As NATO prepares for its critical summit this week, member states remain deeply divided over a U.S.-backed proposal to raise combined defense and security spending to 5% of GDP. The debate highlights growing fractures within the alliance as European nations grapple with economic constraints and strategic priorities.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced Monday that Rome would commit to the 5% target but stressed implementation would require a decade-long timeline. "These are important commitments that Italy intends to honor," Meloni said, while emphasizing flexibility in defining security-related expenditures for highly indebted economies.
Spain has taken a firmer stance, with Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez formally rejecting the 5% benchmark. Madrid instead agreed Sunday to cap military spending at 2.1% of GDP through 2029, stating this level sufficiently addresses NATO's "emerging threats and challenges."
The discord contrasts sharply with Estonia's proactive approach. The Baltic nation plans to reach 5% by 2025 and urges allies to follow within five years. "Collective security requires collective commitment," an Estonian defense ministry spokesperson told KhabarAsia.
Security analysts warn the spending debate reflects deeper strategic uncertainties. "Without unity, the 5% target becomes just another political gesture to buy time," said Stefan Wolff, international security professor at the University of Birmingham. He cautioned that uncoordinated spending could lead to "financial inflation without strategic output."
China Foreign Affairs University professor Li Haidong noted the economic strain on European members: "Expanding defense spending poses huge challenges that could pressure social development." He observed that NATO's internal divisions appear likely to intensify rather than ease.
The summit outcomes could redefine NATO's role amid shifting global power dynamics. With members accounting for over half of worldwide military expenditure, their spending decisions carry implications for Asian security architectures and international relations.
