Zelenskyy, Trump, and NATO’s next chapter unfold in The Hague

“Did you hear what Trump said about Zelenskyy?” one Balkan journalist quipped, flashing a crooked grin as he passed a group of Ukrainian reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague.

The Ukrainians looked up from their laptops, eyebrows raised.

“He said your president’s a good guy,” the man went on. “But you know what? Trump himself—he’s not so good.”

Around that time—early afternoon on June 25—the NATO leaders’ closed-door session with the controversial U.S. president was wrapping up. And as the heads of state began emerging and offering statements, one thing became clear: Europe’s security architecture was undergoing a fundamental shift. And Ukraine could benefit.

A million-euro meeting

Delegations began descending on The Hague—known as the capital of international justice—as early as June 23. But the real action unfolded over the following two days with a dense schedule of bilateral and multilateral talks, forums, and the main summit.

Nearly every Dutch citizen felt the impact. The summit became arguably the largest security operation in the country’s history, involving nearly half of the national police force and about 10,000 troops, according to Dutch media.

A five-kilometer security perimeter surrounded the summit zone. Military vehicles and radar systems were deployed around the city. Combat helicopters flew overhead, and F-35 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, NASAMS, and Patriot missile systems were on standby. The Dutch Navy even docked a missile defense ship in The Hague harbor, symbolizing the overwhelming level of protection.

Organizing the event cost the Netherlands €183.4 million ($197 million), making it one of the most expensive summits in NATO history. Journalists estimated that each minute of the three-hour leaders’ session cost nearly €1 million ($1.07 million).

Trump’s summit

In the days leading up to the event, it wasn’t clear whether its most high-profile guest—U.S. President Donald Trump—would attend. He had long pushed NATO members to boost defense spending to 5% of their national GDPs, and securing that commitment was a top goal of the summit.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio even called it “Trump’s summit.”

“The combination of President Trump’s pressure during his first term and Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Europe has led virtually every NATO country—except, sadly, Spain—to pledge 5% defense spending,” Rubio said.

Confirmation of Trump’s attendance came midday on June 23, just before the summit began. His plane landed in Amsterdam at 7 p.m. local time the next day.

The U.S. president received a particularly grand welcome. Alongside other NATO leaders, he joined a formal dinner hosted by Dutch King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who had arrived earlier, was also invited—a sign of Ukraine’s growing relevance and likely a gesture toward Trump. For the first time since Russia’s full-scale invasion, Zelenskyy wore a formal suit to the summit.

Trump spent the night at the royal family’s residence, where the king and queen live with their three daughters.

“Excellent mood,” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister, said the next morning. “And the King and Queen were hosting a fantastic dinner in this, and I was so proud to sit in that Orange Hall [Oranjezaal], which is basically example - I'm a historian – so this is about the history of the Dutch Republic.”

‘Please Trump’ festival and NATO’s 5% pledge

Rutte’s opening remarks on June 25 set the tone for the day NATO leaders were expected to endorse a landmark increase in defense spending. But the formal declaration quickly faded into the background, overtaken by what many quietly referred to as the “Please Trump” festival.

The session itself was shortened to just three hours—allegedly to keep Trump from getting bored. And Rutte, now NATO secretary general, didn’t hold back the flattery.

“President Trump, dear Donald, you made this change possible,” Rutte said, addressing the U.S. leader directly. “Your leadership on this has already produced one trillion dollars in extra spending from European Allies since 2016. And the decisions today will produce trillions more for our common defence, to make us stronger and fairer by equalising spending between America and America’s Allies.”

The praise didn’t stop there.

Later, asked about Trump’s comment likening Iran and Israel to “two kids on a schoolyard,” Rutte quipped with a smirk: “Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get them to stop.”

The “daddy” comment went viral, prompting reporters to ask whether such language signaled weakness or subservience.

“No, I don't think so. I think it's a bit of a question of taste,” Rutte replied. “But I think he's a good friend, and when he is doing stuff which is, forcing us to, for example, when it comes to making more investments, I mean, would you ever think that this would be the result of this summit if he would not have been re-elected president?”

The declaration—and Ukraine

Opening the summit, Rutte warned that the meeting came at a dangerous time.

“Russia continues its war against Ukraine,” he said, “and some hostile actors are trying to divide us and challenge our unity.”

“There is war in the Middle East. Terrorism poses a persistent threat. And new technologies bring opportunities but also many serious security challenges. In the face of this, we stand together, united in NATO. The most powerful defensive Alliance in world history”

He emphasized the continued commitment to Article 5—the principle that an attack on one is an attack on all—clearly addressing Trump, who later affirmed that the U.S. would honor that obligation.

The official summit declaration was approved around noon on June 25.

While it formally endorsed a defense spending target of 5% of GDP over the next decade, the fine print revealed a compromise. Only 3.5% will be allocated to military defense, while 1.5% will go toward infrastructure and nonmilitary security projects—a deal Rutte brokered with Washington to ease European concerns.

Spain initially resisted the pledge, threatening a veto. But Rutte persuaded Madrid to support the measure in exchange for “necessary flexibility” in how it reaches the target.

Ukraine, too, got a partial win.

Just days before the summit, Western media speculated NATO might omit Ukraine entirely from the final communiqué. In the end, the following paragraph was included:

“Allies reaffirm their unwavering commitment to supporting Ukraine, whose security contributes to our own. To that end, direct contributions to Ukraine’s defense and defense industry will count toward NATO members’ defense spending.”

This means NATO countries can count aid to Ukraine toward their 5% defense targets.

However, the declaration dropped a critical line that had appeared in previous statements: that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership is “irreversible.” That omission was likely made to appease Trump.

Rutte attempted to compensate by publicly reiterating that the Washington summit’s decision on Ukraine’s NATO path “remains in force.”

The declaration also did not condemn Russia’s full-scale war. Still, it named Russia as a “long-term threat” to Euro-Atlantic security.

Shut out—and back in

President Zelenskyy was not invited to the summit’s closed-door session where the declaration was finalized—something Politico attributed to Trump’s personal dislike of him.

Still, Zelenskyy attended the royal dinner, and after the summit, he joined a mini-summit with leaders from France, Germany, Poland, Italy, the U.K., and Rutte.

The biggest open question was whether Zelenskyy and Trump would meet at all. For days, it remained unclear. But they eventually sat down for a 45- to 50-minute conversation on June 25, following the summit’s main proceedings.

By all accounts, the meeting went well.

Zelenskyy posted that the talk was “good” and focused on protecting Ukrainian lives—especially acquiring U.S.-made air defense systems. He noted that Ukraine is ready to purchase the equipment, and that Europe could help fund the procurement. They also discussed potential drone co-production and the battlefield situation.

Trump, typically active on social media, held a major press conference after the meeting. While he spent most of it discussing the Iran-Israel conflict, he acknowledged his “good meeting with Zelenskyy” and “many other leaders.”

He added that he hoped to meet with Vladimir Putin soon “to help end the war.”

“Putin turned out to be more complicated. I have issues with Zelenskyy… and this war is more difficult than others,” Trump said.

Asked whether he and Zelenskyy had discussed a ceasefire, he simply answered: “No.”

A personal moment

Then came an unexpected exchange. BBC Ukrainian journalist Miroslava Petsa asked Trump:

“Are the U.S. ready to provide Patriot missiles to Ukraine?”

“Where are you from? Do you live in Ukraine?” Trump replied.

“I live in Warsaw with my children. But my husband is there,” she said.

“He’s a soldier?”

“Yes.”

“He’s there now?”

“Yes.”

“Wow. That’s hard,” Trump responded. “We’ll look into whether we can supply Patriot missiles to Ukraine. They’re hard to come by—we also sent some to Israel. But Ukraine wants them more than anything. That’s a good question. I wish you well. I can see how upsetting this is for you.”

The moment reminded summit attendees of the human cost of delayed decisions. While Western capitals debate aid packages and timelines, Ukraine continues to fight a brutal war—one where each missile, drone, and armored vehicle translates into lives saved or lost.

At his final press conference, NV asked Secretary General Rutte:

“What level of military aid would allow Ukraine not just to survive, but to win?”

Rutte noted that Canada and European partners had already pledged $35 billion—and that it’s only mid-year.

“It's difficult for me to exactly predict,” he said. “but you can safely assume, that the trajectory in the first almost six months now, is really north of the trajectory last year. That also, by the end of the year, it will end up north of the over 50 billion, which was pledged in 2024. So I'm positive about that, optimistic, but I'm not going to make a concrete prediction.” ,

“We must ensure Ukraine can continue fighting—and has everything it needs to be as strong as possible. But we’re all working toward a peace agreement or lasting ceasefire. And when that moment comes, we must ensure Ukraine has everything it needs to make sure Putin never dares to try this again.”