Outcomes of last week’s summit signal NATO leaders’ growing concern for the future of Europe’s security. Commitments include the most significant US weaponry deployment to Europe since the Cold War and a pledge to address emerging threats from Russia and China. 

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) celebrated the 75th anniversary of its founding with a summit in Washington DC on Thursday 11 July, hosted by US President Joe Biden. The 32 member countries – plus Pacific partners Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, as well as Ukraine – met to reaffirm commitment to and revitalise the alliance. 

The post-summit statement points to rising threats and commits the bloc to combatting these over the long term – not only from Russia, but also from closer cooperation between Moscow and China, North Korea and Iran. 

However, in the immediate term, the Summit fell short of expectations. 

There was a clear commitment to Ukrainian NATO membership, and additional military support for Kyiv – to the tune of at least EUR 40 billion in the next year. However, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was left without a multiyear funding package and calling for fewer restrictions on how and where Ukranian forces can deploy US weaponry, particularly the range of targets it can strike inside Russia. 

The alliance’s Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, announced that this year over two thirds of NATO members will reach the 2% of GDP Defence Investment Pledge, collectively spending $1.47 trillion on defence in 2024. But the post-summit statement recognised that additional expenditure will be required to both cover existing shortfalls and meet future requirements stemming from a “more contested security order”.

What the Summit Did – and Didn’t Do – for Ukraine 

A concrete path to membership

The post-summit statement emphatically declared – once again – that Ukraine’s future is in NATO, although this time, the bloc committed to continue to support Kyiv on the country’s “irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.” An unequivocal position such as this will indubitably trespass upon Moscow’s political sensitivities and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions.  In fact, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev wrote on social media that the “irreversible path of Ukraine to NATO ends either with the disappearance of Ukraine, or NATO, or better still both."

Military support

The US, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania and Italy also agreed to provide Ukraine with equipment for five additional strategic air defence systems, including four additional Patriot batteries and a SAMP/T defence system – which experts say will return the advantage to Ukrainian forces as Russia struggles to replenish ground troop numbers. 

The Summit also resulted in a US commitment to increase its military presence in Europe (a promise that Trump, if elected US president in November, could row back on). The US pledged to deploy longer range missiles to Germany in 2026 in the largest demonstration of US military might on the European continent since the Cold War. 

NATO and China – How Things Stand

NATO members called out China for its role as Russia’s “decisive enabler” – referring to its sizeable support for Russia’s defence industrial base. It seems that NATO’s distrust of China is mutual; Beijing is wary of the organisation’s intentions in the Asia-Pacific and maintains that it has previously overstepped its remit in theatres, such as Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. While NATO was meeting in Washington, China conducted joint military drills with Belarus in Brest, close to the Polish border, and condemned the NATO statement in public comments to the press, describing it as “malicious” and “full of Cold War mentality and belligerent rhetoric.” Beijing last year proposed a 12-point peace plan to end the war in Ukraine but the document received a muted response from both Ukraine and Russia. 

Mixed Messages Within the Alliance

The Summit made clear that not all member states share the same perspective. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that Budapest would not accept NATO adopting an “anti-China” approach, and further that Ukrainian membership would threaten the bloc’s unity and provoke a direct conflict with Russia. Following his visit to Kyiv last week, Hungarian President Victor Orban frustrated his NATO allies by visiting Moscow and Beijing and meeting with Russia and China's leaders.

Looking Ahead: US Elections and NATO’s Future

Next year’s summit will be held in June at The Hague, the Netherlands. However, before then, media attention will focus on the outcome of the upcoming US presidential elections and its implications for the organisation. There is considerable speculation among pundits that a Biden victory would mean business as usual for NATO, but a Trump presidency would change the trajectory of the alliance. 

At a rally in Conway, South Carolina, in February 2024, Trump said he had once told the president of a big NATO country that if their country didn’t pay its bills, he – Trump – would not protect it from a Russian invasion and would even “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want.” However, the Republican presidential nominee’s comment was most likely intended to stir up the passion of the rally-goers, rather than shape US policy towards the alliance. 

Despite Trump pointing to his friendly relationships with Chinese President Xi Jinping, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Putin, the new Republican policy platform, which was published this week, invokes late US President Ronald Regan’s axiom “peace through strength” and defines the party’s approach to foreign policy, and security and defence.  The original phrase is attributed to the second-century Roman emperor Hadrian and, in its entirety, says “peace through strength – or, failing that, peace through threat” and that should give NATO leaders some reassurance of a future Trump administration’s commitment to European security.