NATO leaders met in Ankara on July 7, 2026 to confront a simple problem: countries made big promises about spending on defence, but the money isn't showing up the way it should. Secretary General Mark Rutte told the press that allies need to stop making vague pledges and start producing actual plans with dates and numbers attached.

Last year, at a NATO summit in The Hague, member countries promised to spend 5% of their national income on defence. That 5% breaks into two parts: 3.5% goes to weapons, soldiers, and equipment; 1.5% goes to infrastructure like roads, bridges, and ports that armies would need if war broke out. One year later, Ankara was supposed to be the place where leaders show they actually mean it.

The pressure comes mostly from the United States. President Trump has been publicly criticizing NATO members for not pulling their weight. At a June meeting at the White House, Rutte showed Trump charts about what European countries are spending. Trump later posted a comparison on Truth Social listing America's defence budget next to smaller European figures — a way of underscoring his point that the US is carrying more of the load.

Some progress is real. European countries and Canada spent $90 billion more on defence in 2025 than they did in 2024. But here's the problem: that money has to come from somewhere. Healthcare budgets, schools, roads — governments are struggling to afford all these things at once. This tension between what NATO leaders promised and what their budgets can actually handle is the central challenge of the Ankara meeting.

Ukraine support and other decisions

Leaders are expected to agree to spend €70 billion (about £60 billion) on military aid to Ukraine over the next two years. This is better than the old system, where funding was decided year by year and caused constant worry about whether Ukraine would have what it needs. But the details of how this money will be shared among countries remain unclear.

Rutte also said the summit will announce tens of billions of dollars in new defence contracts — deals between NATO countries for weapons and equipment. The careful advance messaging before the summit suggests NATO is trying to manage expectations. When leaders sit down to actually talk, the conversations may be tougher than the upbeat public statements suggest.

There's also a bigger question in the background: should NATO even hold these big annual summits anymore? In April 2026, news reports suggested NATO was thinking about ending the annual summit tradition. That idea likely came up because past summits have become tense, with the Trump administration and European countries arguing about spending and defence priorities. What used to be friendly meetings where everyone promised to stay united have become serious negotiations about money and who pays for what.

When Ankara ends, leaders will almost certainly restate that they aim to reach 5% spending by 2035. The real test is whether they leave with actual plans — specific numbers, specific timelines — that can survive when government budgets get decided next year. Rutte's language suggests he's worried they won't. That gap between good intentions and hard numbers is what Ankara is really about.