NATO’s 2025 Summit
A Strategic Turn to Militarization
Written By: Hilal Khan
Introduction
Vladimir Lenin rightly said:
“There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.”
Unequivocally, today the world is in the midst of such a precarious and tumultuous decade.
On one hand, great power stand-offs have placed international peace and security on the verge of unravelling. On the other hand, the rise of chauvinist and far-right leaders openly defies the world order based on the principles of respect, restraint, and responsibility.
Donald Trump is undoubtedly one of the classical examples of such mercurial and defiant leaders.
The return of Trump has placed the centuries-old concept of American exceptionalism on the brink of collapse. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, American statesmen have pondered how to engage the world, not whether to engage the world. Now, however, the story has dramatically changed.
Today, Trump’s opposition to NATO stems from his “America First” policy and the slogan “Make America Great Again.” He views alliances through an economic lens, arguing that America should not pay the bill disproportionately.
For a long time, he has projected the impression that Europe is “free-riding” on American security and that this arrangement must not continue.
Keeping in view the changing geopolitical and geo-economic contours of Brussels after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the visible split within European powers, Trump, the deal-maker, found the long-awaited opportunity to mould the situation according to his own preferences.
His strategy combined provocative rhetoric with tangible pressure:
“If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.”
Trump’s demand for NATO members to increase military spending to 5% seemed implausible at first. However, NATO members realized that they could not afford America’s disengagement, especially at this critical juncture.
As a result, a great bargain took place at the NATO Summit: NATO members would increase military and defence spending up to 5%; in response, Trump would pressure Russia, extend support to Ukraine, and ensure strict commitment to collective defence.
In short, the summit implanted a new impetus not only in militarization but also in coercive diplomacy.
“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”
— Niccolò Machiavelli
Beyond the shadow of doubt, the 76th summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), held in The Hague, Netherlands, was unprecedented in many ways.
This was particularly due to the backdrop of continuing Russian military aggression against Ukraine, changing contours of transatlantic relations after Trump’s return, and growing calls for European defence autonomy.
The summit brought together representatives from all 32 NATO member states. President Donald Trump received special attention, partly because of his continuous scepticism toward NATO and partly because of his strategic ambiguity toward collective self-defence promised by the alliance.
Key Themes and Agenda
The Unprecedented Rise in Defence Spending up to 5%
The new collective defence spending goal of 5% of GDP by 2035 was the most consequential decision of the summit.
This represents a significant rise from the previous 2% benchmark, which had long been a point of contention within the alliance.
The breakdown includes:
- 3.5% for traditional military expenditures
- 1.5% for resilience-related spending, including critical infrastructure, cyber security, and support to partners such as Ukraine
This decision marks a dramatic turning point in NATO’s approach to burden-sharing and reflects the seriousness of the Western world in deterring Russia and preparing for new technological war fronts.
Reaffirmation of Transatlantic Relations Amid Widespread Uncertainty
Donald Trump has long been a staunch critic of Article 5, the collective security clause of the NATO charter.
One of the summit’s vital goals was securing ongoing U.S. engagement with NATO under Trump.
Despite his prior criticism of alliance “free-riding,” President Trump endorsed the new spending framework and reiterated support for collective defence.
This reaffirmation helped reduce immediate fears of American disengagement, although uncertainty over U.S. domestic politics continues to shape NATO’s strategic calculations.
Support for Ukraine
There is widespread optimism that Ukraine may eventually become a NATO member. However, when and under what conditions this will happen remains undecided.
The summit stopped short of offering a concrete timeline for Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Instead, support remained in the form of military aid, including commitments for more air defence systems and expanded training.
“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
— Henry Kissinger
This uncertainty reflects the alliance’s dilemma: NATO wants to support Ukraine against Russian aggression but remains cautious about directly escalating the war with Moscow.
NATO’s Collaboration with Asia-Pacific Partners
NATO is increasingly preparing to contain China in the Indo-Pacific region.
The presence of the alliance’s four Asia-Pacific partners — Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand — at the summit shows NATO’s intention to respond to China’s global posture, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.
Although NATO’s formal military commitments remain focused on the Euro-Atlantic region, its political and technological cooperation with Asian partners is expanding.
This marks NATO’s growing awareness that developments in the Indo-Pacific directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.
Key Resolutions and Policy Shifts
The Hague Declaration
The Hague Declaration codified key decisions of the summit.
These included:
- Commitment to 5% defence spending by 2035
- Recognition of hybrid threats
- Preparation for cyber, infrastructure, and energy-related vulnerabilities
- Reaffirmation of Article 5 as “ironclad”
- Continued support for Ukraine as a core component of European security
- No concrete plan for Ukraine’s future membership in NATO
The declaration reflects NATO’s effort to strengthen deterrence while preserving strategic flexibility.
Strategic Roadmaps and Reviews
Each NATO member country will submit a roadmap outlining how it will reach the 5% spending target.
The organization has allowed flexibility in defining “resilience spending.”
This flexibility is important because different member states face different domestic political pressures, economic limitations, and security priorities.
However, it may also create debates over what should actually count as defence-related spending.
Evaluation of the Summit’s Impact
The 76th NATO summit was unique with regard to its momentum and outcomes.
However, the summit lacked clarity on very important issues, especially strategic ambiguity regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership and Brussels’ unequivocal support for Kyiv both militarily and diplomatically.
Among its most prominent strengths was the alliance’s collective endorsement of the new 5% defence spending target by 2035.
This decision marked a dramatic turning point in NATO’s approach to burden-sharing. It also indicated the seriousness of the Western world about deterring the Kremlin and preparing for new technological war fronts.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s personal diplomacy and outreach to the mercurial American president helped defuse growing tensions and rifts in transatlantic relations.
The Strategic Meaning of the 5% Spending Target
The bifurcation of the 5% military spending target is another strategic decision aimed at countering threats in both traditional and non-traditional security domains.
Of the 5% spending target, 1.5% is allocated toward “resilience spending,” which includes infrastructure, cyber security, energy security, and assistance to partner states such as Ukraine.
Trump’s dramatic policy shifts on issues such as support for Ukraine, maximum pressure on Russia, and commitment to collective defence under Article 5 show the strength and influence of the U.S. deep state, the military-industrial complex, and the limitations of presidential power.
The overwhelming increase in NATO’s budget will boost the American defence industry, enhance weapons production, deepen European dependence on American defence equipment, and preserve the long-term interests of entrenched elites.
NATO Beyond Europe
Beyond Europe, the summit reaffirmed NATO’s growing awareness of global security interdependence.
The presence and engagement of Asian partners such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea reflect NATO’s evolving posture toward Beijing’s rising influence.
Although NATO’s formal military commitments to the Indo-Pacific remain limited, political and technological cooperation is on the rise.
This seeks to position NATO as an entity with a widening geographical scope beyond its current treaty mandate.
NATO’s Dependence on American Leadership
The summit also reaffirmed NATO’s enduring dependence on American leadership.
The future of Europe remains tied to the commitments of the U.S. president to NATO.
Continuous domestic political turmoil in America has once again placed the alliance in a reactive posture.
This highlights NATO’s fragility in the midst of Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.
Strategic Implications in Regional and Global Contexts
The elevated spending target of NATO sends a strong message to Russia that the Kremlin’s unrestrained aggression is not acceptable to Europe and America.
The transatlantic alliance still has the will and capacity to fight in the ongoing war of attrition.
For better or worse, such elevated spending will give many sleepless nights to Russia’s strategic elite.
Under the old 2% target, NATO’s combined defence budget was almost 20 times larger than Russia’s. At 5%, NATO’s new defence spending could exceed $3 trillion annually by 2035, potentially 40 to 50 times Russia’s current defence budget.
This level of spending shows that NATO could simultaneously maintain a forward presence in Eastern Europe, invest in fifth- and sixth-generation warfare, expand missile defence systems, and scale naval forces.
All such factors could directly complicate the Kremlin’s strategic thinking.
Strengthening Eastern Europe
More funds for Eastern European NATO members such as Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania will build a stronger defence line near Russia’s borders.
These countries will be able to field larger armies, modernize air defences, and station permanent NATO units.
This would reduce the vulnerability of the Suwalki Gap and other critical choke points.
For Russia, this means an increasingly militarized border environment and reduced strategic space in Eastern Europe.
NATO, China, and the Indo-Pacific
As NATO observes that developments in the Indo-Pacific directly affect Euro-Atlantic security, the military organization is deepening ties with Asia-Pacific countries.
In the recent summit, NATO leaders amplified language stating that China’s military build-up and support for Russia’s war efforts are growing challenges.
Mark Rutte called the latest declaration “the strongest message” yet on Beijing’s role.
The 5% of GDP defence and security target is designed to reduce the U.S. burden. In practice, this enables Washington to allocate more attention and high-end assets to the Indo-Pacific.
China-Russia Cooperation and Bloc Politics
NATO’s strategy of countering Beijing and the Kremlin at the same time has provided strong reasons for China and Russia to cooperate with each other not only in military and economic domains but also in political and diplomatic spheres.
To put it differently, a shared “siege narrative” encourages both powers to close ranks diplomatically and present a united front against what they describe as U.S.-led bloc politics.
Each partner offers the other strategic rear support.
Beijing ties down U.S. assets in Asia, while Russia ties down NATO assets in Europe.
This mutual support strengthens the emerging axis of resistance against Western strategic pressure.
The Security Dilemma and the Risk of Militarization
NATO’s 5% target will have serious global repercussions.
The elevated spending is framed by allies as deterrence, but rivals may read it as preparation for war. As a result, they may arm in response.
This is a classical example of the structural security dilemma: defensive steps by one side look offensive to others, producing spirals of insecurity.
The spending pledge is historic and unprecedented, making restraint less likely.
Therefore, it seems that the summit sounds a death knell to international peace and security by eroding international norms of arms control and disarmament.
“In the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi.”
— John Mearsheimer
Conclusion
The 76th Summit of NATO was an ambitious attempt to re-strategize goals and recalibrate the Western alliance for the challenges and opportunities of the new century.
This is especially important in the context of Russia’s resurgence and China’s re-emergence on the global landscape.
The summit produced some ground-breaking commitments, particularly on military and defence spending, support for Kyiv, and commitment to collective defence.
However, the path remains bumpy and torturous, if not treacherous.
Whether the summit marks a genuine turning point or merely a politically expedient show of unity will depend on how NATO members operationalize their pledges in the near future.