On July 7-8, NATO held its 36th official summit in Ankara, Turkey. There were several consequential topics to discuss at this year’s meeting, chief among them the wars in Ukraine and Iran and the uncertain future of European defense and security. We asked five experts to assess the outcomes of the summit for the various parties involved.Liviu HorovitzAssociate Researcher at German Institute for Security and International AffairsThe key takeaway from Ankara is that even President Donald Trump is struggling to escape NATO’s strategic logic. He arrived attacking allies and questioning the alliance’s value, yet left reaffirming Article 5 and praising its unity. Unabashed flattery and ego management surely helped, and Europeans still view U.S. policy toward Russia as volatile. Yet the deeper forces run the other way. The Trump administration is rediscovering that its key objectives — from competing with China and managing the Middle East to containing Russia — are easier to pursue alongside capable European allies. Conversely, Russia’s determination to continue its war against Ukraine is making European rearmament unavoidable. Ankara, therefore, produced fewer new choices than a sharper focus on implementation: expanding defense production, sharing defense know-how, and supporting Ukraine. Personal disruption remains a serious risk, but NATO’s strategic incentives and institutional machinery appear stronger than the individuals testing them.Leonard SchüttePostdoctoral Fellow, International Security Program, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer CenterEuropeans need a plan on how to deter Russia without the United States, but NATO increasingly appears to be the wrong place to develop it. President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw troops across Europe, alongside more threats against Denmark are the latest reminder that the credibility of the security umbrella is in tatters. Europeans have mostly accepted this and stepped up their defense efforts. Now they need to develop plans on which capabilities are needed, how to take