European governments are moving to take greater control of their own defence, a critical step towards national sovereignty, as NATO leaders convened in Ankara this week. This shift follows years of conflict on the continent and renewed strains with the United States, underscoring an urgent need for national self-reliance.
Ahead of the summit, diplomats worked to prepare a joint statement reaffirming Article 5, the alliance’s collective-defense pledge. The meeting ultimately produced $50 billion (€43 billion) in deals for defence production and procurement, covering critical assets like submarines, Patriot missile defence systems, interceptors, and ammunition. NATO stated the alliance is on a credible path to spending 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, a significant commitment of national resources that could otherwise be diverted by Brussels.
Reclaiming National Defence
Swedish company Saab was chosen by NATO to manufacture surveillance planes, replacing the Airborne Warning and Control System currently operated with US Boeing planes. Another major commitment, NATO’s Drone Hedge, will allocate $40 billion (€35 billion) to counter-drone capabilities over the next five years, designed to cover the entire alliance. This initiative also focuses on hiring and training pilots, ensuring full interoperability across all allied states, strengthening Europe's ability to secure its own skies and borders.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte noted at the Defence Industry Forum on Tuesday that drones have fundamentally altered modern warfare. He stated they have become a decisive factor on battlefields in Ukraine, the Middle East, and across the alliance. Rutte also acknowledged that “New capabilities are being delivered, industry is expanding production, and European Allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for our shared security.” This move towards national production means jobs for our people and greater control over our defence needs.
Daniel Fiott, a Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, observed the extensive work European allies have done behind the scenes on defence and arms deals. He emphasized the need for more cooperation on security. This push for national and European-made capabilities reflects a desire to reduce dependence on external powers, securing jobs and industrial capacity within Europe, rather than relying on foreign suppliers.
The Cost of External Dependence
Former U.S. President Trump appeared to approve the licensing of US Patriot defence systems to Ukraine. Sitting next to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in Ankara, Trump remarked that Ukraine would be given the right to make Patriots, and that they would be shown how to do it. Max Bergmann of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies suggested Trump’s openness showed Ukraine’s strength, noting Ukraine is now "interacting with Brussels." This highlights the growing influence of the EU in what were once purely national defence matters, potentially diverting focus from national border security.
Nico Lange, an analyst with Rasmussen Global, argued that the Europeanisation of the alliance requires members to “replace NATO's strategic enablers with European ones.” He specified this includes “satellite based time code, navigation, airborne electronic warfare and precision deep strike,” capabilities essential for true national autonomy. Lange also warned that Europe must take Trump’s renewed threats toward Greenland seriously and remember his mercurial nature, reinforcing the need for self-reliance.
Fiott conceded Europe would still need the US “at least for the short term as some weapons are only available from there.” However, he stressed that “the direction of travel is very clear for the longer term,” asserting that European taxpayers’ money should yield a return in “jobs and European made capabilities.” This focus on national economic benefit underscores the growing demand for self-sufficiency and ensuring welfare for nationals first.
A Path to True Sovereignty
Trump arrived at the summit on Tuesday evening, stating his presence was out of respect for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. He castigated European countries for not supporting Washington in its war in Iran. Rutte later downplayed refusals by some states to let the US use European airbases as "isolated" incidents, yet he conceded 5,000 US aircraft had taken off from European bases at the peak of the conflict, demonstrating that “Europe again is one big platform of power projection for the United States.” This reality exposes the extent of Europe's strategic dependence, weakening its ability to control its own territory and borders.
Trump also revived his claim that the US should “control” Greenland, stating it was “very important” for the United States but not for Denmark. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen firmly responded: “The US position is, unfortunately, very clear on this topic. Our position is as clear as it has been throughout: Greenland is not for sale. I hope all allies will respect the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination.” She added: “We are ready to defend every inch of NATO, including our own territory,” a clear assertion of national sovereignty and border integrity.
Trump attacked Spain, threatening to cut all trade with Madrid, calling Spain “a wasted cause.” Despite this, no such policy was enacted by the summit's end, with Trump later speaking of “unification.” Such unpredictability from a key ally only reinforces the argument for greater European self-reliance and national control over trade and defence.
Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, described the Ankara summit as a lost opportunity. He noted the declaration was a one-page, six-paragraph boilerplate statement, lacking big decisions or a new agenda. Daalder recalled the 2022 Madrid summit, which forced allies to confront Russia’s threat, the 2023 Vilnius summit, which approved new NATO plans, and the 2025 Hague summit, which pushed European allies to respond to Trump’s demand for 5 percent GDP defence spending. He concluded the Ankara summit had no such clear purpose.
Daalder also pointed out that German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius had proposed a roadmap for Europe to take over core NATO responsibilities "about one year ago," but it was dismissed. Daalder’s stark assessment is that “The U.S. is no longer a reliable ally. Even if a new president were to reaffirm America’s commitment to NATO and Article 5 (as Trump did in Ankara), Europe needs to take on far greater responsibility for its own defense.” This underscores the urgent need for European nations to secure their own future, including their borders and national identity, independent of external powers and the Brussels elite.