Just like the major European councils, the ones that involve two consecutive sleepless nights, are associated with community crossroads and systemic crises in the old continent, it is difficult to think of NATO summits that do not go hand in hand with strategically critical moments, global challenges, and even existential threats. "We are going to meet at a truly historic moment, with significant and growing challenges to our security. As the world becomes more dangerous, leaders will make bold decisions to strengthen our collective defense, making NATO a stronger, fairer, and deadlier Alliance," said Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Monday.
The first of all summits, in Paris in 1957, came shortly after the USSR crushed the Hungarian revolution, and its final statement denounced that "the free world faces the growing challenge of international communism, backed by Soviet power. Just last month, in Moscow, communist rulers once again clearly warned of their determination to continue dominating the entire world, if possible through subversion, if necessary through violence."
The second summit, in Brussels in 1974, not only celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Alliance but took place after the oil crisis and days after Turkey invaded Cyprus. Since then, always with a tumultuous background. Attacks, massacres in the Middle East, the revolution that toppled the Shah, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Gulf War, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq that nearly tore the organization apart. Or, more recently, the Russian invasion of Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, the arrival of Trump, the "brain death of the Alliance," in the words of Emmanuel Macron, the first inclusion of China in the statements and certainly, the invasion of Ukraine, which has completely overshadowed everything since 2022.
The meeting that will take place this week in The Hague, amidst the bombings in Iran and the direct response for the first time also on Qatar, Bahrain, and U.S. bases, is no exception. The outlook could not be more bleak. The war launched by Israel against Hamas after the brutal attacks of October 7, which expanded to Lebanon, Syria, or Yemen, is now at a critical moment with Tehran after the U.S. President ordered an unprecedented attack on the country's nuclear facilities.
Russia not only continues to strike Ukraine but reiterates that the entire country belongs to them and points to new cities like Sumy. China, increasingly assertive and confident under Xi Jinping, irritated with Washington over tariffs, and taking advantage of the noise and confusion, increases maneuvers around Taiwan and aims to have a nuclear arsenal on par with the U.S. by 2035.
And, as if that were not enough, Indian and Pakistani cannons still smoke after yet another outbreak of open war between the two powers. But despite the countless conflicts that are piling up, the leaders of the 32 allies will meet from today in the Netherlands, with a minimalist agenda, a few priorities, and only one obsession: to avoid a major disaster.
The summit's spotlight will not be elsewhere. Not in Kiev, Moscow, Beijing, or the Middle East. The undisputed, sole protagonist is Donald Trump. That is why a very short meeting has been planned, with just a dinner and a working session, where his intervention will be the main moment. A tailor-made suit in the hope of pleasing him, with no meetings on Ukraine or anything lengthy, so he does not get bored or lose patience. "Everything is designed around him," admits a high-ranking Alliance official privately. "The only mission is to calm the beast".
The U.S. is the main ally, the core and backbone of the Alliance. Last July, the 75th anniversary was celebrated in Washington, and now they are facing each other again not only due to the geopolitical board in flames but also because it is customary to hold a high-level meeting when the White House changes occupants. But with Trump, even that central role has a different angle. Any adjective falls short, and any scenario is possible. From normality to not attending by canceling at the last minute; from boycotting the event to leaving early or disrupting the meeting with a surprise.
NATO is not an organization like the European Union. It is not designed for eternal exchanges between leaders, for controversies, for high-flown statements, or public fights. There are no debates, neither deep nor aggressive, during summit sessions. Everything arrives completely chewed up (with details like what Spain is currently trying to scratch in the language of the declaration to be able to say that it has flexibility and not reach a Defense spending of 3.5%) and digested, after months of diplomatic and technical work.
Leaders approve, reach consensus (always unanimously), and present a united front. That was more or less the case, with tough or dark times, from France's withdrawal under De Gaulle to clashes over the Bush Administration's weapons of mass destruction. Until Trump arrived.
In his first term, he appeared in Brussels insulting his allies (freeloaders, debtors, freeloaders). Literally elbowing his way among them to be in the front row in photos, and publicly reproaching by name those who were not spending enough, from Angela Merkel to Pedro Sánchez. Beyond unprecedented scenes and disdain for his predecessors, the real drama at a level never seen before took place when he started threatening to withdraw from NATO, to stop funding it, but above all, to not protect its members.
He said it then and repeated it just a few months ago in campaigns, saying that Putin could do whatever he wanted with them. And everyone fears it might happen again. Without the idea of collective defense, NATO makes no sense. "This summit is about credibility," acknowledged the American ambassador to the organization, Matt Whitaker.
But there is a huge difference between the Trump of the first term, a millionaire newly arrived in politics, impulsive, uncontrollable, but still surrounded by a hybrid team, with people capable of standing up to him from time to time, or deeply linked to institutions, national and international. That no longer exists. Now he controls the timing, the Republican Party, all the strings. He is surrounded by loyalists, by unconditional supporters. People who think like him and are willing to break or completely change the international order based on rules and all the structures that shape it. From the World Trade Organization or the World Health Organization to the pillars of Bretton Woods (IMF and World Bank). And, of course, NATO.
"There is a constant unease. It is impossible to predict any move, and everything that was unimaginable is now possible again," says a source from the Alliance. "But the big difference between his first term and now is not so much about personnel. His ambassador, for example, is not bad. Not even with Ukraine, which has been the priority in recent years. What makes many offices sweat is that in his early years, he was obsessed with NATO and spending. He talked about it non-stop, all the time. And not anymore. He will come to the summit, if there are no surprises, barely talking about it. And we don't know what to expect," adds the veteran source.
Trump has countless fronts open in his country. Budgetary, personnel, clashes in dozens of courts and cases in the Supreme Court. A war against universities, law firms, NGOs, migrant groups.
Search for the clash with the Democratic states, especially California. And has more battles than he can probably remember. Not to mention Gaza, Ukraine, his obsessions with Greenland or Canada, tariffs, the ongoing standoff with China. But even so, it's very strange that he hasn't been obsessed with military spending for weeks. He has addressed the issue, of course. Many times responding to journalists' questions, especially about the idea of increasing spending to 5%. But less than expected and expected. And that raises suspicions. There are a few delegations delighted, relieved, who believe it is more dangerous for him to attend and blow it up than to be absent due to the situation with Iran.
On the meeting agenda is the situation on all flanks of the Alliance, the different threats, and, above all, the central pillar: the new U.S. demand that others increase their Defense spending to 5% of GDP, along with "a concerted effort to boost the defense industry throughout NATO, improving security and creating jobs."
In 2014, everyone committed to reaching 2% of GDP and although a decade later, two-thirds of them have achieved it (largely due to pressure and fear of Trump), the goal of 5% seems unattainable for most, even if that includes 1.5% indirectly, through infrastructure or very lax concepts. Spain is the only country openly opposed, but many others do not see it as realistic, desirable, and want much more flexibility.
That's where everything can blow up. Trump wants the rest to reach 5% (no country does it now, with Poland being the closest, falling short by a few tenths) but not even the U.S. does it, and he has no qualms about saying it: "I think the rest should do it, but we won't." Because he believes they have already done enough. The idea is to set a broad deadline, a decade according to the statement if there are no last-minute changes, to raise from 2 to 5%, but Trump is expected to demand it by the end of 2029, which will provoke reactions.
While the details of national capability objectives are confidential, the Secretary-General has called for a quintupling of air defense capabilities, thousands of additional tanks and armored vehicles, and millions of artillery shells to contribute to the security of 1 billion citizens. "NATO will need a 400% increase in air and missile defense, thousands more armored vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our support capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transport, and medical support," Rutte adds.
In his early years, Trump repeatedly threatened to leave NATO or its members. Even before taking office, and more dangerously afterward, he has threatened to leave Ukraine to its fate. Alerts had been active for months leading up to this summit, but the last hours have opened an unexpected window and some optimism among those who should sit with him in The Hague on Tuesday.
On one side, the words of former Russian President Medvedev saying that the Iranian bombing could lead to some friendly country eventually giving Tehran a nuclear bomb to defend itself, something that has irritated Trump, who on Monday took a jab at him on social media. More meat on the grill after Vladimir Putin's constant delays in negotiating peace. On the other, the attack on Iran itself. An incredible aerial operation.
The president boasted that "no one else could have done something like this," and he's right. But for his B2s, coming from Missouri, to have been able to reach Iran and return without landing in 36 consecutive hours, they needed logistics, bases, and assistance or permission that only allies grant. In a solitary world, it would not have been possible. It's not a guarantee of anything, but it's something to hold on to.