By Alo Kuusik/JBANC

Introduction: A Summit of High Stakes

The 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague was the first major meeting of the Alliance since President Donald Trump returned to office, drawing heightened attention across Europe and North America, including in Baltic and Ukrainian communities abroad. This gathering came at a moment of growing unease among alliance leaders — uncertainty over how far they were willing to go in supporting Ukraine, and how much more could be asked of the alliance without risking internal fracture.

After a year marked by Russia’s continued war in Ukraine and rising pressure on NATO to match its promises with concrete action, the big questions were clear: Would NATO deliver on defense? Would Ukraine move closer to membership? And how would smaller frontline countries like the Baltic states figure into NATO’s evolving posture and strategic thinking?

By the time the summit concluded on June 25, it was clear that NATO had turned an important corner. Members committed to spending more on defense, deepening support for Ukraine, and taking steps to boost military production across the Alliance.  While the summit delivered some meaningful outcomes, it also avoided potentially divisive questions, particularly around Ukraine’s membership and a more forceful strategy toward Russia. The result was a summit that balanced progress with political restraint.

The 5% Pledge: From Words to Wallets

As widely expected, the main outcome of the summit was an agreement by NATO allies to spend “5% of GDP annually on core defense requirements as well as defense and security-related spending by 2035,” as prescribed by the Hague Summit Declaration. This new target reflects a long-standing demand of President Trump, incentivizing European allies to take greater responsibility for their own region.

The new 5% defense commitment entails two components: (1) 3.5% to be spent on core defense capabilities such as national troop development and procurement of weapons, and (2) 1.5% to be spent on associated investments in civil infrastructure (adapting roads, bridges, and ports for military use), energy infrastructure (protecting energy pipelines and cables), cybersecurity, and the national defense industry. Notably, as part of the second component, the allies also agreed to include aid sent to Ukraine.

Overall, while the new 5% defense spending commitment has been structured in a way that provides allies several options to achieve the demanding percentage, the significant increase from 2% to 3.5% in core defense spending will prove to be a challenge for the alliance. Notably, last year, only 22 of 32 NATO members met the existing 2% defense spending target set at the Wales summit in 2014.

Furthermore, the unity of the alliance in meeting the new defense spending target has already been challenged. Despite not blocking the summit’s declaration, Spain has opted out of the 5% pledge, asserting that it can meet its core military requirements to NATO by spending only 2.1% of GDP on defense. According to media reports, a subtle tweak in the summit declaration’s language—from “we commit” to “allies commit”— provided the diplomatic cover for Spain to interpret the pledge as non-binding in its case. In response, President Trump stated that the United States would make Spain pay twice as much in the form of a trade deal. Spain’s opt-out also raises a broader question: if one NATO member can publicly opt out of the pledge, what prevents others, especially those less exposed to the Russian threat, from using the declaration’s ambiguity to do the same?

Nevertheless, from the perspective of the Baltic states, the new spending target and its structuring could be considered a positive outcome. As front-line countries, the Baltics are certainly interested in increased national defense spending by European allies. While The New York Times noted that some allies wanted to count aid to Ukraine as part of their core defense spending, the Baltic states—despite being the largest donors of military aid to Ukraine per capita—advocated for aid to be categorized as “related investments” to avoid diluting allies’ domestic defense expenditure. Based on the summit declaration, that goal was achieved. However, one may argue that the Baltic states would have preferred a more ambitious timeline. The Economist reported that while Central and Eastern European states pushed for the 5% spending target to be reached by 2032, the alliance ultimately settled on 2035 due to the preferences of allies more distant from the Russian threat.

In short, while the summit successfully delivered a new defense spending target and met a key demand of President Trump, the timely execution and political unity by all NATO member states remain uncertain.

Baltic Contributions: Tangible Commitments, Not Just Rhetoric

Amid renewed emphasis on defense readiness, the Baltic states emerged as active participants in shaping the summit’s tone and priorities. Rather than waiting for NATO-wide plans to materialize, they used the gathering to highlight concrete national steps—both symbolic and strategic—aimed at reinforcing the Alliance’s eastern flank.

Lithuania signed a major agreement with U.S. defense company Northrop Grumman and Norway’s NAMMO to produce 20–50mm ammunition locally. The new production line at the Giraitė Armament Factory will strengthen both Baltic and regional defense capacity. It also marks a deeper level of U.S.-Baltic defense industry cooperation.

Estonia reaffirmed its leadership in defense innovation, spotlighting its role as a host for NATO’s DIANA program—an initiative that supports new technologies for military use. While not a new agreement, Estonia’s participation in defense tech initiatives places it among NATO’s more forward-leaning members on emerging threats.

Latvia, for its part, made a strong political statement by passing a parliamentary resolution calling for Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Although the summit did not act on that request, Latvia’s advocacy reflected the Baltics’ consistent and proactive stance on core Alliance values.

In the lead-up to the NATO Summit, a noteworthy side event took place on June 2, 2025, when leaders from the Bucharest Nine, of which the Baltic states are members, and Nordic countries met to discuss the evolving security landscape. They issued a joint statement resolutely backing Ukraine’s future NATO membership and urging stronger pressure on Russia. “We stand firm on Allied decision regarding Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership,” they declared, explicitly rejecting any outside veto on Ukraine’s foreign policy choices. Though not part of the official NATO agenda, this united regional stance sent a strong message going into the summit and highlighted a broader front of countries pushing for strategic clarity on Ukraine.

Each of the Baltic countries also publicly supported the new 5% defense spending target. Having already surpassed NATO’s earlier 2% goal in 2018, they used the summit to encourage others, especially larger and more hesitant states, to follow suit. Their advocacy positioned them not just as compliant allies but as standard-bearers for long-term readiness.

Ukraine and NATO: Support Without a Roadmap

Ukraine came to the summit looking for stronger political commitments—ideally, language about a pathway toward joining NATO. That expectation was not met. The summit’s final declaration included no invitation, timeline, or even a significant upgrade in phrasing. While noted as a reflection of unity, this omission underscored the cautious mood within the Alliance. For Ukraine—and for Eastern members like the Baltic states that supported its accession—the result was a notable disappointment.

Though Kyiv did not leave entirely empty-handed, the outcomes were limited. NATO leaders agreed that military aid to Ukraine would now count toward each country’s defense spending targets. This reframes aid as part of NATO’s broader security architecture. However, the practical value of this decision to Ukraine itself is limited—it offers no new guarantees or resources.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with key leaders, including President Trump, to push for continued military support. No new multilateral aid packages emerged, though verbal commitments on air defense and bilateral talks on drone cooperation continued. What was missing, from Ukraine’s perspective, was clear political momentum.

Perhaps most telling was what the summit avoided: there was no language about “victory” for Ukraine, nor direct condemnation of Russia’s aggression or calls for withdrawal. Russia was instead referred to as a “long-term threat”. This diplomatic restraint likely reflects a desire to maintain cohesion among Allies, but it also risks signaling hesitancy at a critical moment in the war.

In short, the summit signaled ongoing support for Ukraine but withheld the kind of political clarity or ambition that many of its supporters hoped for. For Kyiv and its closest allies, the message was clear: NATO’s backing continues, but only on careful, consensus-based terms. This stood in contrast to earlier rhetoric—just last year, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had promised a “well-lit bridge” to Ukraine’s eventual membership. At The Hague, however, that bridge remained shrouded in caution.

Conclusion: A Step Forward, Tempered by Limits

The 2025 NATO Summit met many expectations, particularly for the Baltic states. They gained new partnerships, underscored their long-standing calls for increased defense readiness, and reinforced their image as voices of foresight in the Alliance. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted in a speech in Berlin just before the summit, “For far too long, we in Germany didn’t want to hear our Baltic neighbors’ warnings about Russia’s imperialist policies. We have recognized this mistake – and there is no going back from this realization.”

Ukraine’s outcome, meanwhile, highlighted the alliance’s diplomatic caution. Support continues, but strategic clarity remains elusive. NATO’s leaders chose consensus over confrontation, leaving Kyiv and its eastern allies with lofty reassurances.

Even on defense spending, internal cracks appeared. While the 5% pledge sent a strong signal, Spain’s refusal to sign on illustrated the fragile nature of collective resolve. That decision, enabled by linguistic ambiguity in the summit declaration, reflects how unity at NATO today often depends on flexibility more than shared urgency.

For Baltic observers and diaspora communities, the summit delivered in form, but not entirely in substance. NATO reaffirmed its relevance and sharpened its tools but held back from defining a more ambitious role for itself in the war’s outcome. In the end, the summit was as much about avoiding disunity as it was about shaping the future. Whether restraint serves NATO’s long-term credibility remains to be seen.

~ Alo Kuusik, JBANC