Beyond Ankara: NATO’s new transatlantic bargain

The NATO Summit in Ankara will be remembered less for the headlines surrounding Donald Trump than for what it revealed about the Alliance’s long-term direction.

While much of the attention focused on Trump’s remarks about Greenland and criticism of several European allies, the summit pointed to a broader strategic shift already underway. Far from exposing an Alliance on the verge of fragmentation, Ankara confirmed that NATO is undergoing a gradual but profound process of strategic adaptation, one in which the United States remains committed to Europe’s security while expecting its European allies to assume greater political, financial, and industrial responsibility for the continent’s defence.

This evolution did not emerge overnight. Successive American administrations have repeatedly called for a more balanced distribution of responsibilities within the Alliance, arguing that Europe’s long-term security cannot continue to rely disproportionately on American military and financial resources. What distinguishes the current phase is that this expectation is no longer expressed solely through political declarations. 

It is increasingly reflected in NATO’s strategic planning, capability development, and industrial policy, gradually redefining the transatlantic relationship without altering its fundamental principles.

Greenland, Spain and the strategic meaning behind the headlines

The political tensions that accompanied the summit should therefore be interpreted within this broader context. Trump’s renewed attention to Greenland, for instance, should not be understood simply as another episode of diplomatic friction with Denmark. Rather, it reflects Washington’s growing concern over access to critical raw materials that are becoming increasingly important for the production of semiconductors and advanced technologies. As climate change gradually expands access to Greenland’s mineral resources, the island has acquired a strategic relevance that extends well beyond the Arctic itself, intersecting with broader questions surrounding technological competition with China and the resilience of Western supply chains. Ensuring secure access to these resources has become an increasingly important objective for the United States as it seeks to reduce strategic dependencies in sectors that are essential to both economic competitiveness and national security.

A similar dynamic can be observed in relations with Spain. Trump’s criticism of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez initially suggested the possibility of renewed political and commercial tensions between Washington and Madrid. However, as negotiations progressed, these disagreements gave way to compromise. The summit ultimately concluded with a joint declaration endorsed by all Allied governments, demonstrating once again that political rhetoric and institutional outcomes often follow different trajectories. Public disagreements may dominate media coverage, yet they do not necessarily translate into strategic divergence within the Alliance.

Collective defence remains the Alliance’s foundation

The declaration itself reflects this continuity. At its core lies the reaffirmation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which remains the cornerstone of NATO’s collective defence and the political foundation of the transatlantic relationship. At a time when questions have repeatedly been raised regarding the durability of the American security commitment to Europe, the unanimous endorsement of collective defence carries significance well beyond its legal dimension. It signals that, despite changing political leadership and evolving national priorities, the Alliance continues to recognise deterrence as the indispensable guarantee of European security.

From military power to technological superiority

At the same time, the summit demonstrated that deterrence can no longer be understood exclusively through the lens of conventional military capabilities. Contemporary security increasingly depends on technological superiority, resilient digital infrastructure, and the ability to operate effectively across multiple domains. NATO’s future capability targets therefore extend beyond traditional land, maritime, and air forces to include cyber defence, space assets, integrated missile defence, deep-precision strike capabilities, unmanned systems, and advanced intelligence capabilities.

Particularly noteworthy is the Alliance’s intention to develop an interoperable transatlantic warfighting cloud while progressively integrating artificial intelligence into military planning and operational decision-making. These initiatives illustrate how digital technologies are becoming an essential component of military effectiveness, reflecting a broader transformation in deterrence itself. As geopolitical competition increasingly unfolds through technological innovation, NATO’s capacity to preserve interoperability among Allied forces will depend not only on defence spending but also on its ability to coordinate research, standardisation, and industrial production across the transatlantic area.

Burden-sharing enters a new phase

If technological adaptation represents one pillar of the Alliance’s transformation, burden-sharing represents the other. The Ankara declaration makes explicit what has been gradually emerging over recent years: European allies and Canada are expected to assume greater responsibility for financing and sustaining NATO’s defence posture while continuing to operate alongside the United States. Rather than signalling a retreat of American strategic engagement, this evolution reflects an attempt to rebalance responsibilities within an Alliance whose security challenges have become increasingly global.

The implications of this approach are particularly evident in NATO’s support for Ukraine. Allied governments committed to providing €70 billion in military assistance, equipment, and training during 2026, while also pledging to maintain at least equivalent levels of support in 2027. Unlike previous years, however, the financial burden is expected to fall primarily on European Allies and Canada following Washington’s decision to suspend direct military assistance from 2025 onwards. The United States continues to support Ukraine politically and strategically, yet the responsibility for sustaining Kyiv’s military effort is gradually shifting towards Europe.

Within this broader framework, President Trump’s announcement that the United States will authorise the domestic production of Patriot air-defence systems in Ukraine deserves particular attention. The decision responds to Kyiv’s longstanding request to strengthen its capacity to defend critical infrastructure against Russian missile attacks while reducing dependence on external deliveries. At the same time, it may also reflect wider strategic considerations. Growing instability in the Middle East and the possibility of renewed regional escalation continue to place considerable pressure on American defence-industrial production. Expanding licensed manufacturing abroad could therefore allow Washington to preserve industrial capacity while maintaining support for key strategic partners.

Defence begins with industry

Beyond the political declarations, one of the summit’s most consequential outcomes may ultimately prove to be the adoption of NATO’s Strategy for Industry-NATO Cooperation, a document that reflects the Alliance’s growing recognition that military readiness depends increasingly on industrial readiness. As defence budgets expand across the transatlantic area, NATO seeks to ensure that industry can deliver the capabilities required for deterrence, collective defence, and long-term operational preparedness.

The strategy rests upon three complementary objectives.

A single gateway for industry

The first is to establish a more structured relationship between NATO and the defence-industrial sector. Through the creation of the NATO Front Door for Industry, companies will benefit from a single point of access to the Alliance, facilitating participation in procurement processes, innovation programmes, and capability development. The initiative also aims to broaden participation beyond traditional defence contractors by encouraging greater involvement from small and medium-sized enterprises and emerging technology companies.

Accelerating defence innovation

A second objective concerns innovation. NATO intends to shorten the distance between technological experimentation and operational deployment by expanding initiatives such as DIANA, the NATO Innovation Fund, Innovation Ranges, and the proposed NATO Engine. Equally important is the emphasis placed on interoperability through common standards, modular architectures, and shared certification procedures, ensuring that new technologies can be rapidly integrated across multinational forces without compromising operational effectiveness.

Building a resilient defence-industrial base

The third pillar focuses on strengthening the resilience of the transatlantic defence-industrial base itself. Increasing production capacity, securing critical supply chains, preparing industry to expand manufacturing during periods of crisis, and promoting multinational co-development and co-production are all recognised as essential conditions for sustaining the Alliance’s long-term deterrence posture. In this respect, industrial policy is no longer viewed simply as an economic issue but as an integral component of collective security.

Implementation of the strategy will be coordinated by the Conference of National Armaments Directors through a dedicated implementation plan developed in consultation with industry, with progress scheduled to be reviewed after three years. More broadly, however, the initiative reflects a wider transformation in NATO’s understanding of resilience. The ability to deter future adversaries will depend not only on the capabilities deployed by Allied armed forces, but also on the capacity of governments, industries, and technological ecosystems to respond rapidly to an increasingly volatile security environment.

A rebalanced Alliance, not a divided one

The Ankara summit therefore should not be remembered primarily for the political tensions that accompanied it. Those disagreements, although highly visible, ultimately proved secondary to the strategic direction endorsed by the Alliance. NATO emerged from the summit with a renewed commitment to collective defence, a more ambitious agenda for technological modernisation, and a clearer understanding of the respective roles that North America and Europe will play in ensuring the Alliance’s long-term security.

The evolution taking place within NATO mirrors a broader transformation of the international order. As geopolitical competition intensifies and technological innovation becomes increasingly central to military power, the Alliance is adapting not by abandoning its traditional foundations but by redefining how they are implemented. 

Collective defence remains unchanged as NATO’s guiding principle. What is changing is the distribution of responsibilities required to uphold it. The challenge facing the Alliance is therefore no longer whether transatlantic cooperation will endure, but whether its members can adapt their political, industrial, and technological capacities quickly enough to preserve it in an increasingly contested strategic environment.