Eight contradictions after NATO's "love" summit

MEDEA BENJAMIN

"I just want to say there was immense love in that room," President Trump declared as he closed the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara.

But anyone who looked beyond the carefully orchestrated photo ops saw an alliance riddled with public disputes, conflicting views on security, and ever-widening political divisions.

Here are eight contradictions that defined the Ankara summit and that raise fundamental questions about the future of NATO.

1. Military spending versus real security

NATO leaders had already agreed at the previous summit to move towards military spending equivalent to 5% of GDP, but Ankara highlighted the controversy this commitment still generates. Trump used the meeting to reprimand the allies for not even reaching the old target of 2%, arguing that most were not contributing their fair share. Spain became the main target of criticism for refusing to commit to the 5% target, leading Trump to call it "a terrible NATO partner" and threaten trade retaliation.

The timing of the debate was particularly striking. While leaders were meeting to discuss investing hundreds of billions of dollars more in weapons and militaries, Europe was suffering through one of the most severe heat waves in its history, with deadly temperatures, wildfires, collapsed power grids, and mounting strain on public health systems. This contrast raised an inescapable question: at a time when climate change is already causing deaths and overwhelming governments, why is the top political priority drastically increasing military budgets instead of investing in the threats facing people today?

2. NATO countries are reluctant to support Trump on Iran.

The recent war between the United States and Israel against Iran cast a shadow over the summit. While most European leaders continued to advocate for diplomacy and de-escalation, the summit began with renewed US airstrikes against Iranian targets following attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. During the meeting, Trump declared the US-Iran memorandum of understanding over, dismissed further negotiations as a waste of time, and referred to Iranian leaders as scum.

Trump also complained that European allies had not supported Washington's military campaign, stating, "We're there for them, but they're not there for us." Spain was one of the main critics of the war, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected US requests to use American bases in Spain for offensive operations against Iran. Before the summit, Trump had a public clash with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni after she also refused to allow Italian bases to be used for attacks against Iran. Germany and France also declined to participate militarily.

The contradiction was undeniable: NATO presents itself as a defensive alliance, but its most powerful member expected the allies to support an offensive war against a country located thousands of kilometers from the North Atlantic that had not attacked any NATO member.

3. Europe strengthens its support for Ukraine as the United States withdraws.

In NATO’s final declaration, its earlier promise that Ukraine would eventually become a member of the alliance was omitted—a significant concession to Trump’s opposition. Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, initially endorsed by President George W. Bush at the 2008 Bucharest summit, has long been a major point of contention for Russia, and Putin repeatedly cited it as justification for the 2022 invasion. Its omission from the declaration reflects a significant shift in NATO’s stance.

The declaration pledged roughly $82 billion in military assistance to Ukraine in both 2026 and 2027, but unlike previous years, most of it will come from European allies and Canada, rather than the United States. After Washington committed over $100 billion to Ukraine's war effort, the United States is now reducing its support. This reflects a growing sentiment among Trump supporters that the United States should stop funding what they see as yet another endless foreign war. However, many European governments continue to view Russia as a direct threat and remain committed to arming Ukraine rather than pursuing a diplomatic solution.

4. Europe still wants US troops, while Trump wants fewer commitments abroad.

Ahead of the summit, Trump reportedly raised the idea of ​​reducing the US military presence in Europe by up to a third, raising questions about the future of the approximately 80.000 to 90.000 US troops currently stationed in NATO countries. 

While US bases remain a source of considerable controversy among peace movements in NATO countries such as Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, their governments continue to view the US military presence as essential to European security and have resisted calls for its withdrawal. Trump's willingness to reduce that presence highlighted another growing contradiction: many European governments want Washington's security guarantee to remain in place, while many Americans increasingly question why tens of thousands of US troops should remain stationed in Europe more than three decades after the end of the Cold War.

5. Trump continues to question Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland.

Trump again insisted that the United States should control Greenland. Denmark, backed by the rest of NATO, categorically rejected the idea, insisting that Greenland's future belongs to the Greenlanders and Denmark, not Washington. Danish officials also pointed out that the United States already enjoys extensive military access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, making U.S. sovereignty unnecessary for protecting its security interests.

At the NATO summit, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reaffirmed that Denmark will "defend every inch" of the Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland, while reiterating that the island is not for sale and that its future must be decided by the Greenlanders.

This episode highlighted one of the most pressing contradictions of the summit: an alliance that claims to defend the territorial integrity of its members was forced to confront its most powerful member, which openly challenged the sovereignty of one of them.

6. Türkiye exposes NATO's democratic dilemma.

It was ironic that the NATO summit was being held in Turkey. Inside the conference halls, the leaders were celebrating democracy, freedom, and shared values. Outside, Turkish authorities were banning anti-NATO demonstrations and arresting hundreds of protesters, journalists, lawyers, and activists participating in peaceful demonstrations. Trump praised President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as “a very strong leader,” even though Erdoğan has spent years systematically suppressing dissent, imprisoning critics, restricting press freedom, and persecuting political opponents.

Trump also used the summit to express his willingness to restore Turkey's access to advanced US weaponry, including the F-35 fighter jet program, which had been suspended after Turkey purchased the Russian S-400 air defense system.

However, Turkey is not an isolated case. In NATO countries, governments that proclaim their commitment to democracy and human rights have increasingly repressed dissent, particularly pro-Palestinian activism. From police raids and restrictions on protests to arrests, prosecutions, and attempts to silence critics in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and other countries, NATO governments have repeatedly demonstrated that democratic freedoms are conditional when they conflict with political and strategic priorities.

7. Europe is expected to defend itself, but to continue depending on NATO.

One question loomed behind the scenes throughout the summit: If Europe is now expected to invest more in its armed forces, finance the war in Ukraine, and prepare for a reduced US military presence, what exactly will NATO's future role be? European leaders continue to describe the alliance as indispensable, but Washington increasingly expects Europe to become self-sufficient, while remaining available to support US-led military operations elsewhere.

This contradiction is fueling a broader debate across Europe. If Europeans are expected to pay more, defend themselves, and take greater responsibility for their own security, why should they continue to rely on an alliance dominated by Washington?

8. Should NATO continue to exist?

The most important question hanging over the Ankara summit wasn't being asked inside conference rooms, but on the streets: Should NATO continue to exist? Created in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union, the alliance progressively expanded its mission long after the end of the Cold War, intervening in places ranging from the Balkans to Afghanistan and projecting ever more military power far beyond its original mandate.

The protests in Ankara were part of a broader international movement represented by the No NATO Network, which brings together peace organizations from NATO member countries and calls for the alliance to be replaced by a common security architecture based on diplomacy, disarmament and cooperation.

Trump's assertion that there was "immense love in that room" may have been a memorable line, but it bore little resemblance to the summit itself. Ankara laid bare an alliance fractured by issues such as military spending, Ukraine, Iran, democracy, sovereignty, and even its own purpose.

For peace activists in NATO countries, these contradictions only reinforce what they have argued for decades: Europe needs a new security architecture based on diplomacy, arms control, common security, and cooperation, while the United States needs a foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than militarism. For them, the conclusion is clear: the time has come to dissolve NATO and replace it with a security system that reduces tensions instead of fueling the arms race and paving the way for endless war.

medea benjamin She is a co-founder of the international human rights organization Global Exchange and of Code Pink – Women for Peace. His most recent book, co-authored with David Swanson, is «NATO: What You Need to Know».