Speaking on the Lietuvos Rytas television program Nauja Diena (New Day) about the NATO summit in Ankara, Linas Kojala, Director of the Centre for Geopolitical and Security Studies, said that cautiously optimistic sentiments prevail in Turkey. According to him, the final declaration of the meeting has already been largely agreed at the ambassadorial level, and its text is positive, in lrytas.lt.
“I would say the mood is cautiously optimistic. I just spoke with representatives of the governments of several NATO countries,” Kojala said from Ankara.
According to him, the declaration outlines NATO’s most important principles and its commitment to Article 5 of the collective defence treaty. This, according to Kojala, embodies the principle of “one for all, all for one.”
The document also directly mentions Ukraine, long-term support for that country, and Russia, which is identified as a long-term threat to the NATO alliance. Kojala noted that, although there had been extensive public debate on these issues, they were incorporated into the text fairly easily at the ambassadorial level.
A breath of fresh air
Nevertheless, he emphasised that the leaders are meeting to “dot all the i’s,” so revisions to the declaration remain possible. According to Kojala, no significant changes are expected, and NATO will be able to demonstrate unity.
“Without denying the fact that the alliance is still facing a difficult political backdrop—and this summit alone won’t resolve it—it may help breathe a breath of fresh air into the entire NATO alliance,” said Kojala.
The program also highlighted the position of former Foreign Minister Linas Linkevičius, who believes that it may not be worth expecting more than a declaration from this meeting. Kojala responded that such a declaration is an end in itself, since the alternative would be no declaration at all or a document lacking the most important principles.
According to him, if all leaders approve the final text and it clearly and unambiguously includes the aforementioned principles, this will be the outcome hoped for by allies who want NATO to continue its operations. However, such a document will not eliminate the political backdrop or structural problems.
Kojala noted that Europe is assuming greater responsibility for the continent’s security but does not yet have sufficient capabilities to do so 100 per cent effectively. Defence spending has increased, but as of 2025, three European allies had not yet reached the 2 per cent of gross domestic product threshold.
He called this threshold an absolute minimum, which, it would seem, all countries had already agreed upon. However, according to Kojala, this has not yet been achieved, and it remains unclear whether the Czech Republic will meet the 2 per cent threshold by 2026.
Tensions
The expert also mentioned emotional factors that could influence the atmosphere at the summit. Among them is the relationship between U.S. President Donald Trump and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, which, according to Kojala, has recently become somewhat strained.
He noted that Trump has recently posted several critical messages directed at Meloni. Such a backdrop, according to Kojala, could create additional tension, which NATO leaders would likely prefer to avoid, as it would lead to divisions rather than unity among allies.
Speaking about NATO’s unity, Kojala cited a remark attributed to Mark Twain that reports of its death were somewhat premature. This was his assessment of the public discourse, suggesting that NATO has collapsed, is not functioning, and lacks common projects, plans, or defence structures.
“I believe this is not an accurate portrayal. It has never been accurate, even during the most critical moments,” said Kojala.
According to him, politicians’ rhetoric—especially on social media—has at times given the impression that the alliance has far more problems than positive aspects. However, according to the expert, the goal of the summit is to assess NATO’s current state.
“If that assessment reflects the fundamental principles, it shows that NATO is alive, that it is functioning, and that it is adapting,” stated Kojala.
He also emphasised that the 32-nation alliance will face many challenges, especially in light of the largest war in Europe. The expert also mentioned the ongoing unrest in the Middle East and the complex relationship with China.
Although China is not directly within NATO’s sphere of operations—since it is an organisation under the North Atlantic Treaty—it is difficult to separate economic, trade, and other aspects from today’s concept of security. According to Kojala, the NATO alliance needs to make many adjustments, but it is moving in the right direction.
Most importantly, he said, it is essential to preserve the alliance’s core and its functioning, which has been successful and effective for nearly eight decades. Kojala warned that the belief that NATO is already dead would not yield positive results, especially for the countries on the Eastern flank.
Lithuania’s goals
Speaking about Lithuania’s expectations, Kojala first emphasised NATO unity. For Lithuania’s security, he said, the NATO alliance is of immense importance, so it is crucial to demonstrate its functionality and effectiveness.
The second goal, according to the expert, concerns essential short-term needs, particularly air defence. He said that the lack of air defence is an absolute top priority for Ukraine as well.
For this reason, according to Kojala, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Ankara will be highly significant both for Ukraine and in the broader NATO context. Lithuania, he said, would like to see concrete and practical steps.
One such step could be to transform the air policing mission—which has operated in the region for several decades—into a full-fledged air defence mission. According to the expert, such a move would demonstrate an understanding of the increased risk of escalation on NATO’s eastern flank.
“Provocations from the aggressor are certainly not decreasing; on the contrary, they are intensifying,” emphasised Kojala.
In his view, the best response is not to react to incidents after they occur, but to prevent them through deterrence. Deterrence, according to Kojala, means more NATO capabilities—troops on the ground, equipment, and aircraft.
He also stressed the need to send a signal that any provocations will not only be assessed politically but will also entail a military response. The expert acknowledged that the results in this area are not such that one could say the situation is excellent.
As an example, Kojala cited incidents involving cables in the Baltic Sea. They may have appeared to be accidents, but, according to him, it has become difficult to separate these incidents from Russia’s broader actions.
Recently, there have been fewer such incidents, and, in the expert’s assessment, this may be linked to NATO’s response. More NATO ships have appeared in the Baltic Sea, suggesting that the aggressor is reacting to the alliance’s actions and is inclined to back down when NATO demonstrates it has the means to respond.
The program also discussed the presence of U.S. troops in Lithuania. Kojala stated that leaders’ meetings provide an opportunity to talk not only in formal discussions but also in a less formal setting.
According to him, this is a space to ask questions—including difficult ones—and to expect at least partial answers. However, a decision regarding U.S. troops will not necessarily be made at this particular NATO summit, as it is more of a national-level issue.
Kojala noted that U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently announced a review of U.S. forces in Europe. It could take up to six months, as it is a complex process involving many different components.
The meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump
A meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy is scheduled for July 8. Kojala said that expectations are always high, but dozens of such talks have already taken place over the past little more than a year.
He also mentioned Trump’s very recent phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and with Zelensky. However, according to the expert, there are no signs so far that the aggressor is changing its stance or is inclined to cease hostilities and its brutal aggression.
Kojala linked this to the events of the night of July 7, when hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles once again rained down on Ukraine. According to him, targets were once again struck where civilians were killed or wounded.
“This is a pattern of behaviour that, unfortunately, we see remaining unchanged, regardless of what is being said at the political level,” said Kojala.
According to the expert, Ukraine has several objectives in this context. First of all, the situation has improved regarding the U.S. administration’s attitude toward Ukraine, as it now acknowledges that Ukraine is doing quite well.
“President Trump likes to be on the winning side; he doesn’t like to be on the losing side,” said Kojala.
Therefore, for President Zelenskyy, this is an opportunity to strengthen further Ukraine’s image as a country successfully defending itself. At the same time, according to the expert, the Ukrainian president will seek to articulate a need that European countries cannot meet.
This refers in particular to air defence systems needed to protect Ukrainian lives. Kojala emphasised that Europeans lack such capabilities; only the Americans do.
However, these capabilities are very limited, as they have also been deployed in the context of the war in the Middle East. According to Kojala, Ukrainians would like to see, and are hoping for, additional solutions regarding the supply of short-range anti-ballistic systems.
There could also be a move toward having at least some American weaponry manufactured in Ukraine or other European countries in the future. The expert explained that this approach would help address shortages and supply issues by involving more countries and directly ensuring the production of the necessary systems.
The third aspect, he said, is the political and diplomatic track. Kojala said that Ukrainians really want a delegation led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to finally visit Ukraine.
These two Trump confidants have met and spoken with Putin many times in the context of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, but they have not yet visited Ukraine. According to the expert, such a visit would send an important signal.
“It would be an important signal, showing that the Americans want to understand the situation in Kyiv better,” said Kojala.
Be the first to comment