Nato Summit: Europe woos Trump but fumbles on Russia

Roughly a year after celebrating 75 years of the transatlantic alliance, the Nato allies again met for their annual summit on June 24-25 in The Hague, albeit in a completely different environment.

Since last year, much has changed. Donald Trump’s presidency is a reality; Russia is in a much stronger position both on the battlefield and in diplomacy; Trump has openly threatened the sovereignty of Canada and Denmark, two founding members of Nato, and Ukraine is not the only hotspot seeking the world’s attention.

European security and defence are at a crossroad. Europe is re-arming, but its dependence on its American ally for its security and defence needs remains the harsh truth.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

But, given the erratic and unpredictable nature of President Trump, the Europeans decided to dedicate the summit to Trump and thus could be considered largely successful from this perspective, given the fact that Trump did not leave the gathering early, voiced support for Ukraine while expressing his displeasure for Russia, and most importantly, felt content about the new threshold of 5 per cent of GDP expenditure on defence by Canada and European allies. Europe, on the other hand, not only finally found a way to deal with Trump — a combination of money and flattery — but also bought time for itself.

From the European side, it was all about avoiding an uncomfortable confrontation with a partner who does not hide his disdain for Europe. Netherland, the host of the summit, laid the red carpet for the president. He was the only one to have the luxury of sleeping in the palace of the king and starting the day with a breakfast with the Dutch royal family.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

The agenda was less about a detailed and honest discussion about the future of the transatlantic alliance and the fate of Ukraine and more about avoiding an outburst of Trump. The Europeans clearly kept in mind the dressing down Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Cyril Ramaphosa had previously received in the Oval Office.

The flattery of Mark Rutte, Nato’s Secretary General, as seen from his personal messages to Trump, which Trump decided to make public while on his route to the Dutch capital, ensured that the allies could release a joint statement and end the summit without any controversial statement and erratic behaviour from the American side.

Although Trump had questioned the very definition of “collective security” as expressed in Article 5 of the Nato charter, his statements after his participation in the summit were of great relief for the European allies, as Trump informally withdrew his famous “rip-off” statement for Europe.

Rutt’s flattery did not only stop at commending Trump for pushing the Europeans to significantly increase their defence commitment. He went a step ahead and declared Trump as the “daddy” who stopped the war in West Asia through his strong approach. A credit-hungry Trump gracefully embraced the nickname and was quite pleased with this gesture, as evident in the one-minute video the White House released as Trump returned to the US, with the Daddy’s Home track running in the background.

But setting aside the rhetoric, fanfare and flattery, the summit could not achieve anything significant on three significant issues.

First, the 5 per cent defence spending pledge to be achieved by 2035, no doubt significant, was more of a political signalling and less of a spending plan. The 5 per cent annual defence expenditure was divided into two categories where 3.5 per cent would go to cater to the core defence requirements of Europe and the rest, 1.5 per cent, put aside for addressing the general defence requirements such as protection of critical infrastructure, civil preparedness, innovation and strengthening the defence industrial complex of Europe.

But the fact that many European countries have repeatedly failed to achieve the previously agreed targets casts doubt on this commitment. Spain already has expressed its inability to set aside 5 per cent of its GDP for defence expenditure. Besides, the continued high level of debt, accompanied by questionable fiscal sustainability and a rise of the far-right in many European capitals, also questions this commitment.

A sidelined Europe was the second issue on which the summit faltered. The previous summits, especially after 2022, had duly focused on facilitating Ukraine’s membership to the transatlantic alliance; this time, however, there was no mention of any prospect for Ukrainian membership in Nato.

Although Zelenskyy abandoned his military-style dressing and donned a black suit jacket to meet Trump on the sidelines of the summit, the meeting yielded nothing significant for Ukraine. There was no mention of a possible ceasefire signalling Trump’s repeated failure to negotiate with a confident Putin. This may explain Trump’s statement about sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine. Days after the summit, Russia launched its biggest aerial attack on Ukraine since the start of the Russian offensive in 2022, showcasing its non-readiness to end the war. This brings us to the third issue.

Last year’s joint statement, when Joe Biden was the US president, had very clearly referred to Russia as an aggressor, condemned Moscow’s nuclear rhetoric, questioned the role of Belarus, Iran and North Korea in the war and had also referred to the Russia-China strategic partnership as a destabilising factor in the so-called rule-based international order and the need for strengthening Ukraine’s military capability. This year’s statement referred to Russia as a long-term threat without describing what that means, highlighting continued disagreements between Europe and the US on the question of Russia. The allies, similarly, committed to supporting Ukraine’s defence needs but again missed on details. China, against which Europe is now actively de-risking, had no mention at all, along with critical omissions of Russia-China relations.

Thus, the 2025 Nato summit was a lost opportunity for Europe to present itself as a critical deterrent against Russia, as the European leaders chose to take a backseat on important questions on European security and decided to give Trump the spotlight. Trump went home celebrating his success at the summit and projecting to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters his capability to achieve what many US presidents had failed to do — force Europe to spend more. Europe and its own security interests were largely sidelined.

The writer is a researcher with the Indian Council of World Affairs, Sapru House, New Delhi. X handle- @amansetu1. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.