hat is the future of NATO 3.0? There hasn’t been a full agenda released for the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara on 07-08 July, but what there is of it makes no mention of NATO 3.0 — the evolution of Europe’s role in NATO to take the lead on European defense. While not an agenda item, commentary from experts and officials alike seems to center on the future of NATO, responsibility sharing, and the transatlantic relationship more generally. On the formal agenda: defense investment, defense production capacity building, and support for Ukraine. For defense production, NATO will host a separate Defense Industry Forum focused on providing production capacity to support increased defense spending by European NATO members.
Context
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called this an “implementation and delivery” summit, delivering on commitments made last year. What is in effect a lean agenda reflects this. Europeans are spending more on defense; this summit provides both a check-in opportunity and a platform to strike new deals on spending and development. Decisions have to be made on Ukraine. It’s a remarkably thin agenda, very focused on getting things done. Making progress on defense investment and industry, in particular, will make the transition to NATO 3.0 smoother. But growing disconnects over the purpose of NATO — when it should deploy and in what fashion — alongside growing diplomatic tensions could complicate progress on the agenda. That could spell trouble for NATO 3.0.
Because so much could happen that will shape the future of NATO and European security, Diplomatic Courier is hosting a Virtual Signal Salon, NATO 3.0 and the Evolving Logic of Transatlantic Security, the day after the NATO Summit ends, to break down what happened.
What’s on the agenda
Heading into the NATO Summit, here’s what to expect:
Directing the evolution of NATO 3.0. The most dramatic agenda item is NATO's evolution toward Europe, with greater ownership of European defense. The shift feels natural, given the growing divergence in where Europe and the U.S. perceive their primary security challenges to arise from. It is also a shift that both Europe and the U.S. want. Yet U.S. dissatisfaction with the European response to the war in Iran, along with other diplomatic strains, may threaten the future of alliance cohesion.
Money on their minds. One of the core transatlantic tensions has long been defense spending by non–U.S. NATO partners. There’s been movement on that in recent years, with Europe and Canada increasing their defense spending by nearly 16% in 2024–2025. As we head into the NATO Summit, considerable progress has been made by allies toward meeting the 5% of GDP defense spending target. The U.S. is positioning this increase in spending—and attendant increase in European leadership on European security issues—as the core of the evolution to NATO 3.0. While there has been progress here, some governments are lagging, which could cause friction.
Bolstering defense production capacity. This isn’t the first time the NATO Summit Defense Industry Forum will be held, but this is the biggest, with the first full day of the summit set aside for the forum. There’s a good reason: Conflict in Ukraine and Iran is straining the capacity of U.S. and European defense production. But it’s more complicated, with European countries boosting defense spending and taking on greater responsibility for European defense. Transatlantic trade tensions mean co-production deals with U.S. and European producers are tricky. Decisions made by governments and deals with producers will shape the evolution of European security for years to come.
Support for Ukraine. The stalling out of Russia’s offensive in 2026 has been well documented. But Ukraine is running critically short of air defenses, in no small part due to the diversion of military resources to support the war in Iran. At the same time, the shift toward European leadership in the European theater means that more of the onus for meeting Ukraine’s needs will fall on Europe. One possibility for progress is the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism, which facilitates the purchase of U.S.–produced military supplies for Ukraine by European partners. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is at the summit in part to advocate that PURL be fully funded, though this is complicated by the decision of six European countries not to take part.
Disruptions ahead? Building new industrial capacity and designing the future of NATO will be challenging enough, but political disagreements and transatlantic tensions could disrupt the agenda. All NATO leaders have signaled they will sign a document in Ankara reaffirming their commitment to collective security, but it wasn’t long ago that U.S. President Trump mulled pulling the U.S. out of NATO entirely. Uncertainty over future U.S. force posture in Europe, the growing diplomatic rift over the war in Iran, and a widening gap in transatlantic trust could disrupt the agenda.
What they’re saying
The Ankara Summit is meant to mark NATO’s transition from dependency to partnership. It may instead become a stress test for unity. Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Distinguished Fellow Oana Lungescu
Ankara will be the place where NATO 3.0 is defined and accepted…We are now changing the European security system in which America was dominant and carried the burden. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan
The assets we need, the capabilities to deter and defend, simply aren't available at the scale or speed that our security requires. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
NATO is undergoing a structural adjustment rooted in diverging transatlantic perceptions of interests and threats…The trend is bigger than Trump and will outlast him. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim
a global affairs media network
In Ankara, it is NATO 3.0 or bust
Image via Mehdi Raesi on Unsplash.
July 7, 2026
At this year’s NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, the agenda is limited but the very future of the alliance — the complexion of NATO 3.0 — is on the line. Progress on agenda items should translate into more, better European leadership of NATO…but the process is prone to disruption.
W
hat is the future of NATO 3.0? There hasn’t been a full agenda released for the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara on 07-08 July, but what there is of it makes no mention of NATO 3.0 — the evolution of Europe’s role in NATO to take the lead on European defense. While not an agenda item, commentary from experts and officials alike seems to center on the future of NATO, responsibility sharing, and the transatlantic relationship more generally. On the formal agenda: defense investment, defense production capacity building, and support for Ukraine. For defense production, NATO will host a separate Defense Industry Forum focused on providing production capacity to support increased defense spending by European NATO members.
Context
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called this an “implementation and delivery” summit, delivering on commitments made last year. What is in effect a lean agenda reflects this. Europeans are spending more on defense; this summit provides both a check-in opportunity and a platform to strike new deals on spending and development. Decisions have to be made on Ukraine. It’s a remarkably thin agenda, very focused on getting things done. Making progress on defense investment and industry, in particular, will make the transition to NATO 3.0 smoother. But growing disconnects over the purpose of NATO — when it should deploy and in what fashion — alongside growing diplomatic tensions could complicate progress on the agenda. That could spell trouble for NATO 3.0.
Because so much could happen that will shape the future of NATO and European security, Diplomatic Courier is hosting a Virtual Signal Salon, NATO 3.0 and the Evolving Logic of Transatlantic Security, the day after the NATO Summit ends, to break down what happened.
What’s on the agenda
Heading into the NATO Summit, here’s what to expect:
Directing the evolution of NATO 3.0. The most dramatic agenda item is NATO's evolution toward Europe, with greater ownership of European defense. The shift feels natural, given the growing divergence in where Europe and the U.S. perceive their primary security challenges to arise from. It is also a shift that both Europe and the U.S. want. Yet U.S. dissatisfaction with the European response to the war in Iran, along with other diplomatic strains, may threaten the future of alliance cohesion.
Money on their minds. One of the core transatlantic tensions has long been defense spending by non–U.S. NATO partners. There’s been movement on that in recent years, with Europe and Canada increasing their defense spending by nearly 16% in 2024–2025. As we head into the NATO Summit, considerable progress has been made by allies toward meeting the 5% of GDP defense spending target. The U.S. is positioning this increase in spending—and attendant increase in European leadership on European security issues—as the core of the evolution to NATO 3.0. While there has been progress here, some governments are lagging, which could cause friction.
Bolstering defense production capacity. This isn’t the first time the NATO Summit Defense Industry Forum will be held, but this is the biggest, with the first full day of the summit set aside for the forum. There’s a good reason: Conflict in Ukraine and Iran is straining the capacity of U.S. and European defense production. But it’s more complicated, with European countries boosting defense spending and taking on greater responsibility for European defense. Transatlantic trade tensions mean co-production deals with U.S. and European producers are tricky. Decisions made by governments and deals with producers will shape the evolution of European security for years to come.
Support for Ukraine. The stalling out of Russia’s offensive in 2026 has been well documented. But Ukraine is running critically short of air defenses, in no small part due to the diversion of military resources to support the war in Iran. At the same time, the shift toward European leadership in the European theater means that more of the onus for meeting Ukraine’s needs will fall on Europe. One possibility for progress is the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism, which facilitates the purchase of U.S.–produced military supplies for Ukraine by European partners. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is at the summit in part to advocate that PURL be fully funded, though this is complicated by the decision of six European countries not to take part.
Disruptions ahead? Building new industrial capacity and designing the future of NATO will be challenging enough, but political disagreements and transatlantic tensions could disrupt the agenda. All NATO leaders have signaled they will sign a document in Ankara reaffirming their commitment to collective security, but it wasn’t long ago that U.S. President Trump mulled pulling the U.S. out of NATO entirely. Uncertainty over future U.S. force posture in Europe, the growing diplomatic rift over the war in Iran, and a widening gap in transatlantic trust could disrupt the agenda.
What they’re saying
The Ankara Summit is meant to mark NATO’s transition from dependency to partnership. It may instead become a stress test for unity. Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Distinguished Fellow Oana Lungescu
Ankara will be the place where NATO 3.0 is defined and accepted…We are now changing the European security system in which America was dominant and carried the burden. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan
The assets we need, the capabilities to deter and defend, simply aren't available at the scale or speed that our security requires. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
NATO is undergoing a structural adjustment rooted in diverging transatlantic perceptions of interests and threats…The trend is bigger than Trump and will outlast him. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim
