The Nato summit now under way in The Hague feels like it marks a step change: a return to a more highly militarised Europe, dealing with an emboldened American president who has been less explicitly critical of Nato recently – but still intends a long-term pivot away from Europe and towards China.
“This is very much a cut down summit, packaged for a certain leader with a short attention span,” Dan Sabbagh said. “It’s been stage-managed to give Trump what he wants, which is the chance to take a victory lap. He will be the centre of attention, but also the potential source of trouble, and it’s hard to predict how that will play out.”
Here’s what you need to know.
What does the choreography of the summit look like?
Last night, national leaders met for a dinner, hosted by the King and Queen of the Netherlands at the Huis ten Bosch palace. The more consequential piece of the summit takes place today, when heads of state hold a single two-and-a-half-hour meeting.
That is in place of the usual three sessions; similarly, the joint communique released at the end will be shorter than usual, confined to a single five-paragraph page. The meeting and communique are expected to be focused on the new Nato spending commitments – although leaders may well bring up the Ukraine conflict and the war between Iran and Israel.
When the meeting breaks up, leaders hold individual press conferences to reflect on its conclusions. Trump’s will, inevitably, draw the most attention by far. “I’d be surprised if we don’t see him thoroughly enjoying himself and proclaiming what a fantastic job he’s done,” Dan said. “The other leaders will be on their planes by then – but if he’s feeling celebratory, they’ll be happy.”
What commitments are Nato members making on military spending?
The headline commitment across the alliance is to spend 5% of gross domestic product on defence by 2035, with 3.5% on “hard defence” – weapons, equipment, ammunition, and troops – and 1.5% on “soft” commitments, like cybersecurity and intelligence. “That is a massive increase for almost everyone except Poland, some of the Baltic states and the US,” Dan said. “The only wrinkle is that Spain has insisted it won’t spend more than 2.1%, but they won’t stand in the way of a collective agreement.”
Because the commitment is as a share of GDP, it should be insulated from the erosive effects of inflation. “It’s real money,” Dan said. “It will have to be found from tax or borrowing or other budgets. It suggests that the Europeans have recognised that the free ride of the post-cold war period, where the US is responsible for their defence, is over.”
The UK’s commitment to buying 12 F-35A jets to carry US tactical warheads is part of that shift. Keir Starmer has signed up along with everyone else apart from Spain, with the 3.5% likely to amount to £30bn or more by 2035 – but the government appeared reluctant to do so until recently, Dan said. “It’s an uncomfortable commitment for Starmer to make for a second Labour term. Defence insiders say that the UK slightly misread the situation. They appear to have expected more inertia from others, with the figure settling at about 3%.”
Getting to 3.5%, within a 5% overall envelope, might be satisfying for Trump – but Nato secretary general Mark Rutte has been credited with making it happen, Dan said. “British sources see him as a Trump whisperer. He worked the details out with Trump, and then set about the task of getting the Europeans on board.”
Does Nato have a role in the aftermath of the Israel-Iran conflict?
The Middle East isn’t typically on Nato’s agenda, since the Article 5 provision that says an attack on one is an attack on all only applies within Europe and North America. Nonetheless, the timing of the summit means that it will inevitably come up.
“Part of the summit’s function is the here and now,” Dan said. “Even if Iran isn’t formally on the agenda, it is a chance for leaders to discuss it.” Rutte, for his part, said that he did not intend to raise Iran at the summit because “it is deviating from the core issue at hand” but added that “that doesn’t mean that individual allies will not discuss this here.”
One reason that leaders may prefer not to focus on Israel-Iran is that there are real divisions within the alliance about Israel and the United States’ attacks: Some leaders, like Friedrich Merz of Germany, are broadly behind it; the UK has tried to sit on the fence; others, like Emmanuel Macron of France, have been explicit about their opposition. “Rutte spoke about the US taking ‘decisive action’, which is a neat way of three-quarters embracing it without saying you’re in favour,” Dan said.
What about Ukraine?
Volodymyr Zelenskyy joined the leaders’ dinner last night, and he has said he hopes to meet with Trump on the sidelines of the summit. But whereas Ukraine has featured heavily at every previous Nato summit since Russia’s invasion, it is not expected to be prominent this time.
Zelenskyy has not been invited to today’s meeting, reportedly after the US objected to the idea of his presence. Nato officials are trying to keep Trump and Zelenskyy apart in public as much as possible, the Washington Post reported. There were even some suggestions that he might not attend at all. It is also unclear whether the US would accept any reference in the end-of-summit communique to Russia as the main threat to the alliance.
“There’s a different tone, which isn’t surprising,” Dan said. “Zelenskyy will keep trying to break through with Trump, and to persuade him that Putin is insincere.” While pledges of military aid from European countries have been worth about $40bn already this year, there is little chance of that being added to today.
How will they seek to manage Trump?
Rutte’s messages to Trump do not appear to have been intended for public consumption, but the president’s entertaining decision to post them on social media gives a sense of what being a ‘Trump whisperer’ looks like: “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done,” Rutte wrote. “Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.”
That might seem transparently sycophantic – but it is a calculated response to the fact that as recently as February, there was huge pessimism about Trump’s commitment to Nato. “There was a real crisis when Hegseth came to the defence ministers’ meeting and said that the US was no longer focused on European security,” Dan said. “That caused absolute panic.”
Since then, Trump’s stance appears to have softened a bit – partly as new defence spending pledges have been made, and perhaps also because of his disillusionment with Vladimir Putin as a negotiating partner. And yet there is an uncomfortable question about the unintended consequences of increased European defence spending: in the long term, might it make it easier for the US to drift away?
“None of those worries have gone away,” Dan said. “And there is a huge contrast with Nato’s treatment of Trump in his first term, when there was a sense that there were Republican ‘grownups’ restraining him. Today, with people like JD Vance and Pete Hegseth, you have a much more cohesive White House.”
Whitaker, the US Nato representative, has insisted this week that the United States remains “a reliable ally”; meanwhile, Rutte told European leaders: “Stop worrying so much”. “But who knows what Trump will say at his press conference today?” Dan said. “Europe is basically rolling over because the world has changed, and it needs him.”
