Euractiv: Washington hesitates to label Russia "threat" in NATO summit declaration

The United States may oppose identifying Russia as a "threat" in the final communiqué of the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague, scheduled for June 24–25, according to diplomatic sources cited by Euractiv.

While NATO members have reportedly reached consensus on raising defence spending to 5% of GDP, disagreement remains over how to frame this commitment in the summit's final declaration. European allies are pushing to justify the increase with explicit references to the "Russian threat," sources say.

However, three NATO diplomats told Euractiv that Washington is reluctant to adopt such wording. The U.S., they noted, is seeking to maintain room to mediate potential peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine — a role that could be undermined by confrontational language in the declaration.

In an effort to avoid drawn-out discussions over phrasing, the summit communiqué is expected to be limited to a single page, two European diplomats revealed. The concise format is also seen as a way to align with former U.S. President Donald Trump's preference for focusing NATO’s attention on core military priorities, amid speculation about his possible return to office.

Yet some European officials have raised concerns that the streamlined text may understate NATO’s broader political commitments — particularly continued support for Ukraine and Kyiv’s “irreversible path” to alliance membership.

The NATO summit in The Hague on June 24–25 will take place amid a period of mounting geopolitical uncertainty and internal alliance recalibration. With Russia’s war in Ukraine entering its fourth year, NATO faces growing pressure to strengthen its deterrence posture while maintaining cohesion among its 32 member states.

A key item on the agenda will be the proposed increase in defence spending to 5% of GDP — a bold escalation from the current 2% benchmark set in previous NATO guidelines.

The summit is also expected to reaffirm NATO’s support for Ukraine, both in terms of military assistance and long-term integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. However, differences persist over how strongly the alliance should commit to Ukraine’s future membership, particularly in light of concerns about escalation with Moscow.

By Khagan Isayev