By Zhao Xiaona, Larry Neild
LONDON, June 23 (Xinhua) -- As NATO leaders gather this week in The Hague for the alliance's first-ever summit hosted by the Netherlands, attention is shifting toward the alliance's cohesion and internal dynamics, rather than facing external policy challenges.
According to the agenda, although the summit officially runs for two days, from June 24 to 25, the key discussions are expected to take place over the course of a single day. The agenda is narrowly focused on U.S. President Donald Trump's proposal to raise defense spending targets to 5 percent of GDP - a plan that has received a mixed response from European capitals, highlighting deeper concerns about NATO's unity, military capabilities, and long-term strategic direction.
"This summit is highly Trump-centric," said Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham. "It's been compressed to a single day, with a single agenda item, designed to limit unpredictability. That reflects NATO's institutional anxiety - a defensive effort to retain the U.S. as a participant, even at the cost of long-term planning."
Wolff added that the summit's tightly controlled structure underscores fears that Trump might exit prematurely or withdraw support if discussions stray beyond his specified terms. "The structure of this meeting is intentionally risk-averse," he said. "It's not about building consensus - it's about avoiding disruption."
Although Trump's demand for higher defense spending dominates the agenda, recent unilateral U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have further diverted NATO's focus from its foundational mission - strengthening Europe's defense architecture.
"The U.S. acted alone, and Europe simply wasn't part of that conversation," Wolff said. "Europe still lacks strategic enablers - intelligence, long-range transport, rapid deployment, and command systems. These aren't just budget issues - they are structural gaps."
Wolff warned that even if NATO members meet the proposed 5 percent target, without prioritization and coordinated defense-industrial development, such spending risks becoming "financial inflation without strategic output."
Internal divisions further complicate the alliance's ability to act cohesively. While some member states push for a more proactive collective defense role, others remain reluctant to commit to common strategies or timelines.
"If NATO cannot agree on its main purpose, then even well-funded forces will lack shared direction," Wolff said. "Without unity, the 5 percent target becomes just another political gesture to buy time."
John Bryson, chair of Enterprise and Economic Geography at Birmingham Business School, the University of Birmingham, described the summit as a crucial test for Europe's defense ambitions. "This is a test of whether Europe can grow beyond its dependency on the United States and shape a credible defense model of its own," he said.
Bryson noted that raising defense spending is not a panacea for NATO. "This is the paradox of deterrence - you spend vast sums on weapons that may never be used, and that doesn't automatically translate into security. "
He emphasized that NATO should be a stabilizing force. "It is not a war-fighting alliance, but a war-prevention structure. The moment it loses its cohesion, it loses its meaning."
Both Bryson and Wolff agreed that the alliance faces fragile internal conditions. Trump's influence, they said, has driven NATO toward short-term reassurance at the expense of long-term strategic development. Bryson also noted that Washington's growing involvement in Middle East conflicts risks further distracting NATO from its core European focus.
"Venturing beyond its geographic scope could dilute NATO's identity as a defensive pact - and that, above all, must be safeguarded," Bryson said.
