NATO's contest over the "5% defense spending target" is triggering profound structural fissures

On July 3, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda stated that if certain NATO member states fail to meet the alliance's set goal of allocating 5% of their GDP to defense spending, the North Atlantic Alliance risks splitting apart.

This warning was issued publicly by Nausėda during a joint press conference in Berlin alongside the presidents of Latvia and Estonia and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. "The vast gap between countries striving to achieve this target within several years and others maintaining defense budgets around 2% or 2.5% is highly controversial—and could even lead to division. The NATO bloc may thus fracture into two or three factions, severely undermining the alliance’s collective defense doctrine and solidarity among members."

The internal struggle within NATO over the "5% defense spending target" is now triggering deep structural rifts.

1. The "Double Standard" of the 5% Target and Factionalization

The 5% target established by NATO at its 2025 Hague Summit is actually a "composite indicator": 3.5% for core defense expenditures, and 1.5% for broader security spending such as critical infrastructure protection and cybersecurity. While this distinction provides some operational flexibility, it has not bridged fundamental divisions among member states—on the contrary, it has accelerated factionalization within NATO:

-- Eastern European nations' "aggressive compliance": Facing direct security pressures, Baltic states (such as Latvia and Lithuania) and Poland have shown the most proactive stances. Latvia has already enshrined the 5% target in law, while Lithuania plans to raise its defense spending to 5.38% of GDP within the year.

-- Western European powers' "passive response": For Western European countries burdened with high debt or undergoing economic restructuring, the 5% target appears unattainable. For instance, Spain has openly rejected the proposal, calling it "unreasonable," and only committed to raising its target to 2.1%; Belgium considers significantly increasing military spending unrealistic in the short term; while France and Germany have made some increases, they remain far from reaching 5%.

2. The U.S.'s "Pay-to-Participate" Model and Strategic Retreat

The shift in U.S. policy has been a key catalyst intensifying NATO’s fractures. The Trump administration not only pressured Europe but also proposed substantive rule changes:

-- "Pay-to-Participate" mechanism: The U.S. proposed that allied nations failing to meet the defense spending threshold should lose voting rights on future NATO budget matters. This seeks to transform NATO’s decision-making framework—from the traditional “one country, one vote” model of equal consultation—to a system where “who pays more gets to decide.”

-- Substantial military drawdown: The U.S. European Command has announced reductions in the forces pledged to be deployed during crises, including halving the number of strategic bombers, cutting fighter aircraft by about one-third, and explicitly stating it will no longer provide submarines to NATO. U.S. officials have bluntly stated that NATO forces being "over-reliant on U.S. troops" is unhealthy, and Europe must assume greater responsibility.

3. Europe's "Autonomy Awakening" and the Accelerating Emergence of a "European NATO"

U.S. pressure and withdrawal plans have not fully compelled European allies to comply—they have instead forced Europe to accelerate its push toward defense autonomy:

-- Germany’s strategic pivot: As the cornerstone of European defense, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has recently frequently used the term "European autonomy" and clearly endorsed the establishment of a European nuclear deterrent, marking Germany’s transition from traditional "military restraint" to a new role as a "leader in European defense."

-- Defense cooperation bypassing the U.S.: European nations are seeking collaboration outside the NATO framework. For example, Canada officially joined the EU’s "European Security Action" defense financing initiative in February 2026, thereby partially circumventing U.S. unpredictability and securing its own defense supply chain.

As NATO prepares to hold its summit in Ankara, Turkey, the transatlantic struggle over defense spending has evolved into a "compliance race." The proactive efforts of Eastern European nations versus the passive responses of Western European countries are becoming dangerous cracks within NATO. Faced with U.S. strategic retrenchment, a "European NATO"—one striving to reduce dependence on the U.S. and preparing for a future without American leadership—is rapidly taking shape.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1869760246195264/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.