Trump prevailed at The Hague, but many of NATO’s and America's broader interests were overlooked at the crucial summit.

• NATO’s Hague Summit was a personal triumph for President Trump.

• After years of Trump’s persistent demands that European leaders contribute their fair share, European countries have now come around: all (but Spain) NATO members have committed to spending 5% of their GDP on defense.

• Of this, 3.5% will go toward hard military capabilities, and a further 1.5% will be allocated to security-related expenditures, including infrastructure and cybersecurity.

• This represents a significant accomplishment.

• Those who argue that this development had little to do with Trump and that it was simply Russia’s increasing threat that finally awakened Europe—should hesitate before jumping to this conclusion too quickly.

• Consider how Spain tried to derail the 5% agreement at the last minute.

• Trump responded by doubling down and threatening to increase Spain’s overall costs—hinting, perhaps, at tariffs—if Spain refused to fall in line.

• Spain did not fall in line and secured a 2.1% level commitment as an exception.

• but with that said, if Trump didn't flash out like this, perhaps more countries would be tempted to follow Spain's example—countries with smaller economies and perhaps more dependency on the U.S.

• The truth is, while this shift cannot be credited to Trump alone, it was certainly influenced by him— and in a very significant way.

• Whether through his direct insistence or through the indirect signal of his disinterest in securing Europe’s military needs, Trump played a major role.

• Since coming to office, his behavior toward President Zelensky in the Oval Office and his temporary freeze on intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine alarmed many European leaders.

• This spurred them to act quickly.

• Europe subsequently announced the creation of defense loans and a new €150 billion European defense funding vehicle.

• Germany, for its part, pledged to spend up to €1 trillion on infrastructure and defense.

• Chancellor Merz declared that Germany would become the largest European military power—and appears committed to delivering on that promise.

• This signaled clearly that Trump might not be there for Europe in the future, prompting other NATO members to accelerate their own military spending to avoid becoming third-rate powers compared to a rearming Germany.

• This is because, if Germany rearms rapidly, this creates pressure on France and the UK to respond in kind.

• This was not the only accomplishment of the NATO summit.

• European leaders also secured Trump’s reaffirmation to the Article V commitment (attack on one = attack on all).

• (side note: that this in itself is considered a “win” highlights just how much transatlantic unity has eroded in recent years.)

• Additionally, Trump spoke warmly of President Zelensky, describing him as involved in “fighting a very brave battle”.

• In an exchange with a Ukrainian journalist whose husband is currently fighting in Ukraine, Trump showed an uncharacteristic display of emotion and empathy for the Ukrainian cause, and suggested that U.S. support for Ukraine’s air defenses (in the form of Patriot missile deliveries) would resume.

• In addition, in the days leading up to the NATO summit, Trump revealed that Putin had asked him whether he needed help on Iran.

• Trump’s reply was pointed: he didn’t need help on Iran, but rather on dealing with Russia itself.

• Shortly afterwards, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a provocative statement implying that Russia might supply nuclear weapons to Iran.

• Trump reacted furiously, swiftly shutting down the notion and warning Medvedev about U.S. capabilities.

• The result? Medvedev became the second high-profile individual in a month—after Elon Musk—to walk back anti-Trump statements.

• It was a remarkable spectacle.

• Finally, Trump agreed that it was ‘‘possible’’ that Russia had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine itself - this is a monumental shift from a prior positions: where Trump tried to treat Russia and Ukraine as equal parties—and his own State Department even refused to describe Russia as a Ukraine war “aggressor”—in previous G7 communique.

• Beyond the substance, the very format of the Hague Summit was tailored around Trump.

• Everything revolved around him.

• Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, currently serving as NATO chairman, even referred to Trump as “Daddy.”

• (side note: Rutte appears to have perfected the art of being a Trump whisperer. His method? Spend an excessive amount of time praising Trump, make every success appear as Trump’s win, and ensure that Trump’s strength and dominance are continually affirmed. If it means calling him “Daddy”—an embarrassingly cringe-worthy move—then so be it, Rutte seems to think. Millions of Europeans, perhaps begrudgingly, may be grateful that he did.)

• The main plenary session was shortened to just two and a half hours to accommodate Trump’s preferences, leaving each ally with less than five minutes of speaking time.

• Overall, many things were accomplished.

• The 5% defense spending agreement—long a Trump demand—was finalized.

• Trump expressed warmth toward Ukraine.

• He reaffirmed his commitment to NATO’s mutual defense clause under Article.

• These are not small victories.

• Many of them occurred either directly due to Trump’s actions or indirectly due to the looming threat of his indifference to Europe’s future.

• That said, there are also some other important observations—things that were omitted or under-discussed without a good reason, and things that notably did not happen at all—that merit further attention and unpacking.

First Strategic Omission: China.