NATO Summit in The Hague has ended: results, new commitments and what they mean for Ukraine
On June 25, the NATO summit ended in The Hague, which was held at a key moment in the review of the Alliance’s strategic approaches to security, deterrence and political coordination. The second day of the meeting, which took place in an expanded format, ended with the adoption of a final communiqué, in which member states recorded key decisions on defense policy, long-term budgetary commitments and approaches to deterrence. Despite the complex balance of interests and the different tone of statements of individual states, the document recorded agreed decisions and formulations that may have long-term consequences for both the organization itself and its partners. What exactly were the results recorded, what was decided and how will it affect Ukraine?
What decisions were made by the NATO summit in The Hague
The NATO summit, which ended on June 25 in The Hague, took place at a time when the global security architecture is under pressure from the war, strategic shifts in the United States and general Western fatigue from the protracted conflict in Ukraine. This meeting was the first since the return of Donald Trump to the White House, and it was his figure that was associated with the most unpredictability.
It should be noted that although the NATO summit officially opened with a traditional dinner for the leaders of the member countries, intensive discussions have been going on behind the scenes since Tuesday itself. Officials, advisers and diplomats argued over the alliance’s future defense course, the role of the United States and Ukraine’s prospects. Despite the expectation of a possible weakening of the Alliance’s position, the final communique of the summit demonstrated not only the preservation of the strategic direction, but also its significant strengthening, in particular in the issue of support for Ukraine.
One of the central decisions of the summit was the official recognition of Russia as a long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security. This formulation is now clearly enshrined in NATO documents and outlines the framework for the Alliance’s further decisions on deterrence, modernization of the armed forces and strategic reassessment of enlargement policy. At the same time, the document separately states that the security of Ukraine is part of the security of NATO itself — a wording that has not yet appeared in the official final documents of the Alliance and which actually integrates Ukrainian defense into the collective response structure.
A new and, without exaggeration, historic step was the inclusion of direct expenditures of NATO member countries to support Ukraine in the total defense expenditures. For the first time, the allies recognized that aid to Ukraine is not external political support, but a component of their own defense system. Thus, allocation of weapons, investments in the Ukrainian defense industry or financing of ammunition production can be officially included in the national reports on the fulfillment of defense obligations. This opens up additional opportunities for countries that have so far vacillated between fiscal prudence and political responsibility.
The approach to the general level of defense spending is fundamentally new. If not long ago NATO countries declared their desire to reach 2% of GDP, now a new goal has been set – 5% by 2035. Of them, 3.5% should go directly to the army, equipment, infrastructure, weapons; another 1.5% — to related fields, such as cyber security, military innovations, logistics, industrial production. This package of decisions was pushed primarily by the Trump administration, which is demanding greater financial participation from European partners. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte directly admitted that such a decision would not have happened without the position of the US president.
At the same time, within the Alliance, the new target met not only support. Spain refused to sign the 5% commitment and secured an exemption for itself. Canada and Slovakia followed her with criticism, and the Prime Minister of Denmark openly stated that 10 years to reach a new level of spending is too long in the conditions of a military threat from Russia. That is, despite the declarative unity, there are differences among the members of the Alliance both in terms of pace and priorities. However, the fact of adopting the figure of 5% fixes the direction: NATO is preparing for a long period of confrontation.
The NATO summit is intended to be a signal to the global community — primarily to Vladimir Putin — about the alliance’s unity. However, it has not been easy for members of the bloc to demonstrate this unity due to pressure from Donald Trump, who has long insisted on increasing defense spending by allies. Currently, the standard commitment of member states is to spend 2% of GDP on defense. Last year, only 23 out of 32 states met this level. In response to Trump’s pressure, NATO is considering raising the bar to 5%. Poland came closest to this goal: last year its defense spending was 4.1% of GDP, and this year the country aims to reach 4.7%. By comparison, the United States spends 3.4% of GDP on defense.
Ukraine occupied a special place in the results of the summit. For the first time, the support of our state was directly integrated into the concept of collective defense of NATO. The document states that assistance to Ukraine, its defense industry and defense potential is a contribution to the security of the Alliance itself. This not only changes the framework of the legitimacy of military aid, but also gives it a formal basis for its long-term preservation – even in the event of a change in political will in individual states.
However, despite important signals, the reality of Ukraine’s participation in the meeting of NATO leaders remained incomplete. Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not invited to the closed meeting on June 25. Formally, this was explained by the format, but unofficially by the reluctance of some participants, in particular the USA, Turkey, Slovakia and Hungary, to see the president of Ukraine at a joint table. This position was openly voiced by the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban. It was a reminder that despite symbolic support, tension lines remain in the Alliance, and Zelenskyi’s political figure remains controversial for some leaders.
However, the summit still brought results in the practical dimension of support for Ukraine. Great Britain announced a new aid package, formed at the expense of interest from the frozen assets of Russia – it is about 350 missiles for air defense. The Netherlands announced the supply of one hundred radars to combat drones, as well as its intention to become more actively involved in defense and industrial initiatives. In addition, the NATO declaration contains provisions on the removal of barriers to arms trade between Alliance members, which opens up the opportunity for Ukraine to conclude contracts with manufacturers from NATO countries, in particular, the USA, France, Germany and Britain.
It is also important to note that the summit in The Hague confirmed the validity of all the decisions of the previous summit in Washington, where the irreversibility of Ukraine’s course towards NATO membership was recorded. Although no new commitments to join the Alliance were made, maintaining this position in the declaration is an important symbolic signal — especially in the context of approaching a new stage of hostilities and uncertainty surrounding scenarios for the end of the war.
Against the background of aggravations at the front and a tense situation in global politics, the summit in The Hague testified that NATO is not curtailing its support for Ukraine, on the contrary, it is gradually integrating it into its own security system. For the first time, direct contributions in favor of Ukraine are equated with national defense investments, and the security of our country is formulated as a common interest. And although this is not yet a legally binding union, the very nature of the new rhetoric, the change in approaches to financing and strategic planning give grounds to talk about the gradual integration of Ukraine with the Alliance in the political and military-industrial dimension. In this sense, the summit in The Hague can be considered not just a declarative step, but a constructive tool for changing the logic of NATO itself. The Alliance is gradually moving from the defense of imaginary borders to the formation of real borders.
Meeting without a briefing: what does the conversation between Zelensky and Trump in The Hague mean
Shortly after the end of the official part of the NATO summit in The Hague, when the leaders of the Alliance countries approved the final declaration and left the place of negotiations, attention shifted to an informal, but no less important episode – the meeting between the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi and the President of the United States Donald Trump. It took place in the format of closed negotiations, without the presence of journalists, without cameras and – what is important – without a final briefing. However, even with limited information, this contact has a weight that is difficult to overestimate.
The meeting lasted almost an hour, much longer than planned. This is an indicator in itself – time matters in diplomatic negotiations. Although neither side provided a meaningful transcript or at least a general statement to the press, the only thing that is available is a short post by Volodymyr Zelenskyi on social networks and a brief comment by Trump before the meeting began. This lack of publicity may indicate both the sensitivity of the topics and the reluctance to prematurely articulate political positions that have not yet been agreed upon or do not have a final format. In addition, it creates the effect of sidelines, but also allows us to assume that the conversation was not only an exchange of diplomatic bows, but a substantive discussion about possible war scenarios, pressure on Russia, and possibly the configuration of future agreements. Especially in the context of peace initiatives that are already appearing in the rhetoric of some Western leaders.
Zelenskyy himself described the meeting as “meaningful” and noted that the parties talked “about how to achieve a ceasefire and real peace,” as well as “how to protect our people.” He thanked for the “attention and willingness to help bring peace”, adding that the details of the negotiations will be known later. This wording leaves wide room for interpretation, but also signals: Ukraine sought to raise issues at this meeting that go beyond the general format of NATO. Not just support, but mechanisms of influencing the war itself, perhaps even in the context of peace initiatives.
At the same time, Trump did not make clear statements. He answered the journalists’ questions evasively: “Let’s discuss the obvious. Let’s discuss his difficulties. Zelensky is a good guy.” However, even before the personal meeting, at a closed meeting with NATO leaders, Trump declared that “the situation in Ukraine is completely out of control, and something needs to be done about it.” That comment, published by Bloomberg, was taken as a positive sign — at least as a signal of real engagement.
The meeting of the two presidents took place against the backdrop of complex dynamics in relations between Kyiv and Washington. After Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the topic of Ukraine in US foreign policy temporarily took a back seat — in favor of the Middle East, domestic priorities, and the political campaign. The contact between the two leaders was supposed to take place on June 17 on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada, but was canceled due to Trump’s early departure. Therefore, the very fact of the meeting in The Hague has already become symbolic and is perceived as an attempt to restart a personal channel of communication, and perhaps to build a new format of interaction in the conditions of a change in the American course.
And although in an official format, Ukraine was present only at individual meetings of the NATO summit, the absence of Zelensky at the main negotiating table caused a controversial reaction. Probably, precisely because of these circumstances, the meeting with Trump was even more important in order to compensate for the image losses and to return the element of personal interaction with the key country of the Alliance.
In the end, the main intrigue remained what exactly the presidents agreed on. Information appeared in the media that Trump promised to consider the possibility of providing Ukraine with additional interceptor missiles for Patriot air defense systems. It was about checking the balance in the reserves, after which Washington should first provide for Israel, and then consider the needs of Kyiv. It is formally not much, but in the conditions of prolonged silence on the part of the American president, even such a phrase is a change of tone.
The finale of this meeting was a short message from Zelensky, in which he hinted: the details are not yet for the public. This means that the Ukrainian side expects either new contacts or verification of promises in practice. In any case, the meeting with Trump became a symbolic event of the summit in The Hague.
What the results of the NATO summit mean for Ukraine
The results of the NATO summit in The Hague, as well as Volodymyr Zelensky’s separate conversation with Donald Trump, did not become a breakthrough in a legal or procedural sense. However, both events determine the direction in which the international position regarding Ukraine is developing — not only in a military context, but also in a broader one: economic, political, and structural. NATO’s final declaration, adopted without objections, and the unexpectedly long conversation between the presidents of Ukraine and the United States became indicators of how the Alliance sees the future of the conflict, as well as how Kyiv should build its strategy for interaction with the West.
First of all, The Hague testified that support for Ukraine remains on NATO’s political agenda, and it is gradually turning from temporary assistance into a systemic element of Euro-Atlantic security. The phrase from the final communiqué — “Ukraine’s security is a contribution to our common security” — although it does not provide new guarantees, it changes the logic of decisions. For the first time, NATO member states agreed to take into account direct contributions to the defense of Ukraine in their national defense budgets. This allows for the institutionalization of aid to Kyiv and reduces the risk of its cuts in case of internal changes in the political landscape of the donor countries.
Another important signal was the agreement on a gradual increase in defense spending to 5% of GDP, which includes not only classic military needs, but also infrastructure, innovation, cyber security and the defense industry. For Ukraine, this creates a new field of opportunities: under the conditions of proper integration into the production and logistics chains of NATO, the Ukrainian military industry can not only receive support, but also become part of the pan-European defense complex.
However, the reality remained more complicated than the formulation. Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not invited to the full format meeting of NATO leaders. And although his participation in the working dinner, meetings with the “coalition of the determined” and individual leaders made it possible to maintain contact with key partners, the very fact of his absence from the central event became a painful signal for Ukraine. This indicates the presence of internal fatigue from the war with the Russian Federation, as well as the fact that the figure of Zelensky has become an irritant for part of the political elites.
At the same time, both Zelensky and Trump took a step towards it. One showed willingness to talk not only about weapons, but also about “real peace”. Another — for the first time in a long time, recognized that the issue of Ukraine requires a separate political solution. That is why this meeting, despite the silence after it, became more important than any comment. In it, Ukraine returned to the personal focus of the US president, and this is now critically important.
As a result, the summit in The Hague outlined not so much new prospects for Ukraine as the limits of already formed expectations. The alliance confirmed its readiness to support Ukrainian defense as an element of general security, but clearly distinguished between this support and the process of full membership. The formal recognition of contributions to Ukraine as part of national defense spending is an important technical step that will allow continued aid without going beyond the political framework. However, no new accession commitments or security guarantees have been announced.
In general, the situation that developed around the Hague summit points to one main conclusion: support for Ukraine remains, but it is gradually moving into a phase of regulated stability, where rhetoric increasingly lags behind practice. Although the communique of the summit is brief, it is very positive for Ukraine. The summit did not bring any real breakthroughs, but it outlined clear frameworks — financial, institutional and political — within which Ukraine is able to move forward. From now on, not declarations, but the ability to work within these frameworks will be more important. And the main question now is not what our country expects from NATO, but whether Ukraine can become a subject for the alliance that brings solutions, not problems.
