Sir, I admire your optimism which has followed through since the groundbreaking achievements in the H. But if we were in such a good place, why would Pete Hegseth be accusing allies of freeloading, of free riding, having a review which is holding the sword of Damocles over you and NATO about which parties will pass, which will fail. You talked about the European money which is being spent, and yet he's dividing nations, saying you get support, you won't get support if you don't spend enough as well. The US is splitting NATO, isn't it? Rather than bringing it together.
Good afternoon and welcome to the presidential complex here in Ankara in Turkey for the 2026 NATO summit. First of all, let me thank President Erdogan and his team for hosting us at this fantastic venue. I'm truly impressed, not least by the hospitality extended to us by our Turkish hosts. We are meeting here in Ankara one year after NATO leaders gathered for our summit in the Hague. The allies made historic commitments. They agreed on the urgency of making our alliance stronger because of the dangerous world we face. They committed to invest 5% of GDP in defense by 2035. And now, just one year later, we already see transformational progress. Here in Ankara, I expect nations to present clear, concrete, and credible plans to reach that 5% goal. And the evidence we see so far is impressive.
Just one year into a 10-year project, we see that European allies and Canada are already investing around 4% of their GDP in defense and security. This includes major increases to allies' investments in core defense as well as their defense and security related investments. Last year, European allies and Canada spent nearly 20% more on core defense than they had the year before. Looking at 2025 and 2026 combined, that's 258 billion dollars in extra investments. And the trend continues. We will need more forces, more resources, and a much stronger industrial base. After years of underinvestment, we are producing real capabilities. European allies and Canada are now on a trajectory to equalize defense spending with the United States. And not just that, they are taking on more leadership within NATO's command and control structure, stepping up on conventional defense, on efforts to bolster our deterrence and defense, including along the entire eastern flank, in the Baltic region and the Arctic, and spearheading support to Ukraine. All of this is evidence of a real shift in mindset, a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.
The investment is there, and now we need to ensure that we are translating our economic might into military capabilities, putting the cash to work from defense plans to drones, from money to missiles and interceptors. This means ensuring innovation is front and center, overcoming fragmented national defense industries, and cutting red tape. The NATO summit defense industry forum, which we will host tomorrow, will be the platform where we showcase how we are working with industry to deliver the capabilities that credible deterrence and defense demand. We will announce tens of billions in new contracts that will provide the crucial kit we need to deter and defend. And then our industries, from Arkansas to Ankara, combine their strengths and step up supply. The result is not only improved security. This will help grow our economies, spread innovation, and support hundreds of thousands of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. So we are investing in our own security, ensuring we have what we need to safeguard our societies today and tomorrow, because the threats we face are real, including from Russia, which continues to wage war on Ukraine.
Right now, Ukraine is changing the dynamics on the battlefield thanks to the bravery, the dedication, and ingenuity of their armed forces. But they need our continued support, especially when it comes to air defense. Russia continues drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, with another horrific attack just last night. So as Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty, allies and NATO partners must continue to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs. And let me be clear, all allies need to pull their weight so that our support to Ukraine continues to flow, because Ukraine's security is so closely linked with our own. So that's the overview of our agenda for the summit here in Ankara. We are delivering on the commitments made in the Hague to invest in our defense. We will ensure that we are rebalancing for the better, fairly sharing the responsibility for our shared security. We will turn cash into capabilities, joining forces with industry. And we will continue our robust support for Ukraine, reminding President Putin that we are firm in our commitment. Over the next two days, the 32 allies, along with partners from Ukraine, the European Union, the Indo-Pacific, and the Gulf, will gather to ensure that NATO continues to deliver. Together we represent nearly two-thirds of the world's economy, and we are coming together because we know that cooperation is key. We are stronger together in NATO with partners to ensure the freedom and security we all hold dear. Thank you.
All right. And now we'll head to questions. We'll start over here, fifth row towards the end. Thank you very much, Secretary General. Nick Robertson from CNN. Thank you.
Good afternoon and thank you for taking the questions. Sir, since the Hague summit, President Trump has very heavily hinted that he'd like to annex Greenland, has very heavily chastised NATO allies for not being on the front line enough in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been upset that NATO allies have not stepped up and provided the support that he was hoping for around Epic Fury, the United States and Iran war. What sort of tone is this summit going to have, and how hard is it in the light of that to project this consistent tone of unity and strength? The message that you just say is core.
Well, let me say that I had a good visit last week with President Trump, and we discussed the staggering increase in defense spending by Europeans and Canadians, and of course this is because of Putin and Russia and Ukraine, but also because he, President Trump, has been extremely forceful encouraging us to do this. And you could argue that he is the first president of the US since Eisenhower who was able to come to this situation where the Europeans and the Canadians will spend the same as the Americans. This equalization was a wish for 50, 60 years, and now it's happening, and I think in large part to his leadership. And we also discussed some of the disappointment he has, for example, when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz or Iran more generally. And we also discussed almost 5,000 sorties of planes taking off from European bases in support of Epic Fury, and only last Friday we have seen the French and the Brits coming together with the Omani to make sure that collectively they will defend the principle of the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is an extremely important development only in the last 72 hours.
Okay, let's come to this side of the room. The fifth row, the woman in the brown t-shirt.
Thank you. Hi. Hi, Deborah Haynes from Sky News. The UK Ministry of Defense today has revealed that a Russian spy plane has been flying over the aircraft carrier that is the NATO flagship at the moment in the high north, dropping large numbers of these sonar devices that it's believed was more to harass the warship. What's your response to this act by Russia? And do you think that the fact that Russia's decided feels confident enough to harass a NATO warship on the eve, just a few days before the NATO summit, we've had these drone sightings across sites across Europe, lots of other sub-threshold activities. Are you worried that it means that NATO is failing to deter Russia under the threshold of conventional war despite all of this strong language about increasing defenses?
To the contrary, and your country, the United Kingdom, did exactly what needed to be done. And let me commend the British military for the actions they took. That's part one of my reaction to your question. Part two is that it also shows the unprofessionalism of the Russians willing to do this so close to the ship. Of course, that's reckless. It's unprofessional. And again, the UK armed forces did exactly what they needed to do, and this is evidence that we will defend ourselves.
All right. And then just behind her in the sixth row.
Thank you, Secretary General from the Nightly Australian. Nice to see you again. Overnight, China has confirmed that it has tested a missile in the South Pacific. The IP4 plan to raise this here at NATO. How will you discuss this? And given the seriousness of this, is it a concern to you that for the second year in a row, you are struggling to get IP4 leaders attend this summit?
On the second part of your question, no, because we have a very close cooperation with the IP4, including with Anthony, your prime minister, and the prime ministers and presidents of New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. I was just texting this afternoon with the Japanese defense minister about this latest development, and I think it is evidence of the fact that we cannot be naive about China. You know this, and this is why we have this close cooperation, because these theaters are getting more and more intertwined, connected. What happens in the Pacific is relevant to what is happening in the transatlantic, and we see it also with the war with Ukraine, where China, North Korea, and Iran are key enablers of Russia's unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. So this again is evidence that we cannot be naive, and I can assure you that we are honored.
Okay, coming over here. Fourth row. AP.
Ron Cook from the Associated Press. You mentioned in your opening remarks clear, credible, concise plans that the allies have to come up with. What if they don't is the obvious question. The US envoy has spoken of something in store if that's not the case. And then more generally, if we look at this stronger Europe in NATO, how does NATO actually accommodate that? How do you give them more planning responsibilities, more command? How do you simplify the political decision-making? It's really difficult to do.
I don't think so. And that's to your second part of your question, that's already happening. You see Europeans taking over commands in NATO when it comes to the real war fighting, and the Americans will then make sure that when it comes to land, air, and sea commands, they will take care of those. So there is already a clear division of labor where the Europeans are stepping up. We see the same when it comes to Ukraine. The US still providing crucial kit into Ukraine. Defense industrial output like interceptors were paid for by the Europeans and Canada. And we see it on so many other fronts when you look at the mass of people in the forward land forces when it comes to Baltic Sentry, Eastern Sentry, Arctic Sentry, it is Europeans and the Canadians providing the mass of the men and women in uniform there. So that's Europe and Canada stepping up. So that's already happening, and the present structures accommodate for that. And when it comes to your first part of your question, the good news is with the 250 billion extra spend in 25 and 26, can you imagine 250 billion by the Canadians and the Europeans, that means that we have reached the max in terms of absorption capacity. Why? Because there is a limit to what you can spend extra in one or two years in terms of recruiting the men and women in uniform, making sure that the defense industrial base which is rapidly developing and turning out more output, but still of course there is a limit to what they can do in pumping up the output in one or two years. So I think we are in really good shape, and massively the Europeans are stepping up. Look at countries like Germany and so many others. And of course, if one or two still have to be convinced, we have ways to do that.
All right, we're going to come here in the third row, and I'll ask the mic to first come to the man in the black t-shirt and then the woman next to him. So, if you could just wait there. Thank you.
Ah, he's watch and learn. Yeah, I don't think I have to introduce myself, but I will do it anyway. Dutch agency. Thanks, sir. You extensively praised the host nation, but we've seen in the past few days, weeks, a crackdown again on dissidents, on even journalists, and comedians. Is Ankara still the best place to have a summit of liberal democracies? And do you think it's a good occasion for leaders to address these issues with President Erdogan?
Let me say this: when it comes to democracy, democracy is more than elections. Elections of course are crucial in democracy, but democracy is also the free media. You in this room, you can ask all the questions you want and write a piece if you want and do your research, etc. And of course, democracy is also for people to be able to organize demonstrations if they so choose. So it's much more than only free elections. And when it comes to the media, it is very important for NATO that media can attend major events in person.
Okay. And then the woman here, where are you? Here.
Yes. Hi. I'm sorry. Janet Milad. Secretary General, how important is Turkey to NATO's future security strategy?
Very important. Of course, you were there almost since the beginning, since 1952, so a couple of years after the start, Turkey joined NATO. You have one of the biggest armed forces in NATO, well trained. And particularly the last 5 to 10 years, you have rapidly developed your defense industrial base. You have now about 3,000 companies every day turning out the kit, the defense industrial output our men and women in uniform need to defend ourselves. So for all these reasons, Ankara, Istanbul, Turkey as a whole is really important, and your place on the map is important, your leadership in NATO is important, and the fact that you organized this summit now, this NATO summit here in Ankara, is evidence of that.
Okay, we're going to come back to this side of the room. We're going to start in the second row. The man in the suit with the glasses. Maybe come to the front row. I think that'll be easier if you get it from there.
There are more than one man in his glasses.
This is true. But in the second row in a suit with a tie.
And a tie. You're right. This is enough detail.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary General. Robert Romania. Mr. Secretary General, this summit is taking place amid renewed calls from the US side for European allies to assume greater responsibility for NATO's defense while the US reviews its military posture in Europe. How confident are you that this burden shifting model will strengthen, not weaken, the US commitment to European security? And what message does this send to both Ukraine as a partner and Russia as a threat? And also, if I may, because colleagues mentioned threats from Russia. Drones have been and continue to be a threat. We've seen this in the eastern flank from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Will this be addressed in the summit and also at the NATO industry forum, and how will it be addressed? Thank you.
Absolutely. You will see tomorrow that we will talk about drones. No doubt leaders will bring this issue up on Wednesday when we have the leaders meeting, but also tomorrow in the industry event. You will see drones front and center in many discussions. It's crucial. When it comes to your first part of your question, let me first of all say that changes to the NATO force model, and again this is a planning tool, so it means that nations declare what they will provide to the collective if SACEUR, the Supreme Allied Commander, needs it. And what the US has done, and I think this was important, is assess again what they can provide to NATO in case of a two-theater conflict, let's say a conflict in the Indo-Pacific and in the Euro-Atlantic. And as General Klinkovich, the Supreme Allied Commander, has already stated, it makes it stronger that we know what we can count on. It's not a massive drawdown in terms of what they will provide, but we now know much more exactly what the Americans can provide, and already the Europeans are backfilling. But there's more to this question than only this discussion about the NATO force model. What you are seeing is a NATO which indeed is changing in a transformational sense. I would argue that the NATO we had only three, four, five years ago was not sustainable. It is not sustainable that we ask a country with 350 million people living 8 hours flying from here to defend against the Russians with 600 million people living in this part of NATO territory, the richest part of the world, being so overly dependent on the United States. So rebalancing that, the United States still providing the nuclear umbrella, the United States still providing crucial conventional support to NATO as a whole, and therefore to transatlantic security, and therefore of course also to their own security. For example, preventing nuclear submarines from Russia ending up on US shores. But generally speaking, rebalancing is crucial, and therefore a stronger European role, Canada also stepping up, is important because otherwise the alliance, to be honest, would long-term probably not have been sustainable. We are now creating an alliance which is sustainable, where the US knows it is a fair deal. We are spending the same as they are, taking more responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe. Stronger Europe, stronger NATO. Yes.
All right. We're going to take two more on this side and then come back to this side. So here in the third row towards the center.
We know him.
Secretary General, nice to see you. Steve Cedric from CNBC. Sir, I admire your optimism which has followed through since the groundbreaking achievements in the H. But if we were in such a good place, why would Pete Hegseth be accusing allies of freeloading, of free riding, having a review which is holding the sword of Damocles over you and NATO about which parties will pass, which will fail. You talked about the European money which is being spent, and yet he's dividing nations, saying you get support, you won't get support if you don't spend enough as well. The US is splitting NATO, isn't it? Rather than bringing it together.
It is not, it is I think bringing NATO closer together, and having a review regularly I think is only wise. And the way it will be organized with the Supreme Allied Commander being in center stage in the review, the fact that Americans have declared very clearly that they will do this in close coordination with all allies, I think is absolutely important. And as we have seen previously with the NATO force model, of course these adjustments are different from the review, these are different tracks and different processes. But also there, they have done this in close coordination and consultation. So no worries there.
