They think they're in for a free ride
In Ankara, President Trump arrived at a NATO summit carrying long-held frustrations about allied defense spending, even as Russian missiles fell on Ukrainian cities the same morning. The gathering of 32 nations was asked to reckon with two competing pressures: the alliance's slow march toward greater military investment, and Ukraine's immediate, urgent need for the weapons that keep its people alive. History rarely waits for institutional timelines, and the distance between a decade-long pledge and a single morning's casualties made that tension impossible to ignore.
- Russian missiles killed more than twenty Ukrainians on the morning of the summit, a strike Zelenskyy read as a deliberate message timed to humiliate the alliance on its own stage.
- Ukrainian forces are running critically low on Patriot air defense missiles — the very weapons that could have intercepted those strikes — and Zelenskyy is pressing Trump directly to close the gap.
- Trump arrived in Ankara with a grievance list spanning Italy, the UK, Germany, France, and Spain, accusing allies of expecting a free ride while America shoulders the financial burden of collective defense.
- NATO members have pledged to reach five percent of GDP in defense spending by 2035, but several Eastern European nations already outspend the United States as a share of their economies, complicating Trump's narrative.
- The summit's central test is whether Trump's anger at his allies will consume the room, or whether Ukraine's survival will force a harder, more urgent reckoning with what the alliance is actually willing to do.
President Trump flew to Ankara aboard a new Air Force One — a gift from Qatar — carrying a well-worn list of complaints about NATO allies he believes have long underpaid for their own defense. The two-day summit in Turkey's capital offered him a direct audience with the 32-nation alliance, and he arrived with little intention of softening his message.
His frustrations are specific. In a meeting the previous week with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump named names: Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Spain each drew criticism. Spain, he said, was a "horror show." The accusation — that European nations have freeloaded on American military power for decades — is not without foundation. Many allies did underinvest for years. But the picture is more nuanced than Trump's framing suggests: Poland, the Baltic states, and Norway all devote a larger share of their GDP to defense than the United States does.
Rutte pushed the alliance toward a new benchmark — five percent of GDP by 2035 — framing it as evidence of real momentum after years of stagnation. Trump's appetite for decade-long timelines, however, has never been generous.
Ukraine cast a long shadow over the proceedings. On the very morning of the summit, Russian missiles struck Ukrainian cities, killing more than twenty people. Zelenskyy called the timing deliberate — a show of force aimed at the alliance itself. His appeal to Trump was measured but urgent: Ukraine's Patriot missile stockpiles are dangerously depleted, and the political will to replenish them, he said, exists in Washington — it simply hasn't translated into action yet.
The summit's unresolved question was whether Trump's grievances with his allies would crowd out the more immediate stakes: that while the alliance debates percentages and timelines, Ukrainians are dying for want of the weapons America has the power to provide.
President Trump boarded a new Air Force One—a gift from Qatar—on Monday evening bound for Ankara, carrying with him a catalog of complaints about NATO allies he believes are shirking their military obligations. The two-day summit in Turkey's capital would give him a stage to air those grievances directly to the 32-nation alliance gathered to discuss defense spending and support for Ukraine.
Trump's frustration runs deep. He remains angry that NATO members declined to join him in military action against Iran, and he has spent months accusing allies of freeloading on American military might. In an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte the previous week, he did not mince words. Italy disappointed him. The United Kingdom disappointed him. Germany and France disappointed him. Spain, he said, was "a horror show"—a country unwilling to pay its share, content to ride on American shoulders without contributing. The list went on, each nation a fresh grievance.
The numbers, though, tell a more complicated story. While the United States leads NATO in absolute defense spending—the largest dollar amount by far—it does not lead when measured against each nation's economic output. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Norway all spend a larger share of their GDP on defense than America does. Still, Trump's complaint resonates with a real problem: many European nations have underinvested in military capability for years, and the alliance is now scrambling to catch up.
At the Ankara summit, Rutte would push members to commit to a new target: five percent of GDP devoted to defense by 2035. This followed a collective pledge made in The Hague the year before. Rutte framed it as progress. "After years of underinvestment, we are producing real capabilities," he said. "European allies and Canada are now on a trajectory to equalize their defense spending with the United States." But the timeline stretched a decade into the future, and Trump's patience for gradual change has never been his strength.
Ukraine hung over the summit like a shadow. Trump was scheduled to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines, a conversation that would carry enormous weight. Rutte made clear that the alliance's commitment to Ukraine could not waver. "All allies need to pull their weight so that our support to Ukraine continues to flow because Ukraine security is so closely linked with our own," he said. But the support was already fraying at the edges.
On the very morning of the summit, Russian missiles struck Ukrainian targets, killing more than twenty people and wounding dozens more. Zelenskyy saw the timing as deliberate—a show of force timed to coincide with American Independence Day and the NATO gathering. "This is typical of Putin: right after America's Independence Day and before the NATO summit in Ankara. Russia wants to bring more evil and kill people," he said. The strikes underscored a critical vulnerability: Ukrainian forces were running short of American-made Patriot surface-to-air missiles, the very weapons that could defend against such attacks.
Zelenskyy's message to Trump was direct, if carefully worded. The United States had the political will to close the Patriot gap, he suggested. What was missing was the actual commitment to do so. "We understand that the political will of the United States would certainly be enough to make up for the Patriot shortage, but so far, there is not enough of that support," he said. It was a plea wrapped in diplomatic language—a reminder that American promises, however grand, meant nothing without the hardware to back them up. The summit would test whether Trump's grievances with his allies would outweigh the urgency of Ukraine's survival.
Citas Notables
I was disappointed with Italy. I was disappointed with the UK...We're disappointed with most of them. Spain is a horror show.— President Trump, in remarks to reporters
We understand that the political will of the United States would certainly be enough to make up for the Patriot shortage, but so far, there is not enough of that support.— President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Trump focus so heavily on defense spending percentages when the U.S. spends more in absolute terms than any other nation?
Because for him, it's not really about the math—it's about burden-sharing and respect. He sees American money flowing out while allies, in his view, benefit from the security umbrella without paying their fair share. The percentage argument lets him say they're not pulling their weight, even if the data is more nuanced.
But some Eastern European countries already spend more as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. does. Doesn't that complicate his argument?
It does, which is why Rutte brought it up. But Trump's complaint isn't about those countries—it's about the wealthy Western allies like Germany, France, Italy, the UK. He sees them as rich nations choosing not to spend, and that rankles him more than a smaller country doing what it can.
What's the real pressure point at this summit?
Ukraine. Zelenskyy is essentially saying: you can argue about percentages and future targets, but right now, today, my forces are dying because we don't have enough missiles. The political will matters more than the policy frameworks.
Does Trump have leverage in that conversation?
Enormous leverage. He controls the flow of American military aid. Zelenskyy is appealing to him directly, which suggests the current support channels aren't delivering what Ukraine needs. That's a delicate position for Trump—he can use it to demand more from other allies, or he can use it to step back.
What does Russia gain by striking Ukraine on the day of the summit?
Timing and symbolism. It shows the alliance that the threat is immediate and real, not something to be debated over five-year spending targets. It also tests whether Trump will let it distract him from his grievances with allies, or whether he'll stay focused on his original agenda.