The terms of a new agreement require NATO members to spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense. For the Trump administration, the agreement reached at a summit in The Hague marks the most serious push in decades to get Europe to shoulder its own security.
European leaders, however, are scrambling to meet, or at least appear to meet, the new benchmark.
Many have agreed to the larger budgets in principle, but the reality is far murkier.
Much of Europe’s political class is quietly hoping President Trump will look the other way. That may be wishful thinking, as Washington’s tolerance for Europe’s half-measures is wearing dangerously thin.
“Many European politicians believe the spending pledge is not realistic for all NATO countries to reach by 2035,” said Shary Mitidieri, a former NATO political adviser and academic in Italy, “and some of those countries are getting creative in how they are looking to meet the 5% commitment indirectly.”
Ms. Mitidieri pointed out that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government initially sought to include a proposed bridge linking Sicily to mainland Italy in its defense spending.
U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said last week that new defense spending should not include “bridges that have no strategic military value.”
NATO formally committed to a 5% of GDP security spending target at a summit in The Hague this summer.
First, some 3.5% of that figure is intended to be core defense spending, which includes weapons, salaries and equipment. A further 1.5% of GDP is to be set aside for critical infrastructure, civil defense and cybersecurity. These measures are meant to increase European defense resilience to the threat of war.
For Belgian Lt. Gen. Marc Thys, the U.S. call for increased European defense spending is nothing new. Now retired, he spent nearly five decades in uniform and advocated for European rearmament.
“Since the beginning of my career during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, the United States has consistently called for Europe to spend more on defense,” Gen. Thys said.
He added that for the first time since World War II, Europe is spending more than the United States on defense procurement for NATO.
Europe’s NATO members spent $170.1 billion on procurement compared with $167.7 billion for the United States, Gen. Thys said.
“European countries are slowly catching up,” he said. “Europe is not a country, and there is diversity in how that money is being spent. But, there will be more defense spending over the next 10 to 15 years in line with NATO goals.”
Responses to the agreement show clear regional differences.
The Scandinavian states, the Baltic states and Poland, which border Russia, have responded most vigorously to the pledge.
“Meanwhile, Hungary and Slovakia have comparatively lagged a little behind,” Gen. Thys said.
Spain and Belgium have been vocal critics of the pledge, but Belgium has charted a new course.
“In [Belgium], the tables have turned: the minister of defense and the government have committed to raising defense spending to 2% … a fundamental shift in policy,” he said.
Another country whose leader has changed course is Germany. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has supported an increase in defense spending.
Earlier this year, Mr. Merz said the new NATO spending targets were “basically irrelevant.” In power, however, Mr. Merz has committed to the 5% goal.
Some of the new defense spending across Europe will benefit American companies. For example, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently committed to purchasing 12 F-35A jets with nuclear delivery capability.
Across the continent, Poland is spending heavily on U.S. combat systems, including Abrams tanks and Patriot missiles.
More than in previous rounds of defense spending, Europe is emphasizing the development of domestic capabilities that will wean it from its exclusive reliance on American manufacturers.
Part of this is because of political considerations and partly because the Russia-Ukraine war has revealed the importance of enhancing defense logistics within Europe.
“The United States will always be a supplier of equipment and weapons systems to Europe,” Gen. Thys said. “It’s not something that’s going away, but in five, 10, 15 years, the overall percentage of American commitment in European militaries will inevitably be smaller.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.