Contents1. Final summit document: concise but effective2. Trump vs. Zelenskyy3. Ukraine-NATO: focus on practical steps, not formalitiesA few weeks before the NATO summit, prepared amid rising tensions between Israel and Iran (which gave Russia even more strategic leverage), it seemed the high-level meeting in The Hague could be the North Atlantic Alliance’s last. The global backdrop of an emboldened Axis of Evil, Kremlin bravado about continuing the war against Ukraine and seizing new Ukrainian territories, and U.S. President Trump’s constant wavering (with his usual “one step forward, two steps back” or “Trump always chickens out” style), all demanded focus and resolve from NATO countries — something few still expected to see in The Hague.It was clear: without Europe’s full realization that only Europeans (Ukraine included) can take responsibility for the continent’s defense and security in the face of Russian aggression, NATO’s continued existence would be impossible. Only a clear division of responsibilities between Europe and the U.S. within an integrated Euro-Atlantic security system can halt the catastrophic advance of the Axis of Evil. However, this requires serious dialogue, deep discussion, and thorough analysis. Could that be achieved in a day and a half of the summit? There were serious, and not unfounded, doubts.Meanwhile, paradoxically, the unconventional “Trump-style” format of the summit turned out to be unexpectedly successful. This success likely stemmed from the emotional tone of the event, which was indeed “Trump-centric.” The organizers skillfully structured the entire NATO leaders’ meeting around the American president, and it worked. Riding a wave of triumph after a successful strike on Iran, Trump was unusually open to compromise and effectively agreed to all proposals from his European counterparts. While the true success or failure of the summit can only be assessed later, the outcomes provide grounds for hope in the Alliance’s continued progress, a development that is undoubtedly critically important for Ukraine.Final summit document: concise but effectiveThe discussions surrounding the final declaration of the NATO summit in The Hague revealed both misunderstanding and criticism of the organizers' approach. Instead of a comprehensive, conceptual document (which traditionally spans 50–60 pages) outlining the main security threats and challenges facing the Alliance and a systematic strategy for addressing them, this time a brief text, just a few paragraphs, was planned for signing. Clearly, such a format left no room for conceptual depth. The main idea behind this approach was to avoid potential disputes with U.S. President Trump over his demand to increase defense spending to 5%, and to steer clear of sharp language regarding Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine.As a result of the summit, it must be acknowledged that this approach proved effective. Despite its brevity, the final document of the NATO summit in The Hague demonstrates a high level of strategic coherence, political unity, and resolve within the Alliance regarding current security challenges. This not only reaffirms the role of Article 5 as NATO’s cornerstone but also sends an important signal of adaptation to the new geopolitical reality.First and foremost, designating Russia as the sole country classified as a “long-term threat” marks a qualitative shift in the Alliance’s security assessment. This means that the Russian threat is no longer seen as a temporary or regional issue that can be resolved through diplomatic compromises or political maneuvers. Rather, it is a systemic, existential threat that requires long-term strategic planning, rearmament, and a change in defense priorities.Particularly significant is the allies’ agreed commitment to invest up to 5% of GDP in security and defense. This step effectively transforms NATO into a wartime defense structure. For the first time in the Alliance’s history, quantitatively defined parameters have been set not only for overall spending but also for its structural components: specifically, 3.5% for armed forces and up to 1.5% for infrastructure, innovation, and the defense industry. In practical terms, this means systematic modernization of national armies, strengthening industrial capacity, and upgrading infrastructure to meet wartime mobilization standards.Another strategic innovation is the inclusion of spending on aid to Ukraine as part of the defense commitments of member countries. This means institutional legitimization of military assistance to Ukraine as a component of NATO’s collective security. This approach creates a mechanism for the stable and long-term provision of resources, technologies, and political support to Ukraine’s Defense Forces. At the same time, this provision effectively incorporates Ukraine’s defense expenditures into NATO’s defense framework, setting a precedent where a country that is not a formal Alliance member is already part of NATO’s defense system. Additionally, the verbal (though not included in the final declaration) reference by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to the Alliance’s unchanged commitment to Ukraine’s future membership, alongside the “allied” norms on defense spending for Ukraine, creates a special status for Kyiv, without formal accession but with practical integration into NATO’s security system.The document’s stated goal of removing barriers to arms trade and promoting transatlantic defense-industrial cooperation, although somewhat declarative, opens prospects for creating a unified defense products market within NATO. For Ukraine, this is important in the context of integrating its defense industry into Western production chains, especially amid the transition from grant aid to full-fledged procurement and cooperation.In summary, the final document of the summit in The Hague is concise but strategically focused. It includes elements of transforming the Alliance into a long-term deterrence structure, relying on a new defense economy, a strengthened industrial base, technological partnerships, and priority support for Ukraine. Importantly, Trump agreed to all these transformations and principles, including support for Ukraine and the recognition of Russia as a “long-term threat” (as did Orbán and Fico, who had spoken against Ukraine and the broader European trend of confronting Russia shortly before the summit). Trump’s de facto agreement with the core principles of this agenda indicates that, despite the threat of political fragmentation, the strategic security logic within the Alliance currently prevails.Trump vs. ZelenskyyThe most important event of the summit, aside from protocol events, was undoubtedly the meeting between the presidents of the U.S. and Ukraine, Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. After a complex evolution of their personal relationship and Trump’s shifting understanding of the Russian-Ukrainian war, this latest meeting between the two leaders was meant to define the next direction not only for bilateral relations between Ukraine and the U.S. but, equally importantly, the course of efforts to end Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.An important backdrop to this meeting, and indeed the entire summit, was Trump’s elevated mood and, one might say, “combat spirit” following the successful strike (though assessments of its effectiveness vary within the U.S.) by B-2 strategic bombers on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Trump’s decisive actions, which surprised many global and regional players, clearly stunned not only Iran’s leadership but also Russia and China. In any case, BRICS noticeably faltered, and Xi Jinping canceled his visit to the next summit of this ambitious organization, which until recently both China and Russia viewed as an alternative to the West and a model of their own geopolitical triumph.It is possible that this “combative” mood and success in a truly serious operation changed the tone and behavior of the American president during the meeting with Zelenskyy. There were no more awkward jokes or inappropriate demands. According to reports from both participants in the 50-minute talks, the discussion topics were highly relevant: the possibility of selling air defense systems to Ukraine, prospects for a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, and cooperation in the defense-industrial sector. At his press conference, Trump suggested he might consider transferring or selling Patriot systems and other weapons to Ukraine. He also promised to have another conversation with Putin, noting that Putin “wants to end this.”Although the effectiveness of Trump’s communication with Putin has traditionally been met with skepticism, it is worth noting that this time the U.S. president was unusually polite toward Ukraine and Ukrainians. Responding to a question from a BBC Ukraine journalist about weapons to defend against Russian strikes, Trump unexpectedly wished the journalist “good luck” and sent greetings to her husband, who serves in Ukraine’s Defense Forces. This gesture undoubtedly indicates a shift in Trump’s attitude toward Russia’s war against Ukraine and offers hope for more decisive actions on the Russia-Ukraine front.Ukraine-NATO: focus on practical steps, not formalitiesA significant part of the NATO summit in The Hague consisted of a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings between President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian delegation, NATO leaders, and specialized cooperation groups. Notably, on the sidelines of the summit, negotiations took place that may have outlined the contours of a new European coalition supporting Ukraine. Leaders of the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Poland, and France met with the Ukrainian president and the NATO Secretary General. One of the topics discussed was “deepening efforts” to support initiatives aimed at achieving a ceasefire. However, the meeting effectively demonstrated the leading European countries’ readiness to coordinate defense-industrial, economic, and political assistance to Kyiv regardless of the turbulence in Washington.A notable moment was the separate bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose country will assume the EU Council presidency in the second half of 2025. The central topic was the joint development of defense manufacturing. As the Ukrainian president emphasized, Denmark will become the first country with which Kyiv will officially launch a joint weapons production project. This step is not only a symbol of trust but also the beginning of a new phase in European-Ukrainian defense-industrial partnership, which is gradually becoming a structural element of Europe’s security architecture.Among other key developments was Norway’s decision to allocate €550 million to develop drone technologies for Ukraine’s Defense Forces, as well as a signal from the United Kingdom, which will provide Ukraine with weapons funded for the first time by frozen Russian assets. This precedent could be expanded by other G7 countries and will create a new legal and financial model for supporting Ukraine through reparations mechanisms.Overall, despite overly negative expectations and the unusually brief and restrained declaration of the NATO summit in The Hague, the real results of the Alliance leaders’ work demonstrate the members’ readiness and determination for revival, not decline. The recognition of Europe’s new role and a partnership (rather than subordinate) relationship with the U.S. will undoubtedly become new trends shaping the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s development in the coming years. Moreover, Ukraine’s integration, no longer just formal but practical, into the Euro-Atlantic security system offers a new opportunity to establish an effective deterrence mechanism against the Axis of Evil and, above all, Putin’s Russia, which poses not only a “long-term” but also an immediate threat to Western democratic civilization.This material was prepared in cooperation with the Consortium for Defence Information (CDI), a project that unites Ukrainian analytical and research organizations aimed at strengthening informational support and analytical provision in the fields of national security, defense, and geopolitics.