DEAR READER,

First of all, a big thank you to everyone who filled out our survey last week! Reading your responses (and many generous words) truly keeps us going & reminds us why we have to deliver sharp analysis on the region.

As we approach our one-year anniversary in September (!), we are thinking a lot about how to make Brief Eastern Europe even more collaborative. So, in the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative where you will be able to either pitch your own analysis or suggest topics (and authors) you want us to explore. More details will be out soon, so stay tuned!

And if you didn't get a chance to send us your thoughts last week, no worries, we will be keeping the feedback form live, which you can find at the bottom of this newsletter. We read each and every submission!

Now, onto this week's expert opinion. NATO just wrapped up its latest summit, and the final communiqué was only 425 words (shorter than this newsletter!). But the word count is not as concerning as the content. With so much at stake, especially for Ukraine, we asked Wojciech Michnik to break it all down for us. He’s a professor of International Relations and Security Studies at Jagiellonian University, Transatlantic Project Coordinator at LSE IDEAS, and a Contributing Editor here at New Eastern Europe.

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor

If politics is indeed “the art of the possible,” as Otto von Bismarck once suggested, then last week’s NATO Summit in The Hague served as a vivid expression of that principle. The summit, unusually brief by historical standards, delivered an ambitious but tightly framed message: NATO will pursue a five percent GDP defence spending target by 2035, a move that reflects both strategic urgency and political calculation. While much of the commentary has focused on the summit’s concision or its tacit concessions to US political sensitivities, the real significance lies in its attempt to chart a course for European security in an era marked by persistent threats, fragile unity, and the uncertain return of great power politics.

The summit's primary success was judged by a low bar: ensuring US President Donald Trump did not derail the meeting or further question America's commitment to the Alliance. The entire event was unmistakably Trump-centric, a highly choreographed, one-day meeting designed to suit his personality and priorities. Multi-day strategy sessions were replaced with a singular focus on the five per cent spending pledge, a long-standing demand from the US president for non-US members to contribute significantly more. While NATO still exists and members reaffirmed their “ironclad commitment to collective defence,” the summit highlighted a profound uncertainty about the Alliance's future, forcing European members to confront a new reality where they must assume greater responsibility for their own security. The summit’s heralded “historic” decision was a new defence spending target that more than doubles the previous goal, agreed by allies during the summit in Wales in 2014. This year in the Netherlands, formally announced in a communiqué, one of the shortest in recent memory at just 425 words, allies committed to spending five per cent of their GDP on defence by 2035.

This figure is divided into two essential components: 3.5 per cent for NATO-defined military capabilities, and up to 1.5 per cent for broader resilience measures – cyber defence, infrastructure protection, and industrial support. While this dual-structure reflects a more comprehensive approach to security, it also leaves ample room for ambiguity, particularly in terms of implementation and accountability. At the same time, it allows for political manoeuvring, as some NATO members will struggle to convince their constituencies to allocate such substantial resources to military spending. From the vantage point of Central and Eastern Europe, where the Russian threat is not theoretical but immediate, the key concern is not just how much is pledged, but how and when it will be delivered. The region’s frontline states, many of which already exceed (and in Poland’s case, even double) the two per cent threshold, are right to insist on tangible capabilities rather than creative accounting.

Consequently, one of the most alarming shifts was the summit's toned-down rhetoric on Russia and Ukraine. The 2022 NATO Strategic Concept rightfully identified Russia as the most significant and direct threat to the Alliance’s security. Yet, in the final declaration from The Hague, Russia is mentioned only as a "long-term threat" alongside terrorism, a stark departure from the strong condemnations of previous years. The 2024 Washington summit communiqué mentioned Russia 43 times; the 2025 Hague declaration mentions it just once. This change might be seen as a clear concession to Trump's more conciliatory stance toward Moscow. And even though NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte suggested that military aid to Ukraine could exceed the previous year's record of 50 billion dollars, for the first time since 2022, the final text of the communiqué did not condemn Russia's war and made no mention of Ukraine's "irreversible path to NATO," a key phrase from past summits.

From Poland's perspective, the summit delivered mixed results. The unanimous agreement on increased spending is a welcome and historic sign, with Polish officials praising the commitment to bolster the Alliance's strength. This commitment has tangible benefits for the region's security. Yet, the devil is in the details. The decade-long timeline and the quality of military improvements financed by the new spending pledge remain open questions. Concerns exist that the broadly defined 1.5 per cent spending category for “softer” security priorities could be vulnerable to “creative accounting” by some allies, as it lacks a standardized definition. The softened rhetoric on Russia, most likely influenced by the need to keep the Trump administration content, should worry not only Ukrainians but their partners in Central Europe. While the US reaffirmed its commitment to Article 5, the main takeaway from The Hague is that it is now primarily up to Europeans to lead a “coalition of the willing” to continue supporting Ukraine and ensure that Russia's war of aggression ends in defeat. The summit revealed that while NATO can accommodate Trump's political methods, it remains unclear if it can thrive when its most powerful member's commitment is conditional. The Hague summit may have secured a temporary peace within the Alliance, but it has left the most fundamental questions about NATO's long-term purpose and cohesion unanswered.

— Wojciech Michnik, Contributing Editor to New Eastern Europe