On 24 and 25 June, the NATO Summit was held in The Hague. Invited to take part in the “Public Forum”, which brought together some 500 to 600 participants in a neighbouring building, within the same perimeter and with some of the same speakers, I was able to take a close look – with my eye as a practitioner of collective dynamics – at a key event in the life of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
As I write these lines – barely two weeks after the Summit – nobody outside specialist circles is talking about it any more. We have moved on to the heatwave, tax policy, the misdeeds of foreign governments… while waiting for the beach weather report, after the baccalauréat results.
This is not surprising. And just as well, because this ability to move from one news item to the next – always bad news, though, because that is what draws an audience – reflects the collective resilience of our societies.
What is more worrying is the choice of angles in the coverage of the event: money and leaders’ posturing… Is the Atlantic Alliance an organisation like so many others, driven solely by financial flows and the spotlight?
The Public Forum, a formidable “coffee machine”
First of all, what is the “Public Forum” organised by NATO alongside the North Atlantic Council, to which I was invited on behalf of an association in which I take part with others?
It is a two-day public relations event that brings together researchers, experts, journalists, current or future opinion leaders, “engaged citizens”… to take part in debates with high-level speakers, get to grips with the issues of the moment and, above all, talk to each other.
For, as a well-known French podcaster, also invited and attending for the first time, remarked, “people spend their time talking to each other”. To which one of his interlocutors, a distinguished and very experienced expert on these meetings, replied: “indeed, we all more or less know each other”…
As an outsider, however, I noticed that in practice they did not all really know each other. They knew each other, certainly, but within given circles. And there was little, if any, porosity between the different environments.
I immediately drew the parallel with the “grand gatherings” some large companies organise.
You sit quietly in the room and listen to speakers who have more or less prepared their remarks, “reeling off” all-too-familiar talking points or, fortunately, making real contributions to the debates of the day – when there is a debate.
Then, at the coffee break or buffet, you naturally head towards your colleagues… Because you know them, and also because, professional life being what it is, you make the most of these “coffee machine” moments to deal with ongoing matters, clear up questions, and set up meetings you had not managed to arrange…
Some take the opportunity to “network”, or to approach figures they would not have dared or been able to contact online… But for that, you need to have prepared these contacts, or keep a close eye on name badges – or, in this politico-military setting, on uniforms, which can make identification and therefore contact easier.
But participants are not always open to new approaches – out of personal preference, but also no doubt, given the particular context, out of professional caution.
Human nature is what it is. People stay above all “among their own”. And that is fine too. Even if developing collaboration or, at the very least, better mutual knowledge could also be one of the expected outcomes of such moments (yes, I am also a “facilitator of collective dynamics”, and I admit it gives me a particular perspective…).
Naturally, because my motto is “helping you work better together” in all circumstances, I tried to spark a few contacts between people from different circles… But I also had my own connections to make or renew, and the conferences followed one another at a steady pace. It was therefore difficult to facilitate introductions. After the initial contact between the parties, things rarely click spontaneously, and some energy always has to be put in! Of course, it would have been possible to “twist” the overall organisation a little, but everything was meticulously planned and secured… Something to plan for next time?
My various contacts also confirmed this “coffee machine” benefit… the one that explains why remote work has never been able to replace daily interactions, at least for professions that also need others in order to “produce” (and who doesn’t, really?). And why many companies are revisiting their remote-work agreements, beyond any desire for “control”.
For while experts paid very close attention to certain key statements – those for which speakers had invested preparation time, not just attendance time – most participants fully embraced the fact that they were there to see each other, be together and talk. Really. And even, regarding those key statements, to discuss them afterwards and fully take them on board.
The NATO Summit: a platform or a revealer?
Back to the Summit itself…
“Summits” are meetings of the North Atlantic Council at the highest level of the Atlantic Alliance: that of Heads of State and Government.
So why “Summit”? Partly, no doubt, because it sounds better than the official name… and also because other meetings are held in parallel (in The Hague, in addition to the Public Forum, there was a forum on armaments, bilateral and multilateral meetings such as the E5, an official reception at the Royal Palace, and events organised by think tanks…).
These Summits are not held at regular intervals, but according to the events the Atlantic Alliance faces and the decisions to be taken.
The calendar of past meetings is instructive, as it reminds us of the rhythms of this world (at least of our world, in the Euro-Atlantic area).
After the founding in 1949 (yes, time flies…), there were Summits in 1957, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1989 (May and December), 1990, 1991, 1994, 1997 (May and July), 1999, May 2002, November 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022 (February, March, June), 2023, 2024 and now June 2025…
And as with all major events of multinational companies, there are rarely surprises at the meetings themselves (because nothing is decided in a meeting; you only formalise decisions taken during the preparation, right?).
At least, as in company events that value smooth functioning.
The public exposure is sometimes used to give a decision more resonance. But “normally”, no member of the management or board takes advantage of the moment to surprise colleagues or force their hand…
For NATO, it is both the same and different.
Because one of the specific features of this organisation is that it operates strictly by consensus! And, in principle, consensus also requires a certain respect for different points of view… In principle only, since playground-bully behaviour can, it seems, occur – or at least be feared.
In companies – especially the largest ones – even-tempered behaviour is also expected.
But deviations can occur. A “charismatic” leader who is feared (once there is fear, this is in reality a “toxic” leader), an operational or functional executive whose whims are tolerated because of indispensable expertise or exemplary results (as long as the negative cost of their actual behaviour is ignored)… It can happen, but it never lasts long.
At least not when these practices are public, because they affect the image of the collective, and therefore the image of each member and the relations between them all – who may then organise a response.
And it never happens when the company’s “governance” rests on a relative balance of power between the various stakeholders. A balance of power that keeps the organisation on course despite the bumps of life and context – one of the organisational benefits of this type of structure.
Collective functioning thus normally guarantees the absence of surprises – except when everyone agrees to let the bully take the lead, as soon as he benefits from an absence of balance of power.
He can then use the event as a platform to deliver – or have others deliver – a message, explicitly or implicitly. And turn the event into a revealer of how things really work. Which one may or may not be satisfied with.
These effects can allow some – competitors or adversaries – to discredit the organisation in the eyes of a general public that knows nothing of its strengths, the subtleties of its functioning and its ability to pull itself back on track, beyond the tribulations of “the society of the spectacle”.
NATO: an organisation with a board of directors
Some people are unaware of it: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a politico-military organisation.
When people talk about NATO, they think first of the military means the Alliance can deploy, but it is also, and above all, a political organisation. With a “board of directors” – the North Atlantic Council, meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government, or in more “technical” formats (Defence Ministers, Foreign Ministers).
The Military Committee is the advisory and executive body, on which the armed forces of each member country are represented (except Iceland, represented by a civilian as it has no armed forces).
The permanent delegation, headed by an Ambassador, carries out the mission its name clearly expresses, both within the North Atlantic Council and the Military Committee.
Of course, all this involves a lot of people: the staff (civilian and military) provided by each member country and the 6,500 staff directly employed by the organisation to run this “bureaucracy” (with no negative connotation).
6,500 people is both a lot and very little for an international organisation, isn’t it?
At the head of this bureaucracy is a post with a very particular role: the Secretary General.
Under the authority of the North Atlantic Council (this very particular collective governance), his tasks include running, with his specialised deputies, the many committees, and also helping the Council reach the famous consensus…
Compared with civilian organisations, this is therefore a particular way of functioning, but not so very different.
The Secretary General is in charge of the “executive committee”. But he is also responsible for helping the “board of directors” find common positions – all the more so as it has no Chair and brings together 32 members…
To those who argue that consensus is not an effective method, I would recommend listening to Admiral Vandier, one of NATO’s two strategic commanders, in charge of preparing for the future, in one of the post-Summit episodes of the essential podcast “Le Collimateur”(1). He points out that while consensus is difficult to achieve, nobody can then disown the decision taken… which may inspire some civilian business leaders confronted with implementing decisions taken without real commitment from stakeholders.
And to come back to The Hague Summit, one of the stated objectives was to secure a united “family photo” despite the tensions… An objective achieved by the members of the “board of directors” – the North Atlantic Council – whatever the criticism, possibly justified (but it was no easy task), of the style adopted by the “chief executive”.
Here again, as in a more conventional organisation, who should be praised and who blamed?…
NATO: a lack of means, or a lack of meaning?
In the days following the Summit’s final declaration, what we mostly heard about was budgets. The famous “5%”, signifying acceptance of – or even submission to – the American President’s demands.
In a recent episode of the podcast “Le monde selon l’IFRI”(2), Elie Tenenbaum explains very clearly where this 5% comes from and what it is…
Many people confuse, deliberately or not, NATO’s budget with defence budgets.
NATO’s budget – what allows the organisation to function – is around 4.6 billion euros a year. That is the operating budget of the Île-de-France region, and less than that of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region.
This budget is shared among member states according to a fixed cost-sharing formula, which was adjusted when Finland and Sweden joined the Alliance in 2023 and 2024. France’s share is 10.19%, while that of the United States is 15.88%.
The famous “5%” is the estimated financial effort each member state should make (in percentage points of GDP) for its own defence. And of this 5% target, 3.5% is for purely military spending, while 1.5% is for “resilience”-related projects.
Budgets for their own defence, for their own security. For capabilities they will pool, partly or more fully, to be more effective, more credible and more resilient.
But 5% of GDP sounds like billions of hard euros (and dollars)… It speaks the language of billionaires and fundraisers, as well as of many political decision-makers.
But have we not forgotten the “why”?
As Elie Tenenbaum patiently explains in the podcast episode mentioned, this figure is the result of an assessment of military requirements.
And these military requirements are those deemed necessary to deter, or even confront, a clearly identified threat: the stated will of Vladimir Putin’s Russia to pursue its territorial expansion in order to restore the borders of the Soviet Union of his KGB youth – as well as its will to destroy the European Union, a potential power capable of challenging its continental hegemony.
This is also what the President of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, recalled from the Public Forum stage: the question is not the size of the budget, but the operational effect sought. And he speaks from experience: before being elected Czech President in 2023, he was Chief of the Czech General Staff from 2012 to 2015 and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee from 2015 to 2018.
By talking only about budgets, we forget the meaning. And business leaders know this well: you do not mobilise people with spending (or savings) figures, but by explaining why, and by deciding what and how.
It is also this lack of meaning that makes decisions difficult. Because there are many urgent needs: maintaining social cohesion, preserving our way of life, investing in the future, and also working on the ecological transition so that the war in the East is not compounded by the climate war, which has already begun…
Trade-offs will have to be made. But the question will not just be how much. It will be why.
So what if we, as business practitioners, helped our political and military leaders explain the why, and involve us in the decision-making process?
Alexis Kummetat
The two podcast episodes cited (in French)
- Le Collimateur, “Planifier l’avenir de l’Alliance” (Planning the Alliance’s future), 25 June 2025, Alexandre Jubelin, Admiral Pierre Vandier.
- Le monde selon l’IFRI, “Trump, l’OTAN et la défense de l’Europe” (Trump, NATO and the defence of Europe), 7 July 2025, Marc Hecker, Elie Tenenbaum.
This article reflects only the views of its author. Article originally published in French on LinkedIn on 7 July 2025. Illustration: the Heads of State and Government of the Atlantic Alliance (photo credit: NATO).
This article was translated from French by Claude (AI). In case of any discrepancy, the French version prevails.
Leave a Reply