considerable efforts to deliver a diplomatic victory for the U.S. president. The upcoming NATO gathering will take place over two days—Tuesday and Wednesday next week—at the World Forum in The Hague. But the main deliberations will be brief, lasting just three hours, and the concluding summit declaration will be reduced to a mere five paragraphs. This minimalism is reportedly a response to Trump’s preferences.
Trump will be joined by 31 other leaders from NATO’s member states, along with representatives from more than a dozen partner countries. In preparation, Dutch authorities have launched the most extensive security operation in the country’s history, with the event’s cost reaching €183.4 million ($210 million or £155 million), making it the most expensive NATO summit ever.
Some observers suggest the abbreviated schedule is tailored to Trump’s reported short attention span and aversion to lengthy meetings. However, beyond catering to Trump, the short agenda also serves a strategic purpose—it limits the range of topics and helps conceal internal divisions within the alliance.
Ed Arnold, a defense analyst from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), commented on Trump’s dominant presence at such events: “Trump likes to be the star of the show,” adding that he will likely take credit for pressuring European countries to act on defense. While Trump isn’t the first American president to criticize NATO spending habits, he has arguably had greater success than his predecessors.
Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker, acknowledged the tension: “Some European governments do not like the way Trump’s gone about it,” referencing Trump’s call for nations to spend 5% of their GDP on defense. Presently, Europe contributes just 30% of NATO’s total military spending. Yet, according to Volker, many Europeans have come to realize, “we needed to do this, even if it’s unfortunate that it took such a kick in the pants.”
Indeed, some European countries are now pushing their defense budgets toward that 5% target. These include nations near Russia, such as Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania. But the pressure is not solely coming from Washington. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally shifted the security outlook across Europe, demanding increased defense commitments.
Nevertheless, the reality is that many NATO members are unlikely to meet these lofty new spending goals. Some have still failed to achieve the 2% GDP target established over a decade ago. Rutte has proposed a compromise: raising core defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, supplemented by an additional 1.5% in related expenditures.
However, the definition of “defense-related expenditure” remains so ambiguous that critics worry it could be manipulated. Rutte has suggested that infrastructure investments—such as roads, bridges, and railways—could count toward this total. As RUSI’s Ed Arnold noted, this will almost certainly lead to more “creative accounting.”
Even if this new benchmark is endorsed, many nations may only offer symbolic compliance, without serious plans to meet it by 2032 or 2035. The timeline remains hazy. Spain’s prime minister has already condemned the target as “unreasonable and counterproductive.” Meanwhile, British Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has avoided committing to a firm timeline for reaching 3% GDP spending. The current UK prime minister has only described it as an “ambition” for the next parliamentary term. Still, given the UK’s stated intent to place NATO at the center of its defense policy, Starmer may be compelled to support the new spending framework.
The danger lies in seeing the spending increase as just a political move, or simply yielding to U.S. demands. But NATO’s own internal defense strategies—particularly concerning potential aggression from Russia—are also a major motivator. Rutte himself has issued a stark warning: Russia could launch an attack on a NATO country within five years.
Though the full scope of NATO’s defense plans remains classified, Rutte has already indicated what is lacking. In a speech earlier this month, he said NATO requires “a 400% increase in its air and missile defences,” along with “thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, and millions more artillery shells.”
Most member countries, including the UK, currently fall short of NATO’s capability targets. Consequently, Sweden has announced plans to double the size of its army, and Germany aims to expand its troop numbers by 60,000. NATO’s plans reportedly outline detailed procedures to defend the alliance’s eastern border in the event of a Russian invasion. General Christopher Donahue, head of the U.S. Army in Europe, recently highlighted the vulnerability of Polish and Lithuanian territory near the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. He revealed, “we looked at our existing capabilities and realized very quickly they are not sufficient.”
Yet ironically, direct discussions about Russia and the war in Ukraine will be kept to a minimum at the summit. This reflects growing divergence between Europe and America on the issue. Kurt Volker observed, “Under Trump, the US does not see Ukrainian security as essential to European security but our European allies do.”
Trump has already eroded NATO unity by engaging with Vladimir Putin and suspending military aid to Ukraine. According to Ed Arnold, contentious subjects like Russia strategy have been deliberately excluded from the agenda to avoid provoking Trump.
Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has received an invitation to the summit dinner, he won’t be participating in the North Atlantic Council’s main discussions.
As Mark Rutte prepares to lead his first NATO summit, he likely hopes for a smooth and concise event. But given Trump’s fundamental disagreements with many of his allies—especially regarding Russia, NATO’s greatest strategic concern—the summit could still fall short of unity and coherence, despite efforts to the contrary.