A Summit of Shadows: NATO’s Hollow Triumph in The Hague

At the NATO summit in The Hague, member states appeared more intent on deceiving one another than making meaningful commitments. The decisions, hailed as a "triumph," are unlikely to bind anyone to anything. Notably, Ukraine vanished entirely from the official agenda.

Photo: flickr.com by Государственный департамент США is licensed under Департаментом информации об авторских правах

NATO

The alliance adopted a strikingly brief five-point resolution—short on substance, long on ambiguity.

The document reaffirms NATO’s “unshakable commitment to collective defense enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—an attack on one is an attack on all.” Yet even before landing in The Hague, U.S. President Donald Trump cast doubt on what that really means.

“It depends on which definition you use. There are many definitions of Article 5,” he said aboard Air Force One.

Allies pledged to invest 5% of their GDP annually in defense and security—eventually. The deadline is 2035, a horizon distant enough to render the promise hollow. By then, as some quip, Trump might no longer be around. Experts point out that doubling current spending (which stands near 2%) is financially and logistically unrealistic for most member states. Russia is labeled a “long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security,” sharing that designation with terrorism. China, curiously, is not mentioned at all.

The second point is further diluted in the third: of the pledged 5%, less than 3.5% would go toward weapons procurement, with the remaining 1.5% allocated to infrastructure protection, resilience, civil preparedness, innovation, and defense industrial support. What any of this looks like in practice remains unclear—open to creative accounting and political sleight of hand. In essence, much of what is already being done can be rebranded to meet the new “commitments.”

The resolution also affirms a desire to “rapidly expand transatlantic defense-industrial cooperation and embrace innovation and new technologies in pursuit of collective security.” In plain terms: NATO wants to catch up—and surpass—Russia in arms production. But who will build what, and with whose money, is left unanswered. The spirit is clear: "as long as it's not on my dime."

The only clear decision: the next summit will take place in Turkey in 2026, followed by one in Albania.

Ukraine and China: Notably Absent

Ukraine, once central to NATO’s agenda, received not a single mention this year. At last year’s Washington summit, the country appeared 67 times in the final communiqué, including direct references to eventual NATO membership. Russia, once described as “the greatest and most immediate threat,” is now relegated to a more distant “long-term” concern.

This vagueness allows NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to declare a “triumph,” while in truth the resolution provides political cover for governments short on money, willpower, or both—on both sides of the Atlantic.

This year, instead of several working sessions, the alliance held only one. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not invited.

 Trump Holds the Cards

According to Bloomberg, citing sources, Trump described the situation in Ukraine as “completely out of control” and urged bold action to resolve it. What that action should be, he declined to say—leaving allies to draw their own conclusions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio later clarified: the U.S. is not considering new sanctions.

“If we do that, we’ll lose our ability to speak with them (Russia) about a ceasefire,” he warned.

Nor will U.S. arms flow freely to Ukraine. The Pentagon’s draft defense budget for the coming year makes no provision for additional support. That burden, it seems, is to fall on a “coalition of the willing”—which, for now, continues to issue lofty promises of giving Ukraine “everything needed for victory.”

 The Zelensky–Trump Meeting

Trump and Zelensky did meet in The Hague, behind closed doors for 50 minutes. No press conference followed. It is believed Zelensky once again requested air defense systems and tougher sanctions against Russia. But Rubio has already ruled out sanctions, and America’s missile systems are earmarked for Israel.

For Russia, this discord within the ranks of its adversaries could not be more timely. It may well allow Moscow to bring its “special military operation” to a close sooner than previously anticipated.