US President Donald Trump relishes his reputation as a manipulator. Europe has traditionally been at the receiving end. Interacting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling for the annexation of Greenland, slapping arbitrary tariffs on the European Union, forming alliances with rebel parties and right-wing politicians, threatening to punish NATO allies for not supporting the United States against Iran—there has been no shortage of drama in transatlantic relations since he took office last January.
But as NATO’s annual summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7-8 approaches, it is becoming increasingly clear that a balance has emerged. European leaders have learned how to deal with Trump. Trump’s arbitrary efforts to reform the continental order have yielded little results. As a result, the transatlantic alliance has dwindled into a partnership of convenience, but a partnership all the same.
US President Donald Trump relishes his reputation as a manipulator. Europe has traditionally been at the receiving end. Interacting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling for the annexation of Greenland, slapping arbitrary tariffs on the European Union, forming alliances with rebel parties and right-wing politicians, threatening to punish NATO allies for not supporting the United States against Iran—there has been no shortage of drama in transatlantic relations since he took office last January.
But as NATO’s annual summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7-8 approaches, it is becoming increasingly clear that a balance has emerged. European leaders have learned how to deal with Trump. Trump’s arbitrary efforts to reform the continental order have yielded little results. As a result, the transatlantic alliance has dwindled into a partnership of convenience, but a partnership all the same.
Most of it is related to Ukraine. Trump’s initial push for a quick deal with Putin, his fellow tycoon, went nowhere. The reasons are known. They include Russia’s strategy of using negotiations as a fig leaf to achieve its highest goals, all the way to ending Ukraine’s existence as an independent nation, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s refusal to cede the rest of Donetsk. The Kremlin has reason to be disappointed, as Trump did not fulfill his initial promise. Ukraine, meanwhile, has turned the tables thanks to its edge in drone technology, conducting strikes in Moscow and St. That is why Zelensky is now interested in a cease-fire that will involve freezing the front line, as he can have leverage over Russia.
The Europeans are in: They are talking about direct talks with Putin. They supported Kyiv in the worst times, especially Zelensky an unfortunate encounter with Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office last February. From the European perspective, their continued efforts to influence and bribe the United States—with promises to increase defense spending, buy American weapons, deploy a peacekeeping force through the coalition of the willing, agree to raise taxes, and bank on Ukraine—are paying off.
Trump is backing the apparent winner, in this case Ukraine, as he often does. His tone to Zelensky has been clearly more positive. And French President Emmanuel Macron praises the US president for not acting like “neutral mediator“Again. For Macron, that is the main thing from the tripartite talks with Trump and Zelensky during the G-7 meeting in mid-June. Indeed, the momentum may be short-lived. It is far from clear whether Putin is ready for negotiations either, which could lead to reducing losses and declaring victory (as Trump is doing in Iran). voice in his court.
European countries have dealt relatively successfully with the conflicts caused by Trump’s war against Iran. They provided sufficient logistical support to the United States without engaging in offensive actions and largely ignored Trump’s verbal attacks (with the exception of Italy. Georgia Meloni!). And then they gave Trump as big a platform as the Palace of Versailles by signing his accord with Iran on June 18.
Ophthalmologists partially confirm Trump’s claim that he won a diplomatic victory over the Islamic Republic, even if the contents of the document may suggest otherwise. Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and England provided a statement “warmly welcome” the agreement and commitment (“according to our constitutional requirements”) to help clear the mines and establish freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Whether the plan will stick or whether Europe will be involved in a meaningful way is anyone’s guess. However, a conflict between America and Europe has been avoided.
All that aside, Europe is not slipping into complacency about Trump or America more broadly—nor should it.
First, a weakened Trump is likely to be more unpredictable. A backlash in the Gulf could lead to uncertain policy-making on European security and Ukraine. The departure and delay of US troops in Germany and Poland are already raising questions. If Republicans lose the White House in the November midterms, as expected, and Trump and his family come under intense scrutiny, there is a risk that he could compensate or try to divert attention with a more muscular foreign policy. Europe, again, may turn out to be the playground of choice.
Second and more long-term, the United States and Europe differ. The words of strategic freedom are popular not only in Paris but also now in the EU headquarters in Brussels. Trump’s recent decision to withhold Anthropic’s most advanced models of AI, Mythos and Fable, against key allies. permanent dependence on American technology. The result is more calls for “de-risking” away from the United States to protect itself from political and economic coercion.
This, of course, is easier said than done. Europe is spending more on defense to counter Russia, deal with US ambivalence about NATO, and accommodate Trump’s pressure. However, without the strategic enablers currently provided by the United States—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, long-range strikes, air defense, strategic aviation, command and control—even European NATO cannot fully meet the continent’s defense needs. At best, strategic independence remains a distant prospect for the 2030s and 2040s.
In this context, NATO chief Mark Rutte is trying to be heard and manage tensions, even as Europe continues to try to address its long-term needs. Following NATO’s defense minister in June, Rutte said “good progress” had been made and that the allies were “spending more, and better, on the forces and capabilities we need to protect every inch of partner territory.”
Will this be the message of the summit projects? Much will depend on Trump, as well as the host of the meeting, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Turkish president will undoubtedly use his relationship with Trump to try to make sure everything goes smoothly. At the same time, Erdogan will use the meeting to show Turkey’s important role in European security and get concessions from the United States, for example the sale of 700 million dollars in aircraft engines.
With someone like Trump, there is never a hard time. His very brand is built on making noise and attracting attention. Yet the NATO summit is exactly what Europeans hope and pray for. Now they may be in a bad position to rely on Erdogan to deliver it.
