Media: NATO summit sidesteps Ukraine, Georgia membership amid shifting US priorities

As NATO leaders prepare to meet in The Hague, the future of Ukraine and Georgia’s potential membership remains a contentious and unspoken issue. While previous NATO commitments under the Biden administration affirmed an “irreversible” path for both nations to join the alliance, this pledge is notably absent from the summit agenda, reflecting President Trump’s opposition.

The summit, described by diplomats as a “five-for-five” meeting, aims to secure a tenuous agreement whereby European allies pledge increased defence spending while President Donald Trump signals continued support for NATO’s mutual defence clause, Article 5—a commitment he has repeatedly questioned, Caliber.Az reports, citing foreign media.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is working to ensure a smooth summit focused narrowly on defence investment, deliberately sidelining contentious issues such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, trade disputes, and democratic values. Instead of a comprehensive communique, the alliance plans to issue a brief joint statement highlighting a pledge by member states to allocate 3.5 per cent of GDP to core military expenditure by 2032, with an additional 1.5 per cent dedicated to defence-related activities like support for Ukraine, cybersecurity, and military mobility.

While smaller nations like the Nordic and Baltic states and Poland are expected to meet this target, larger countries such as the UK, France, Italy, and Spain face challenges due to fiscal constraints and domestic politics. Notably absent from the summit agenda is any reaffirmation of NATO’s previous pledge that Ukraine and Georgia will eventually become members—a stance supported by the Biden administration but opposed by Trump.

As one diplomat put it, “Preventing a transatlantic train wreck is the best they can hope for.”

European leaders seek assurances from the US that critical military capabilities, including air and missile defences, intelligence, and logistical support, will remain in place during a gradual transition of responsibility. This “burden-shifting” is expected to unfold over five to ten years, avoiding sudden withdrawals that could destabilize the region.

However, with US focus increasingly turning towards countering China, European governments face mounting pressure to strengthen their own defence capabilities within NATO’s framework—a strategy often referred to as building the “European pillar” of NATO. Until then, extending existing commitments and maintaining unity remain the alliance’s best option amid uncertain times.

By Vafa Guliyeva