Source: Global Times
Recently, NATO member states held a defense ministers meeting in Brussels to prepare for the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague at the end of the month. The meeting adopted NATO's newly formulated "capability targets," which aim to "build a stronger, fairer, and more lethal alliance and ensure readiness over the next few years." NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg emphasized that to achieve these new goals, "NATO needs more resources, troops, and capabilities," and "requires a significant increase in defense spending." NATO's new plan requires member states to invest 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) in defense, with 3.5% allocated for core defense spending and 1.5% for defense and security-related investments. These goals and plans will be formally discussed and determined at the upcoming NATO Summit in The Hague. This NATO defense ministers meeting has drawn international attention mainly because NATO members have almost reached a consensus on increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP. This decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on Europe's security landscape and the global security structure, making it worthy of high attention and vigilance.
From 2010 to 2014, NATO's overall defense spending accounted for 2.8% of GDP, with the United States accounting for 4.0%, while European allies accounted for 1.5%. After the Crimea crisis in 2014, the NATO summit in Wales decided that by 2024, member states should allocate at least 2% of GDP to defense spending. At that time, only three member states, including the United States, met this standard. Therefore, this was essentially a requirement for NATO's European members to significantly increase their defense spending, affecting the social expenditures of European countries and leading to multiple disputes between Europe and the U.S. This also sowed the seeds of great dissatisfaction among European citizens. However, even by 2021, only six NATO members had met this indicator.
The situation changed after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. NATO significantly enhanced its military capabilities, and member states also greatly increased their defense spending ratios. By 2024, 23 members reached the 2% mark. During Trump's second term, he pressured his European allies to take on more security responsibilities and quickly reach the 5% target. Although this put immense pressure on European countries, they responded fiercely. However, given Europe's long-standing reliance on U.S. military protection and support, and considering the real security needs in Europe after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO's European members still significantly increased their defense spending and basically accepted the 5% target to ease transatlantic tensions and strengthen European defense forces.
However, there are still fierce negotiations among member states regarding the specific implementation time, connotation, and plans for the "5%." NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg proposed a "compromise suggestion," dividing the 5% defense spending into 3.5% for core defense spending and 1.5% for infrastructure and other security-related investments. He also suggested setting the goal achievement time as 2032. In fact, although the principle consensus on 5% has been reached, this means that countries must allocate huge funds for defense spending over the next few years. For NATO's European members already facing multiple crises, this is无疑a great challenge. In response, many member states request extending the timeline until 2035 or later, with some directly questioning the necessity and feasibility of this goal. Spain's Defense Minister said that although they would not veto the resolution to raise the defense spending target at the NATO summit, "2% spending is sufficient to fulfill our commitments."
From a realistic perspective, by 2024, several NATO member states such as Spain, Italy, Belgium, and others have yet to reach the 2% mark. Doubling the expenditure on this basis will inevitably exacerbate the contradiction between fulfilling promises and actual fiscal capacity, inevitably seeking funds through tax increases, borrowing, cutting welfare, compressing medical and pension expenditures, and other means, thus exacerbating social unrest and political crises. In fact, after learning about the relevant news of the NATO defense ministers' meeting, many citizens in various countries expressed protests and dissatisfaction. On June 7, thousands of people in Madrid, Spain, held a demonstration to protest NATO's demand for member states to allocate 5% of GDP to defense spending. From the anxiety of government spending sources and the discontent expressed by the public, European countries, which are already in deep trouble in energy, economy, society, and politics after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, will likely face even harder times in the future.
More importantly, NATO's decisions will have a significant impact on the European security landscape and the global security structure. Currently, neither NATO nor the EU has learned from the lessons of the post-Cold War era. Germany's defense minister even proposed that "war preparedness must be achieved by 2029," requiring NATO to accelerate large-scale increases in defense spending and armament. Doing so will only push Europe to accelerate military competition, and NATO's imagined war may turn into a real nightmare. From a global security perspective, the total global military spending in 2024 reached $2.72 trillion, with NATO's total spending reaching $1.5 trillion, accounting for 55% of the global military spending. The imbalance in international military power has become severe. If NATO continues to promote the 5% defense spending target in the future, the imbalance in international military power will accelerate, posing a greater threat to world peace and security. Moreover, during a recent public speech, Stoltenberg mentioned exchanges with partners such as Japan and South Korea, hyping up the "China threat," indicating that NATO's military expansion also poses more threats to the Asia-Pacific region, which is worth watching out for. (Author: Scholar of the School of International Political Economy, China University of Social Sciences)
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7514820451693003303/
Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Agree/Disagree" buttons below.