https://www.nato.int
Northeastern Flank After the NATO Summit in Ankara
The NATO summit in Ankara was not a breakthrough for the northeastern flank, but it was not a failure either. For Poland, the Baltic states, Finland, Sweden and the wider eastern flank, the most important outcome was that NATO preserved unity, kept Russia at the center of its threat assessment and opened several industrial, logistical and capability tracks that may strengthen the region in the coming years.
For the countries closest to Russia, the most important line of the Ankara Summit Declaration was not about industry, artificial intelligence or future procurement. It was the confirmation that Russia remains a long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security and stability. This was one of the key expectations of Poland and the Baltic states before the summit. Without this definition, there would be no political basis for higher defense spending, forward defense, air defense, fuel infrastructure, drones, long-range strike, resilience and support for Ukraine. For Western allies, such language may look like another paragraph in a communiqué. For the northeastern flank, it is the foundation of deterrence. NATO’s declaration also reaffirmed Article 5, support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a pledge of €70 billion in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026, with at least equivalent levels in 2027.
That is a structural change. NATO’s eastern flank is no longer only Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and Bulgaria. It now runs from the High North and the Arctic, through Norway, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic Sea, Poland, and the Baltic states, toward the Black Sea. The northeastern flank has become a single strategic space in which Russia can apply military pressure, cyberattacks, sabotage, disinformation, maritime provocations, energy pressure and nuclear signaling. The Baltic Sea, the Suwałki Gap, Kaliningrad, Belarus, the Gulf of Finland, the Arctic routes, and the North Atlantic are no longer separate theaters. They are connected elements of NATO’s deterrence problem.
This is why the summit was important for the Nordic-Baltic states, even if it did not give them a spectacular victory. Their priorities were clear: keep Russia named as the threat, keep Ukraine on the agenda, strengthen air and missile defense, move from air policing to air defense in the Baltic region, build drone and counter-drone capabilities, improve fuel and military mobility infrastructure, protect critical infrastructure, and obtain greater clarity about the future role of the United States in Europe. Ankara answered some of these demands, but not all. It delivered projects, not a new hard military architecture.
The main success was that NATO did not fracture. This may sound modest, but in the current political environment it is not irrelevant. The Alliance met in Türkiye, all leaders attended, the United States remained engaged, Ukraine was present, and the final declaration preserved the core language needed by the eastern flank. There was no public collapse over Greenland, Iran, Ukraine, defense spending or relations with Russia. There was no summit disaster. In a period when Moscow looks for every sign of Western fatigue, this already had value.
At the same time, it would be wrong to call Ankara a strategic breakthrough for the flank. There was no decision to deploy new permanent NATO divisions or brigades to Poland, Romania or the Baltic states. There was no dedicated eastern flank fund for the Polish East Shield, the Baltic Defense Line or a wider barrier from Finland to the Black Sea. There was no NATO membership pathway for Ukraine. There was no final decision on a new permanent American base in Poland. There was no full clarification of the future U.S. military footprint in Europe. Ankara protected unity but did not answer all strategic doubts.
Logistics, Air Defense, and Industry
The most important practical result for Poland and the region was the €27 billion investment announced for NATO’s fuel supply chain. Mark Rutte said the money would modernize existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and support new facilities, including pipelines toward the eastern part of the Alliance. For Poland, this is a major decision. Warsaw had been pushing for the extension of NATO fuel infrastructure for years. Until now, the hard fuel backbone of the Alliance remained too far west. More than a quarter-century after NATO’s eastern enlargement, its pipeline network remains stuck in a Cold War reality, ending in western Germany. In a conflict, the eastern flank would have to rely heavily on road, rail and civilian systems already under pressure from troop movement, ammunition transport and refugee flows.
Fuel is not a secondary issue. It is the blood supply of war. Tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery tractors, helicopters, fighter aircraft, generators, radar systems and logistics vehicles cannot operate on political declarations. They need fuel in enormous quantities and they need it continuously. A dual-use fuel infrastructure that works in peacetime and can switch to military priority in wartime would strengthen deterrence because it would make NATO’s defense plans more credible. It would reduce dependence on visible and vulnerable tanker convoys. It would improve the ability to sustain forces already deployed in Poland and the Baltic states, and those that would arrive from Western Europe or North America.
But this decision must be described carefully. It is not yet a construction plan. It does not mean that a pipeline to Poland and the Baltic states is already being built. There is no publicly confirmed route, division of funds, timetable, environmental process or final technical architecture. It is a political and financial opening. That matters, but the eastern flank has seen many announcements before.
The test will be implementation. If this becomes another multi-year NATO planning process without visible construction, Moscow will not be deterred by it. If it produces pipelines, storage, pump stations, railway loading points and protected fuel nodes, it will become one of the most important infrastructure decisions for the flank since NATO enlargement. However, under current regulations, such complex cross-border infrastructure could take decades to build. What we need is a simplified fast track for projects that are urgently needed now.
The second area is air and missile defense. The agreement between the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden to explore a dedicated PAC-3 missile maintenance facility in Europe is significant. It is not the same as full European production of PAC-3 interceptors, and it should not be sold politically as such. But it can shorten maintenance chains, improve availability and reduce dependence on servicing arrangements outside Europe. For Poland, Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands, this matters because Patriot systems are becoming one of the core elements of European air and missile defense. For Ukraine, it matters because the entire European conversation on air defense is now shaped by Russian missile and drone attacks.
The Baltic air defense decision is also politically important. Lithuania presented the transition from Baltic Air Policing toward Baltic Air Defense as one of the key results of the summit. This is more than a change of name. Baltic Air Policing was designed primarily as a peacetime mission. Baltic Air Defense implies broader rules of engagement, stronger procedures for the use of force and a different readiness posture against drones, aircraft, missiles and other threats to Baltic airspace. At the same time, Estonia’s defense minister Hanno Pevkur was right to lower expectations by saying that the average citizen would not necessarily notice immediate changes. The difference will be in procedures, command arrangements, readiness and authority to act, not in visible daily life.
Command arrangements also matter. Just before the summit, the 1st German-Netherlands Corps in Münster took on the role of tactical headquarters for NATO ground forces in Estonia and Latvia, while the Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin remains central for Poland and Lithuania. This reduces pressure on one command structure and better reflects the new geography of NATO after the accession of Finland and Sweden. It also shows that NATO is adapting slowly, but in the right direction. Command is not a press conference topic, but in wartime command decides whether forces can move, communicate, reinforce and fight.
The summit was also an industrial summit. NATO officially announced more than $50 billion in new procurements and used the Defense Industry Forum in Ankara to turn defense spending commitments into capability projects. The Forum brought together NATO officials, allied governments, industry and partners, and for the first time included high-level announcements of national, multinational and industry-led initiatives across space, surveillance, air and missile defense, strike capabilities and production cooperation.
The drone and counter-drone package is one of the clearest examples. Allies announced that more than $40 billion would be invested in counter-drone capabilities over five years, with the goal of training five times as many drone operators by the end of 2027. NATO will also establish a counter-drone marketplace so that systems are tested, compatible and available for rapid purchase. This is a direct lesson from Ukraine. Modern war is not only about expensive platforms. It is about drones, operators, sensors, electronic warfare, cheap interceptors, rapid adaptation and the ability to move from battlefield lessons to procurement faster than bureaucracy normally allows.
For Estonia, the drone agreement with Ukraine was one of the most concrete political-industrial outcomes. Prime Minister Kristen Michal and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed it on the margins of the summit. The agreement covers drones, knowledge exchange, technology development, industrial cooperation, IT and cyber security. Estonia says the agreement opens the way for Ukrainian export licenses for selected products, possible Estonian procurement from Ukraine, joint development and production in Estonia. This does not yet define the number of systems, the value of contracts, or delivery dates, but it gives Estonia access to Ukrainian combat experience in the most rapidly changing part of modern warfare.
Latvia’s most important result was operational rather than technological. Canada joined Latvia and Denmark as the third framework nation of NATO’s Multinational Division North. This strengthens command and control on the flank and connects Canada’s leading role in Latvia to a higher NATO command structure. Among the many summit announcements, this is one of the few that directly touches the military architecture of the Baltic region. It is not only an industrial document. It is about who commands, who plans and how allied forces are integrated before a crisis.
For Lithuania, the summit was more industrial and maritime. The planned cooperation with Norway on modular multi-role vessels, Lithuania’s participation in wider procurement structures, and the future GlobalEye airborne early warning discussion all fit the same logic: the Baltic states need to increase surveillance, maritime awareness, mine warfare, air defense integration and anti-access capabilities in the Baltic Sea. Lithuania did not receive a new NATO brigade beyond the German brigade already being implemented, and there was no separate NATO fund for the Baltic Defense Line. But Vilnius left Ankara with useful industrial tracks.
The Nordic states had the strongest industrial performance. Finland was one of the biggest winners because it joined or signed a broad portfolio of initiatives: Arctic mobility, lower-level air threats, crewed airborne early warning, critical raw materials, indirect fire, space systems, tanker and transport capabilities, passive surveillance and NATO flight training. The most measurable Finnish-related result was the procurement of up to five MQ-4C Triton high-altitude, long-endurance uncrewed aircraft by Denmark, Finland, Germany and Norway to strengthen NATO’s ISR force. Triton is designed for maritime surveillance and can fly for 24 hours at more than 15 kilometers altitude. For the Arctic, the High North, the Baltic Sea and the North Atlantic, this is a serious capability.
Sweden also had a major success. NATO began formal negotiations to procure up to ten Saab GlobalEye airborne early warning and control aircraft. This is a strategic win for Swedish industry and a signal that Sweden is not simply a new member to be integrated into NATO. It is becoming a provider of high-end capabilities for the Alliance. GlobalEye strengthens surveillance over land, air and maritime domains and helps replace the aging E-3 AWACS fleet. This is particularly relevant for the Baltic Sea and the High North, where early warning, command and control, and detection of low-flying or long-range threats are essential.
Denmark and Norway also came out strongly. Denmark joined the Triton procurement, the A400M High Visibility Project, GENIFR, HALO and long-range strike initiatives. Norway joined Triton, GENIFR, HALO and ground-based precision strike, while also strengthening its role in maritime and Arctic security. NATO’s HALO initiative, launched by eight allies, will connect sovereign national military satellites into a networked mega-constellation for communications, intelligence and missile tracking.
The participating allies are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Türkiye. This is exactly the kind of capability NATO needs if it wants to operate across the High North, the Baltic Sea and the North Atlantic at speed. The project has also attracted interest from Poland, with the commander of the Satellite Operations Centre expressing hope that Warsaw will soon join the initiative.
Poland’s Gains and the Limits of Ankara
Poland’s overall outcome at the summit was positive, but not revolutionary. Warsaw gained from the fuel infrastructure decision, PAC-3 sustainment, participation in the A400M multinational fleet project, early warning discussions and political recognition of its defense effort. NATO data reported by Reuters put Lithuania at 5.33% of GDP in core defense spending, Estonia at 5.1%, Latvia at 4.92%, Poland at 4.68% and Greece at 3.65%. This matters because Poland is the only large allied state in this group. It gives Warsaw credibility when it demands more from others. It can no longer be accused of asking allies to do what it refuses to do itself.
Poland also benefited from a more coherent political message than in previous years. The delegation spoke about Russia, Ukraine, the eastern flank, defense spending, E5 and the need for Western Europe not to decide security policy over the heads of eastern allies. That is important. Poland loses influence when it exports domestic conflict to allied meetings. It gains influence when it enters the room with a consistent line. Ankara showed that Poland can speak as a serious defense actor, not only as a frontline state demanding reassurance.
The American Approach
The greatest weakness of the summit was that it did not remove doubts about the future of American engagement in Europe. NATO preserved unity, but unity is not the same as certainty. Reuters reported that U.S. troop pullbacks from parts of eastern Europe had already caused concern before and after the summit, including the withdrawal of several hundred U.S. troops from Estonia and the departure of around 1,000 troops from Lithuania without immediate replacement. Reuters also noted that Pete Hegseth and Elbridge Colby have repeatedly promoted a “NATO 3.0” approach in which Europe does far more to defend itself while the United States prioritizes China.
This is the central strategic issue for the northeastern flank. The United States remains indispensable in intelligence, surveillance, air and missile defense, logistics, nuclear deterrence, long-range strike, strategic transport and command. Europe can talk about responsibility, but it cannot quickly replace the United States in these areas. If Washington reduces forces, ISR assets, logistics enablers or air defense support in Europe, Poland, the Baltic states and Romania will feel it first. Western Europe can debate strategic autonomy as a concept. The eastern flank experiences it as a question of survival.
Poland’s push for a permanent U.S. base remains unresolved. The Polish defense ministry said in June that the United States had responded positively to Poland’s proposal, and Reuters reported that Washington was open to discussion. But openness is not a final decision. A permanent base requires a political agreement, legislation, financing, infrastructure, a decision on the component to be deployed and clarity about how it fits into NATO planning. Until that exists, Poland should treat the subject as ongoing, not achieved.
The same applies to nuclear sharing. Polish political figures may discuss the possibility, and the broader European nuclear debate is becoming more serious, especially after new German-French discussions on nuclear cooperation. But there was no NATO decision in Ankara to include Poland in nuclear sharing. This should not be presented as a summit result. It is a strategic debate, not an agreed capability. If Poland wants to move in that direction, it must prepare for years of political pressure, infrastructure requirements, aircraft certification, training, allied consultations and Russian escalation in the information space.
Ukraine: Support Without a Membership Path
Ukraine also remained both present and unresolved as an issue. NATO pledged €70 billion for 2026 and a similar amount for 2027, but this largely draws on funds already committed by the EU and its member states. Trump said at the summit that the United States would give Ukraine a license to build its own Patriot air defense systems, and AP later reported that Zelenskyy expected Ukraine to have the technical capability by the end of the year, while experts warned that this could take years. This is a good example of the gap between political announcement and industrial reality. A license is not the same as production capacity. Production capacity is not the same as mass output. Mass output is not the same as combat availability.
The absence of any meaningful membership language for Ukraine in the final declaration remains one of the most important political limitations. Zelenskyy’s argument that Ukraine has become a strategic asset rather than a consumer of security is correct in military terms. Ukrainian battlefield experience has changed NATO’s understanding of drones, electronic warfare, air defense, ammunition consumption, deep strikes and resilience. But politically, NATO was not ready to move further on membership. That is a problem for Kyiv, but also for the eastern flank. Ukraine is the active front of the same Russian threat that Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Romania are preparing to face.
The Czech and Hungarian cases show another weakness. Not all allies read the threat in the same way. The Czech government confirmed after Ankara that it would increase defense spending by CZK 36 billion and reach 2% of GDP next year, while also saying it would not contribute to the €70 billion military aid package for Ukraine. Hungary remained largely outside the most important new capability initiatives. This does not break NATO, but it shows why the eastern flank often feels that it is moving faster than parts of Central and Western Europe.
From Summit Commitments to Fielded Capabilities
The summit therefore produced a mixed picture. Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Romania can be counted among the biggest winners because they entered several serious capability tracks. Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania obtained useful results in logistics, drones, command, air defense, maritime cooperation and industrial projects. Slovakia and Bulgaria received more limited benefits. Czechia and Hungary remain politically problematic from the perspective of eastern flank ambition. The pattern is quite clear: states that treat Russia as an immediate threat used Ankara to build capabilities. States that still treat defense as a budgetary inconvenience did less.
The final lesson is that Ankara strengthened the northeastern flank in planning, but not yet in execution. It produced money, frameworks, procurement tracks and political language. It did not yet produce enough deployed forces, enough interceptors, enough pipelines, enough ammunition, enough drones, enough trained operators or enough certainty about the United States. This is why the summit should be described precisely. It was not a failure; it was not a breakthrough; it was a summit of industrial mobilization, logistics and alliance survival.
For the northeastern flank, Ankara was useful, but not sufficient. Russia will not be deterred by summit language, political choreography or another list of High Visibility Projects. It will be deterred by capabilities that exist before the crisis begins: fuel already stored, pipelines already connected, air defense already integrated, drones already produced, ammunition already stockpiled, command structures already tested and allied troops already able to move from the High North to the Baltic Sea and from Poland to the Black Sea. Likewise, Russia will assess the likelihood of U.S. engagement not through summit declarations, but through actual American moves on the ground, which are concerning at best.
The countries of the northeastern flank did not return from Türkiye empty-handed, but Moscow does not measure NATO by declarations. A statement of intent does not stop a missile, a memorandum does not protect a port, and a procurement framework does not defend Suwałki, Tallinn, Helsinki, Bucharest, or the Baltic Sea. Only delivered systems, trained soldiers, protected infrastructure and functioning supply chains do that. This is why Ankara must be treated as a starting point, and unity must be maintained until the next summit, hopefully next year in Tirana. NATO endured and NATO survived — this is what was needed for the northeastern flank.
Aleksander Olech, Ph.D. — Head of International Cooperation and Editor-in-Chief at Defence24.com, NATO associate.
https://www.warsawfi.org
