On May 13th, the Romanian president Nicușor Dan and Polish leader Karol Nawrocki co-hosted the Bucharest Nine (B.9.) and Nordic Allies, resulting in a joint declaration ahead of N.A.T.O.’s Ankara Summit in July. The B.9. endorsed the N.A.T.O. 3.0 strategy, committing to build “a stronger Europe in a stronger N.A.T.O.” as the alliance’s path forward.

The allies released a joint statement following the meeting, reaffirming their “determination to deliver on N.A.T.O. 3.0 by advancing a stronger Europe in a stronger N.A.T.O.,” with the “transatlantic bond” remaining the “backbone of our collective security.” President Nicușor Dan reassured that the proportional contributions do “not mean Europe defends Europe and the United States defends the United States,” but that it is an evolution of N.A.T.O. N.A.T.O. Secretary General Mark Rutte was also in attendance, claiming a “stronger Europe in a stronger N.A.T.O.” means “with the United States both nuclear, but also conventional, while Europeans take more responsibility for their own conventional defence.” The summit dealt directly with the 5% of G.D.P. defence-spending goals, with Polish President Nawrocki adding that “credible deterrence also requires credible investments.”

The leaders’ joint declaration depicts a balanced burden-sharing and unwavering transatlantic unity, but the strategic reality is more complicated. Washington’s lack of clarity has created whiplash: it announced troop reductions, cancelled a brigade rotation to Poland without warning before promising more troops, and reportedly plans to cut deep-strike capabilities by 50%. The European Consortium for Political Research has aptly warned that the B.9. risks becoming a “colossus with feet of clay” if its political ambitions are not matched by concrete defence cooperation. Whilst the U.S. attended the B.9. as an observer, this uncertainty is a threat to the cooperation stressed in the joint statement. Crucially, Hungary issued a “constructive abstention.” Though it is likely due to its recent political elections, it also signals that the united front is not as solid as the language suggests.

The summit’s framing of a “stronger Europe” is overwhelmingly militaristic in nature. The pillars emphasized are spending, industrial capacity, and deterrence posture. While deterrence is central to N.A.T.O. and can prevent conflict, a purely military rebalancing without a robust diplomatic framework is insufficient in the face of N.A.T.O. and Europe’s security challenge. The U.S. approach, as indicated by the unilateral forces changes, undermines the planned and methodical transition needed for stable burden-sharing. Ahead of the Ankara Summit, this joint declaration could be seen as weak and not grounded in reality. 

However, the core idea of a more balanced alliance is not inherently flawed. A Europe that can provide for its own security is a Europe less vulnerable to external pressure and more capable of acting as a stabilizing force. In order for the rebalancing to contribute to lasting peace, it must be paired with a reinvigorated diplomatic effort. Even U.S. Under Secretary Colby acknowledged in a speech that the N.A.T.O. 3.0 vision included a “Dual Track” approach that combined strength with diplomatic outreach. The Bucharest summit did consider meaningful peace negotiations regarding Ukraine, but this diplomatic dimension is underdeveloped compared to the heavy emphasis on military investment.

The B.9. was established in 2015 in response to Russia’s aggression, bringing together nine Central and Eastern European N.A.T.O. members (Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia). Its dual purpose is strategic deterrence and building political capital within N.A.T.O. Since its inception, it has successfully pushed N.A.T.O. toward a renewed focus on territorial defence and eastern flank resilience, shaping key policies like the Enhanced Forward Presence and the 2022 Strategic Concept. The meeting took place against the backdrop of reported U.S. plans to reduce its military footprint in Europe significantly, and served as preparation for the upcoming N.A.T.O. summit on July 7th-8th. 

The Bucharest summit offered a vision of a mature alliance evolving toward a more balanced and resilient future. A truly holistic approach requires transparent, coordinated transition timelines between the U.S. and Europe; genuine internal political consensus-building within the alliance; and parallel investment in conflict prevention mechanisms. Without these, a “stronger Europe” risks being simply a more heavily armed Europe, not a more peaceful one. The Bucharest summit said the right words. The test will be whether that is translated into reality at Ankara.