Ukraine emerged "reinforced" from the July 7-8 NATO summit in Ankara, where a notable shift in US President Donald Trump’s approach to Kyiv stood out as allies avoided the transatlantic tensions many had feared, according to a security expert.
Speaking to Anadolu, Jean-Marc Rickli, head of Global and Emerging Risks at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), said concerns ahead of the summit had centered on the possibility of strong disagreements between the US and European allies, but the feared divisions ultimately did not materialize.
“When we look at who is the clear winner, I think the major breakthrough has been Donald Trump's support to (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelenskyy. Ukraine comes out of this meeting reinforced,” he said.
The summit concluded with allies reaffirming their “ironclad commitment” to Article 5 and pledging €70 billion ($81 billion) in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026, while committing to sustain at least equivalent levels in 2027.
The declaration also said European allies and Canada now finance the “vast majority” of security assistance to Ukraine and are assuming greater responsibility for their own security.
Trump, meanwhile, announced that the US would grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missile interceptors following talks with Zelenskyy.
The shift came as bipartisan US senators pushed updated sanctions legislation aimed at increasing pressure on Moscow and major purchasers of Russian oil and gas.
Rickli said the Patriot’s license authorization would have been “unthinkable just a few weeks ago,” noting the contrast with Trump’s previously critical approach toward Ukraine.
He partly linked the shift to changing battlefield dynamics, arguing that Ukraine’s growing medium and long-range strike capabilities have enabled it to target logistics centers and oil refineries deep inside Russian territory.
He added that recent events involving Iran had also demonstrated that Ukraine could provide "low-cost, effective counter-drone systems" to US allies.
“This could also be a result of the coming midterm election in the US,” he said, arguing that the previous US approach of putting heavy pressure on Ukraine and being seen at times as siding with Russian interests “has not been very popular in the US.”
However, he cautioned against treating Trump’s shift as permanent. “If you look at President Trump’s record of volte-faces, you have to take with a grain of salt his commitment at Ankara as they may actually change in the next few days or in the next few week,” he said.
“The future will tell.”
Beyond Ukraine, Rickli argued that the Greenland dispute had become a “watershed moment” for European allies and accelerated a deeper reassessment of their dependence on Washington.
Trump renewed his claims over Greenland during the Ankara summit, adding to tensions with Denmark and other European allies.
Rickli said Russia’s war in Ukraine had already pushed Europe to take defense and security more seriously, but “not to the extent that one would have hoped for.”
Greenland, he argued, produced a different realization.
“Not only you have a war in Ukraine, but your best ally and the ally upon which you rely to have a credible defense in Europe is actually becoming a threat to European security, and this has really changed the rules of the game,” he said.
“The lesson for the Europeans was: We shouldn't put ourselves in a situation in the future where we are so much dependent on the US, where the US has so much leverage on our security and strategic autonomy.”
The reassessment of Europe’s defense dependence has unfolded alongside NATO’s push for allies to increase defense investment and assume greater responsibility for their own security.
At the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, allies agreed to invest 5% of gross domestic product annually in defense and security related spending by 2035.
The Ankara declaration said European allies and Canada increased spending on core defense requirements by more than $139 billion in 2025 and are meeting or exceeding their 2026 capability targets.
Rickli described the 5% threshold as a way to give allies a clear goal and “kickstart momentum,” but said the push toward greater European defense responsibility had acquired a broader strategic rationale.
“Greenland really unlocked the resistance” among European countries that had previously been reluctant to move toward greater autonomy, he said.
Europe, however, remains in a difficult transition period, according to Rickli, as political determination to assume greater responsibility for defense has moved ahead of its military capacity.
“Now the will is there, the capabilities are not yet there,” he said.
He stressed that higher spending could not immediately produce military infrastructure, industrial capacity or weapons systems.
If the current trajectory continues, however, Europe could look considerably different within a decade, he predicted.
“I would say that in 10 years' time, if we continue on this trajectory, the Europeans will be much better off because they will be less reliant strategically on the US,” he said, adding that they would have demonstrated their commitment and willingness to defend themselves while developing their own necessary military capabilities.
But that shift could bring new tensions within the transatlantic relationship as growing European military capabilities will mean increasing competition with American companies
In the short term, European countries continue to procure many of their missing capabilities from the US, he said. Over time, however, increased European investment is likely to strengthen the continent’s defense industry and reduce its reliance on US weapons.
“That may lead to some friction regarding the cooperation with Washington,” Rickli said.
Rickli said Europeans were becoming more pragmatic about defense cooperation with non-EU countries, pointing to growing ties with countries including the UK, Norway and Switzerland.
On Türkiye, he said Ankara had “managed to carve a niche in the defense industry, notably in the drone industry.”
“I think the Europeans will be very pragmatic when it comes to defense procurement,” he said.
Türkiye, he said, has “developed capabilities that for some of them are battle-tested and have shown their effectiveness,” and is likely to remain a partner for European countries seeking to strengthen their defense capabilities.
Rickli also highlighted Ukraine’s growing role in Europe’s defense industry, describing its systems as "fully battle-tested, affordable and efficient."
“Ukraine will probably become one of the major partners of European countries for developing defense capabilities,” he said.
He predicted a possible “reverse of the relationship” between Europe and Ukraine, with European countries increasingly turning to Kyiv for assistance in developing new defense systems.
The recent conflict involving Iran also demonstrated the importance of cheaper defensive technologies, Rickli said, pointing to the cost imbalance between relatively inexpensive attack drones and interceptors that can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.
“This is not sustainable,” he said, arguing that Ukraine’s experience in developing lower-cost counter-drone capabilities is increasingly giving Kyiv leverage in its relations with Europe and the US.
news_share_descriptionsubscription_contact
