Jörn Fleck believes next week’s NATO Summit will matter less for the announcements it produces than for what it reveals about the Alliance’s ability to turn recent political commitments into tangible military capability. According to the Senior Director of the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, NATO’s credibility will ultimately depend on how quickly Allies can translate higher defense spending, industrial production, and political coordination into sustainable deterrence over the coming decade.
Why he matters: An expert on transatlantic relations, European affairs, and US-EU cooperation, Fleck leads the Europe Center’s work on the European Union and oversees the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Digital Project. We spoke with him ahead of the NATO Summit in Ankara about the Alliance’s immediate priorities, the growing convergence among authoritarian powers, and the role Washington expects Europe to play in a rapidly evolving strategic environment.
Q: As leaders prepare for next week’s NATO Summit, what should we be watching to understand whether the Alliance is truly adapting to today’s strategic environment, rather than simply responding to immediate crises?
A: The key test in Ankara is whether Allies can show that last year’s historic defense spending commitments are being translated into operational capability. That means credible national plans, faster readiness timelines, stronger defense industrial production, and the ability to sustain support for Ukraine while preparing for a wider range of contingencies. A NATO that is truly adapting will focus on whether the Alliance can deter, defend, and replenish at speed over the next decade.
Q: For years, transatlantic strategy has focused on individual challenges such as Russia, China or Iran. Is the real task now learning how to deal with these actors as increasingly interconnected strategic competitors rather than separate problems?
A: I would say generally yes. As Secretary General Rutte and others have made clear recently, there are a number of countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea that are aligned in their goal of dismantling the international system and, specifically, Europe’s security architecture. Russia, China, Iran, and other authoritarian actors cooperate in ways that directly affect Euro-Atlantic security, including through support for Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, technology transfers, sanctions evasion, cyber activity, and pressure on critical supply chains.
- That is why we are seeing North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine, Russian and Chinese components in Iranian missiles used in the Middle East, and Iranian drones being produced in Russia for deployment in Ukraine. That said, some prioritization remains necessary. Russia continues to represent the principal threat to Europe’s security order, as demonstrated by its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Q: If the next 25 months will shape the Alliance’s immediate priorities and the next 25 years its long-term relevance, which decisions should NATO and the transatlantic community avoid postponing today?
The Alliance must prioritize investments in readiness, military mobility, closing key capability gaps—particularly in air and missile defense—and establishing a long-term framework for supporting Ukraine.
- Industrial capacity lies at the center of all these priorities. Without the ability to produce ammunition, air defense systems, drones, spare parts, and critical equipment at scale, the Alliance cannot sustain deterrence or implement operational commitments quickly during a crisis.
- The transatlantic community also needs to define how Europe will assume greater responsibility within NATO while the United States balances commitments across Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East. Successfully translating higher defense spending into industrial capacity, deployable forces, and sustained readiness will be essential to NATO’s credibility over both the short and the long term.
Q: European leaders increasingly speak of strategic responsibility rather than strategic autonomy. What kind of Europe does Washington need today to strengthen, rather than complicate, the transatlantic partnership?
As best we can tell from this administration’s proposal for a “NATO 3.0,” Washington is seeking a stronger European pillar within the Alliance, anchored by a Europe capable of translating strategic responsibility into practical capability.
- That means investing in key European capability gaps, including air and missile defense, logistics, defense industrial capacity, and other areas where Europe still relies heavily on US support. This should not be interpreted as Europe distancing itself from the United States, but rather as a rebalancing of responsibilities within NATO that reflects today’s strategic realities.
- A Europe with greater capacity and stronger coordination will reinforce the transatlantic Alliance at a time when the United States faces competing commitments across multiple theatres.
