Washington hosted the leaders of NATO member states and their partners from July 9-11, marking the 75th anniversary of the alliance’s founding in 1949. While the members celebrated NATO’s achievements over the past years, genuine concerns loomed over the future of the alliance amid a turbulent international and regional environment. This is especially true as the Russia-Ukraine war enters its third year, the far-right rises in Europe, political tensions increase in France and Germany, and fears grow about the potential return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the White House in the November 2024 elections. Additionally, China’s steady rise and its geopolitical implications on the security environment in the Indo-Pacific region add to the uncertainty. Despite NATO leaders pledging to address these threats, the alliance faces numerous challenges.
A Turbulent Environment:
The NATO summit marking its 75th anniversary takes place in a politically and security-wise turbulent environment, perhaps not seen since the end of the Cold War. The key features of this context include:
Continuation of the Russia-Ukraine War: The Ukraine war has entered its third year, with ongoing Western support for Kyiv. This support remains contentious both within the United States and Europe. A prime example is the delayed approval of the latest U.S. aid package by Congress, which was frozen for several months, highlighting that American support is now more susceptible to partisan disagreements than ever before, especially given criticism from members of both the Republican and Democratic parties who argue that President Joe Biden’s administration lacks a clear strategy on the Ukraine crisis. For European countries, continued support for Kyiv affects their stockpiles of weapons and defense systems, along with economic pressures, amid rising internal voices calling for a rationalization of this support and a shift towards a political solution to the crisis.
Rise of the Far-Right in European Elections: The NATO summit in Washington followed significant successes for far-right parties in European elections. Voters across Europe favored populist right-wing parties in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy, among others. This trend is likely to impact the composition and functioning of the European Council and the Council of the European Union—bodies where heads of member states’ governments and national ministers meet to set EU policies and adopt federal legislation. As the number of EU-skeptic parties grows, these parties may intensify efforts to weaken EU policies and powers in favor of national operations.
Political Crises in France and Germany: As a direct result of the previous point, the two largest current powers in the EU are experiencing internal political turmoil. In France, President Macron called for the dissolution of parliament (the National Assembly) and early legislative elections were held after his party’s defeat in the European elections. Although the outcome of these national elections after the second round prevented the far-right in France from forming the first right-wing government since World War II, it did not give Macron an advantage either, which may constrain his foreign policy, potentially complicating NATO’s policies. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz faces growing internal problems, including economic challenges, a fragile coalition, and a rising far-right, raising uncertainty about NATO’s next phase.
Possible Return of Trump: President Biden’s weak performance in a debate with his rival Trump on June 27 raised significant concerns about the possibility of the Republican candidate returning to the White House, especially with Trump leading in polls. Trump’s ideas, particularly concerning NATO’s future, have alarmed his European allies. Months before the Washington summit, Trump shocked NATO by suggesting he would encourage Russia to attack U.S. allies if they did not spend enough on their militaries. This likely prompted Congress in December 2023 to approve a bill preventing U.S. presidents from unilaterally exiting NATO. However, Trump wouldn’t need to officially leave the alliance to undermine it; his repeated hints that he wouldn’t come to the defense of allies allow him to do so on his own.
These conditions leading up to the historic NATO summit made its celebratory atmosphere accompanied by significant fears and pessimism, despite some notable achievements. The Washington summit saw Finland and Sweden participate as full allies after their official NATO membership, enhancing capabilities in Europe’s northern flank. Additionally, 23 out of NATO’s 32 members reached the 2% GDP defense spending threshold, up from just three in 2014 and nine at last year’s Vilnius summit. This is largely due to the Russia-Ukraine war, which has also fostered an unprecedented level of unity among alliance members, reflected in the nature of the outcomes of the Washington summit.
Summit Outcomes:
During the historic Washington summit, the allies appointed outgoing Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte as NATO’s new Secretary-General, succeeding Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg, who will leave office on October 1. This came despite some Eastern European countries for the first time expressing a desire for the position to go to someone from their region. The summit’s outcomes focused on three main themes:
Continued Support for Ukraine: Ensuring ongoing support for Kyiv was the main issue on NATO’s agenda during the Washington summit. A simple content analysis reveals that Ukraine was mentioned about 61 times in the Washington Declaration compared to 44 mentions of Russia. Although Ukraine’s ambition to join the alliance was not realized, and alongside the bilateral support provided by allies to Kyiv, NATO took several significant steps to ensure its continued support for Ukraine in its war with Russia in the coming years, including:
- For the first time, launching a NATO Military Assistance and Training Center for Ukraine (NSATU) in Germany to coordinate military equipment, training, and force development to support Ukraine in defending against Russia and deterring future aggression. This marks a notable shift in NATO’s approach to the Ukraine war, as the alliance had been reluctant to directly engage in the conflict for fear of dragging it into a direct confrontation with Moscow over the past two and a half years.
- Moving forward with the establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training, and Education Center (JATEC), an important pillar for practical cooperation, aimed at identifying and applying lessons learned from the Russia-Ukraine war, and increasing interoperability between Kyiv and NATO.
- Continuing financial support for Ukraine by providing essential funding of €40 billion ($43.2 billion) for the next year and sustainable levels of security assistance, in addition to the millions pledged bilaterally by alliance countries to support Kyiv.
- Appointing a senior NATO representative in Kyiv to deepen Ukraine’s institutional relationship with NATO, serving as a focal point for NATO’s engagement with senior Ukrainian officials.
- Enhancing NATO’s Deterrence and Defense Capabilities: In addition to reaffirming increased defense spending and reaching the 2% GDP threshold for all allies, members agreed to continue developing collective defense capabilities and accelerate their modernization across all levels, enhancing deterrence capabilities. Key aspects include conducting larger-scale military exercises, taking urgent actions to boost capabilities according to NATO’s Defense Planning Process (NDPP), integrating NATO’s advanced land forces into new plans, fully integrating Finland and Sweden into NATO’s plans, forces, and command structures, establishing NATO’s Integrated Cyber Defense Center, enhancing protection of critical underwater infrastructure (CUI), and investing in the necessary chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense capabilities to operate effectively in all environments.
- Deepening Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific: One notable difference in the Washington Declaration is its focus on Russia’s allies and partners, particularly China, North Korea, and Iran. China, in particular, was highlighted with strong language, being described as a “critical enabler” of Russia in its war against Ukraine, providing broad support for Russia’s defense industrial base. The increased presence of Beijing in NATO’s statements prompted alliance countries to reassess their partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. For the third consecutive year, since the Madrid summit in 2022, the four Asia-Pacific partners (AP4)—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea—were invited to participate in the NATO summit. The Washington Declaration emphasizes the interconnectedness of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions, where security dynamics mutually influence each other. In this context, the Washington summit focused on enhancing practical cooperation with Indo-Pacific partners by launching four major projects: supporting Ukraine, strengthening cooperation in cyber defense, sharing information on challenges posed by disinformation, and engaging in artificial intelligence through a team of experts.
Interwoven Challenges:
Despite NATO members displaying unity during the Washington summit and its outcomes, the challenges threatening the alliance’s future go beyond the personal inclinations of leaders like Trump or Marine Le Pen. The key challenges can be highlighted as follows:
Shifts in Global Power: According to Western estimates, the era of the former Soviet Union is over, and Russia is no longer capable of invading Europe. Although Moscow is waging a war in Ukraine and may someday threaten small Baltic states, it is unlikely to launch a blitzkrieg on Poland, for example. The Russian military, which has yet to decisively win the battle against the smaller and weaker Ukrainian army, is not expected to suddenly become a tool for regional expansion in Europe, according to these estimates. Europe is also no longer the main center of industrial power in the world, as Asia’s share of the global economy (54%) far exceeds that of Europe (17%), and its contribution to global economic growth is also higher. Asia may therefore become more important to U.S. policymakers than Europe, especially as this coincides with China’s emergence as a strong competitor to the United States, potentially threatening NATO’s future and shifting its future focus.
NATO Divisions: Not all NATO members share the same political orientations. Both Turkey and Hungary delayed Finland and Sweden’s efforts to join the alliance and are among the few members maintaining good relations with Russia. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ties with Moscow are particularly likely to cause tensions, as Orban, currently holding the rotating presidency of the European Council, has repeatedly blocked EU aid to Ukraine
. Although Orban’s anti-Ukraine rhetoric has recently softened, his actions in the near future will be closely watched. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has continuously emphasized his relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and many analysts believe that Turkey is unlikely to side with NATO in a future crisis.
Weak NATO Military Capabilities: NATO’s real military capabilities are increasingly weakened, largely due to the Russia-Ukraine war and China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific. This was evident in the October 2023 study by the nonpartisan RAND Corporation, which showed that NATO is only capable of partially defending Europe against a Russian attack in the coming years. The RAND study states that current NATO capabilities are sufficient to protect Poland but not enough to protect small countries like the Baltic states. Analysts within NATO say that the alliance needs at least a decade to strengthen its defenses in Europe. This was acknowledged by NATO’s Commander-in-Chief, General Christopher Cavoli, in a press conference during the Washington summit.
While the outcomes of the Washington summit may demonstrate the alliance’s success, the key test will come in the coming years when NATO members need to translate their military and defense plans into concrete realities in a changing world, amid growing internal and external doubts about NATO’s future role.
