NATO's 32 leaders convened in Ankara today for a summit that opens with an uncomfortable question hanging over the room: how firm is the United States' commitment to the alliance it has anchored for 77 years? President Trump is due to meet counterparts including Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he arrives mid-way through what NPR calls an ongoing pressure campaign on spending. NBC News frames the meeting bluntly: Trump sits down with allies with his commitment to the alliance in doubt.

Two items top the agenda, per Al Jazeera's live coverage: defence spending and support for Ukraine's military needs. But The Guardian reports the gathering comes at a strained moment, following tensions between the US and its partners over Iran and Greenland — two files that have little to do with each other except that both put Washington at odds with allies inside the same tent.

The 5% pledge that doesn't say which war comes first

The alliance has already agreed to lift the spending bar to 5% of GDP. The problem, as Forbes argues, is that a bigger number does not by itself resolve the harder question: NATO still can't say which war comes first. Money buys capability; it does not settle prioritisation between theatres, and that gap is where allied unity gets tested.

That is the strategic sub-plot beneath the spending headline. The New York Times poses it as the open question of NATO's next act: whether Europe can play the leading role. A US commitment placed in doubt and a Europe asked to step up are two sides of the same coin — the summit is, in effect, a live negotiation over who carries the alliance going forward.

Ukraine, and Russia's framing

Zelenskyy's presence keeps Ukraine's military needs at the centre of the talks. Meanwhile Moscow is running its own narrative: Al Jazeera reports that even as Russia faces setbacks on the frontlines and pressures at home, President Putin's backers are openly touting a 'war with NATO' and decrying Kyiv's Western allies.

Hypothesis: the Kremlin's 'war with NATO' messaging is aimed less at the battlefield than at the summit's fault lines — the same transatlantic doubts Ankara is trying to paper over. Supporting this: the rhetoric surfaces precisely amid Russian losses, per Al Jazeera, when a unifying external threat is domestically useful, and it lands as NATO debates cohesion. Against this: the sources do not tie the timing to the summit directly, so any coordination is inference, not established fact — treat it as interpretation, not proven intent.

Why it matters: Ankara is not just about a percentage. If allies leave without ranking their priorities or pinning down the US commitment, the 5% pledge risks being a number without a plan — and Europe is being asked, in real time, whether it can lead if Washington steps back. The cross-border stakes run from Kyiv's frontline to Greenland to the Gulf.

The honest caveats

  • Outcomes are still open: as of the summit's opening, the sources describe agenda and pressure, not final decisions.
  • Trump's meeting with Zelenskyy is scheduled, but its substance on Ukraine support is not yet reported.
  • The Iran and Greenland tensions are cited as backdrop; their concrete effect on summit deliverables is not established in the source material.

What to watch next

  1. Whether the final communiqué moves from a 5% headline to any actual prioritisation between theatres — the Forbes gap.
  2. Concrete commitments on Ukraine's military needs coming out of the Trump–Zelenskyy meeting.
  3. Any signal, in language or leader body-language, that resolves or deepens the doubt over the US commitment.
  4. How far Europe is asked — or agrees — to carry the load, the NYT's open question.