Political scenery with a VIP budget: are summits worth the price paid for protocol statements and sluggish compromises?

International summits are regularly held in various parts of the world, where one of the central issues was the war in Ukraine and the search for mechanisms to end it. The meetings are held under the slogans of peace, security, stability and are accompanied by extraordinary expenses. To organize such events, thousands of specialists are involved, temporary infrastructure is built, airspace is blocked, and military escorts of delegations are prepared. The cost of such events increases in proportion to the political load they have to withstand. All this creates a visually convincing picture of determination and readiness to act, but behind this facade, endless discussions, agreements, contradictions and bureaucratic formulas are often hidden, which are not always converted into practical solutions. And here the questions arise: is it really worth paying such a high price for political photos, protocol statements and sluggish compromises? Does a security showroom in the spirit of political Hollywood really produce real results?
The cost of international summits: real amounts that they prefer not to advertise
Behind the scenes of every international summit are not only politics, diplomacy and photo shoots, but also millions of dollars and euros spent on security, logistics, accommodation of delegations, infrastructure and representative expenses. At a time when governments in many countries are cutting budgets, these funds remain carefully protected from cameras and unnecessary questions. However, the real numbers can be gathered from fragments of open information – budgets, parliamentary reports, journalistic investigations and leaks from government structures.
Nine-meter concrete blocks, wire fences, armored vehicles on the streets, patrols with assault rifles and a fleet on full combat alert — all this is not a staging of a conventional war, but preparations for this year’s NATO summit, which is to be held on June 24-25 in The Hague. It has already been called the most expensive in the history of the Alliance, and the price tag is truly impressive – according to the Dutch media, it is 183.4 million euros. If we take into account only the main 2.5-hour session of the leaders of 32 countries, then it turns out “a million euros per minute.” And this is only the security part, and the real costs are much higher.
The area around the World Forum conference center, where the main events will take place, is surrounded by a five-kilometer fence, frigates patrol the North Sea, fighter jets and helicopters protect the airspace, and the movement of delegations will be accompanied by military units, specialized police forces and hundreds of Security Service personnel. At the same time, some areas of the city will be completely inaccessible to civil transport and residents. Part of public transport will be stopped, restrictions on pedestrian movement will be introduced.
The cost of organizing such events is not limited to the military environment. The cost structure includes multi-million dollar budgets for renting premises, setting up areas for mass media, closed communication infrastructure, hiring private security companies, translators, catering services, drivers, transport logistics, and medical support. A separate item is the payment of accommodation for high-ranking delegations, the rental of five-star hotels, the security of each route, the support of ceremonies, buffets and receptions. Funds are also spent on information support, PR campaigns, souvenir products, eco-compensation and other formal attributes of a “green” image.
Summits have always been extremely expensive. For example, on May 14-15, 2012, Chicago hosted NATO leaders. The city spent at least $15.6 million on security alone. Of them, 14.6 million are for the police (including overtime pay, ammunition purchase, training), another 1 million are for the work of the fire service. Part of the budget was compensated by US federal funds, in particular within the framework of the NSSE (National Special Security Event) program. However, the local authorities then admitted: part of the costs had to be covered from the city budget.
On June 29-30, 2022 in Madrid for the NATO summit, where the new strategic concept of the Alliance was adopted, according to journalistic investigations, more than 37 million euros were spent on non-public contracts and delegations guarded by 25 thousand security forces. This did not include expenses for infrastructure, transport and servicing of delegations. Purchases include 6,000 new Taser Tasers, thousands of bulletproof vests and assault uniforms.
The 2023 G7 summit in Hiroshima cost about $200 million. In Toronto in 2018, the summit of the same format cost 605 million Canadian dollars. In London in 2019, the summit cost 23 million pounds. The G20 summit in Hamburg in 2017 cost more than 130 million euros, in particular, 32 million were spent only on the involvement of the police.
On July 11-12, 2023, the NATO summit was held in the capital of Lithuania. Government spending was not fully disclosed, but the security operation was the largest in the country’s history. Up to 12,000 policemen, border guards, and military personnel were brought to Vilnius. ARAS forces, Lithuanian military, Polish and Latvian contingents, NATO special forces, as well as military police from several countries took part. NASAMS systems from Spain, Patriot from Germany were moved to Lithuania. The forces of cyber security, electronic surveillance, radio-electronic warfare were connected. A contingent of military sappers worked in Vilnius with the task of providing protection against terrorist attacks and drones. These costs were not publicly calculated, but according to experts, they exceeded 100 million euros.
A comparative analysis of NATO summits over the last decade shows that costs are not growing gradually, but in leaps and bounds. If up to $15 million was spent on security measures in the USA in 2012, today’s budgets exceed 150–180 million euros. And this is without taking into account the expenses of the delegations, which each country finances separately. In addition, the need to counter drones, cyber-attacks, sabotage, and information intrusions has increased many times. At the same time, as the formalities grow, the duration of the summits and the volume of the final documents are reduced.
Billion summits and almost zero results
G7, G20, NATO, international conferences, special meetings at the highest level have long become a permanent element of the political rhythm. Today, these are institutionalized events with their own infrastructure, schedule, PR teams, security, secretariat, technical team, backroom and several levels of informal support. Hundreds of delegates work, dozens of government planes take off, entire cities are blocked, temporary air defense and security posts are set up, contracts are signed with contractors, and all this is for the sake of saying: “participants have agreed to continue the dialogue” at the end. Do these events have tangible results beyond protocol statements and photos against the background of flags? Why, then, are hundreds of millions of dollars spent when the world is on the brink of a new phase of global instability?
As costs rise and protocols become more complicated, a different dynamic becomes increasingly apparent: more and more such meetings end without a political outcome. More precisely, with a result that means nothing and has sluggish compromises.
This year’s summit of the “Big Seven” in Kananaskis, Canada, was indicative in this sense. Even before it began, it was clear that there was no question of institutional breakthroughs – the differences in the positions of the participating countries had become too deep. Indeed, the summit ended without a joint communique, which has always been the main political outcome of such meetings. Instead, six separate statements were issued on topics that reflect a blurred agenda rather than a shared strategic vision: artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, critical minerals, combating migrant smuggling, countering transnational pressure, and responding to wildfires. At the same time, the statements were made without a single mention of the main war of modern Europe, a coordinated position towards Russia, as well as a strategic plan and clear decisions that could be called commitments.
Despite the militarized hyper-organization, the political essence of the future Hague summit will also be blurred and compromised. The main final document – the so-called Hague Declaration – is prepared in advance in the form of a concise one-page text (for comparison, the meeting in Washington in 2024 ended with a declaration of 44 points and a volume of 5,400 words). It will not include key strategic decisions and, as expected, even the issue of Ukraine will remain on the sidelines. It will outline NATO’s financial goals. Normally, Ally summits include three two-and-a-half-hour sessions on geopolitical and strategic issues, but next week, only one two-and-a-half-hour session is scheduled.
According to diplomats, at a certain stage there were fears that it would not be possible to agree on even a formal mention of Ukraine. Some of the member countries of the Alliance frankly stated: it is better to avoid mentioning it altogether than to agree on meaningless formulas. Others emphasized that without at least a symbolic confirmation of the promises of Vilnius and Washington (regarding Ukraine’s future membership), the declaration would be evidence of a setback.
As a result, at the time of preparations for the Hague Summit, no consensus was reached at this time. At the same time, for the first time since the full-scale invasion of Russia, there will be no meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council (RUN) at the level of leaders. This indicates not only a decrease in diplomatic interest in the Ukrainian issue, but also its removal from the key panel of the summit. At most, there will be another backroom negotiation, no more.
The symbolism of the summit, which will be held in The Hague, a city associated with international law and criminal tribunals, also raises questions. Meetings of the UN International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, which issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, are held in this very location. The fact that Ukraine, whose struggle with the Russian Federation is of key importance for the global order, finds itself outside the main panel is all the more symbolic. Instead of a political message, there is silence and a silent attempt to postpone uncomfortable decisions for later.
Meanwhile, Ukraine remains at the forefront of the war, which is formally the main challenge for the Alliance. Until recently, the Ukrainian topic was central to the previous summits: in Vilnius, the leaders agreed on the expansion of the RUN format, in Washington – on a new open door policy. However, now it is a completely different scale and a completely different mood. Now there is no talk of any institutional breakthroughs. The declaration, which only a few years ago consisted of dozens of paragraphs, is reduced to a minimum today. The explanation for this phenomenon is not in “optimization of the format”, but in the reluctance of the allies to fix any binding decisions regarding the adoption of new countries or active participation in the war on the side of the victim of aggression.
Other summits should be mentioned. In 2021, a NATO summit was held in Brussels, at which the main expectation was a clear answer to the question: when and how can Ukraine become part of the Alliance? The final declaration repeated the wording of the Bucharest summit in 2008 — “Ukraine will become a member of NATO,” but without any promotion, mechanism, terms, or road map. Volodymyr Zelenskyy then did not hide his disappointment, and the Western media wrote about “frozen rhetoric”. The summit cost tens of millions of euros, just for logistics and security — more than 40 million. The European Union financed the placement of more than 4,000 employees and the organization of special cyber security measures. There is no political summary.
The UN climate conference, COP28, which took place in Dubai in 2023, became even larger in terms of budget and even more fruitless. The first-ever tough global commitment to cut fossil fuel production was expected to be agreed. On the way out is a document in which the need to “move away from fossil fuels” was mentioned for the first time, but without any deadlines, sanctions, control, or obligation. At the same time, the cost of the summit amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, taking into account the accompanying events, security and logistics.
Another example is the G20 summit in Delhi in 2023. It was supposed to be a diplomatic breakthrough for India, which sought to position itself as a bridge between the global South and the West. But due to the presence of the Russian delegation and China’s reluctance to agree to tough wording on the war in Ukraine, the document ended with phrases like “the parties should refrain from using force” and “all conflicts should be resolved peacefully.” No mention of the Russian Federation, no demand. At the time, the US delegation tried to push for clearer text, but abandoned those efforts at an early stage. The summit ended in a series of technical meetings and informal statements that had little practical impact.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to attend the summit of European Union leaders in Brussels, which is scheduled for June 26-27. However, at this moment, his visit has not been officially confirmed. Sources in European institutions note that the Ukrainian side is still considering the format and expediency of the visit. Even with the participation of Zelenskyi, this summit is also unlikely to bring breakthrough results. It is expected that the meeting in Brussels will have a declarative nature and will not end with significant practical decisions regarding Ukraine – neither in the matter of financial support, nor in the field of defense assistance, nor in the context of further European integration steps. The participants of the summit will likely limit themselves to yet another general statement of “concern” and solidarity with Kyiv and support against the background of the ongoing war with Russia.
In response to any attempt to ask the question: “why are these summits held?” one argument is heard: “it is necessary for security.” However, in an era when major political decisions are made long before summits, and documents are agreed to a comma even before planes land, the question arises: do millions justify a showy form that has lost touch with content? The answer to it is obvious. Declarations that do not have any legal force. Formulations that do not obligate anyone to anything. A political parlance in which “deep concern” means only that someone doesn’t mind pretending to be following events.
A significant part of such meetings turns into a sequence of protocol shots, which are needed more for the internal legitimation of the leaders themselves than for solving global issues. Press services record handshakes, protocol statements are distributed in the media, departments receive new forms for internal reporting. However, the essence of political events does not change, the main challenges – war, nuclear threat, issues of security guarantees – remain out of focus or are reduced to rhetoric.
In a situation where Ukraine remains at the forefront of a war formally declared as a threat to the international order, the current lack of clear and public support from allies is more than telling. This is a symptom of fatigue, unwillingness to take responsibility, fear of aggravation, desire to maintain balance even at the cost of a compromise with the aggressor. And the summits, despite their space budget, geography, declarations of solidarity, increasingly only fix this trend.