NATO’s smiles vs. Ukraine’s struggles The growing disconnects behind the summit optimism

In its recent opinion piece, The Financial Times dissects the uneasy juxtaposition between the upbeat tone of the NATO summit and the grim reality facing Ukraine on the battlefield. The article, cloaked in ironic wit—starting with the sardonic “Daddy’s home” post from the White House—exposes the fragile veneer of transatlantic unity and military resolve under Trump’s renewed leadership.

While the NATO summit ended without major drama, which many feared given Trump’s unpredictability, the alliance’s sense of relief appears shallow. European leaders touted key achievements: a renewed focus on deterring Russia, Cold War-level defence spending commitments, and a more balanced transatlantic alliance. Yet these declarations ring hollow when contrasted with the deteriorating war situation in Ukraine—a conflict that remains NATO’s most immediate and consequential challenge.

According to the FT, military exhaustion is setting in on both sides, but Ukraine is nearing its limits faster than Russia. The West's hesitation in delivering vital weapons—especially Patriot missile systems and HIMARS rockets—exacerbates the risk. Although Zelenskyy’s meeting with Trump was friendly, the US president remained vague about real commitments, raising fears that American support remains subject to his whims.

A particularly striking detail is Ukraine’s growing desperation for a ceasefire—something once taboo in Kyiv's strategic calculus, now increasingly whispered behind closed doors. The FT reports a clear shift in mood inside the Ukrainian government, signalling the psychological toll of the war and diminishing hope for a near-term victory. This comes amid renewed Russian offensives and Putin’s apparent fixation on capturing Odesa—a move that would choke Ukraine’s maritime lifeline.

European leaders may have left the summit feeling reassured, but their own former officials—including Sweden’s Carl Bildt and Finland’s Sanna Marin—returned from Ukraine with a stark warning: without more support, Ukraine may lose more territory, possibly cities. Some Western officials go further, warning of “catastrophic failure” if the West does not urgently bolster Ukraine militarily and financially.

Still, the article doesn’t entirely succumb to doom. It notes the resilience of Ukraine’s drone warfare, which has hindered Russia’s large-scale advances, and the limited territorial gains Moscow has achieved over the past year. Yet such facts offer cold comfort in light of a looming strategic imbalance.

Ultimately, The Financial Times delivers a sobering message beneath the summit’s diplomatic fanfare: NATO unity may be performative if not backed by urgent, tangible support for Ukraine. The alliance’s declarations will mean little if Ukraine falters on the front lines. And if current trends continue, not even the ever-smiling Mark Rutte may be able to mask the coming reckoning.

By Vugar Khalilov