NATO pressure rises: Trump's call sparks spending debate
Donald Trump is urging European NATO countries to increase their defence spending. His actions may prove effective because Europe is slowly realising that there is no other way if it wants to be safe.
Donald Trump will return to the White House in a few days, but his stance on NATO has been clear for some time. During his previous presidency, he pressed member countries to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, later suggesting raising this threshold to 4%.
In December, the Financial Times reported that Trump plans to demand member countries increase spending to as high as 5% of GDP. However, he is most commonly said to settle for 3.5%.
If there is something to criticise about Trump, it's that in demanding increased military spending, he likely doesn't fully understand how allies' budgets work. This primarily concerns the structure of expenditures. While the United States spends 3.38% of its GDP on the military, slightly more than 2% goes towards armaments. This is because healthcare for soldiers and veterans comes out of this budget. In contrast, in European countries and Canada, military healthcare is accounted for in the healthcare ministries' budgets, not the military budget.
Thus, even if funding rules were equalised, Washington itself would have trouble meeting its own president's requirements, much like Germany, which until recently did not meet the requirements regarding allocating 2% of its GDP to armaments. Germany was just €17 billion short, even though they exceeded the required threshold. The issue was that a special fund of €100 billion, intended solely for technical modernisation, was not included in the defence ministry's budget. Similarly, healthcare and pension insurance were not included either.
Contrary to Trump's concerns, European NATO members are increasing their defence spending. The European Union's common programmes - the European Security Strategy and the European Defence Industrial Strategy - support this. Their financing also results in increased European investment in security.
The East is the leader
The countries on the eastern flank are the leaders in defence spending among European NATO members, with Poland being the undisputed leader. According to a NATO report, in 2024, our spending was 4.12% of GDP. Estonia came second with 3.43%, and Latvia rounded out the top three with 3.15% of GDP.
In terms of real expenditures, it looks slightly different. Germany spends the most on the military, followed by the United Kingdom and France, which slightly exceed the 2% threshold. Poland is only fourth, although it allocates twice as much of its GDP to armaments.
Countries that vividly remember Soviet occupation and value regained freedom invest in security. One might get the impression that after the collapse of the USSR, the old NATO countries rested on their laurels and began to relax. However, it's also true that the further one gets from the Russian Federation and Belarus borders, the less one spends. Nine countries, including Spain, Portugal, and Italy, did not exceed the two-percent threshold.
"The further from Russia, the poorer the social awareness of what the Russian regime is, and that you simply can't come to terms with Russia. In such countries, support for defence spending will be lower, and the perception of threats different," notes Dr Michał Piekarski, an international security specialist from the University of Wrocław.
The new NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, is also urging an increase in defence spending.
"Today, I call for your support; action is urgent. To protect our freedom, our prosperity and our way of life, your politicians need to listen to your voices. Tell them you accept to make sacrifices today so that we can stay safe tomorrow," Rutte said during a December appearance at the Concert Noble in Brussels.
The Dutchman also called for cuts in social spending, which he considers too large. He noted that the existing goal of allocating 2% of GDP to defence is insufficient and urged NATO member countries to adopt a "war mentality" to more effectively counter contemporary challenges.
The question is, will Europeans sacrifice social conveniences to build up the military? In societies, the awareness of the need to have armed forces and modernise them is low and only increases temporarily in cases such as natural disasters.
"Observing the reactions of European public opinion, there is fatigue with war rhetoric," notes Jakub Link-Lenczowski, editor of the Military Magazine MilMag. "If people have been frightened for years with an impending armed conflict while grappling with the high price of butter and the Green Deal, a cognitive dissonance occurs. What might change attitudes are increasingly bold hybrid actions by Russia. Although they are below the threshold of war, they directly and painfully affect individual societies in Europe."
Currently, gaining public support to begin modernising European armies is the biggest challenge. Most politicians peek at the polls, and issues of long-term international security are postponed. Meanwhile, the European defence industry is a sleeping giant.
Sleeping power
Europe is home to some of the largest armament factories in the world, but many of them have been closed or production has been limited. In essence, the European industry has lost the ability for large-scale production of ammunition and artillery systems, as well as tanks. For example, the United Kingdom literally dismantled its Royal Ordnance Factory tank factories in Leeds and Elswick in Newcastle upon Tyne, where Challenger tanks were made.
In other countries, production has been significantly reduced, although large capacities remain. The French have a conserved tank production line at Atelier de Construction de Roanne, but restarting production would also cost too much for small-scale production to be profitable.
"The European defence industry has a very large potential," notes Link-Lenczowski. "It meets most of the characteristics characteristic of developed countries. It has the capability to produce engines for vehicles, ships, as well as the most advanced jet and rocket engines."
"Europeans produce satellite systems, develop modern tanks, and work on a new generation of combat aircraft. The problem is the scale of these activities. However, to change this requires difficult decisions in politics and economics," adds the expert.
An important step so far has been the decision to implement the European Defence Industrial Strategy. The document sets goals for the defence industry until 2035. It aims to help meet the goal set in 2007, which assumed that 33% of the equipment would be produced by Union countries. Currently, it's only 18%.
The current assumptions are that as much as 50% of defence spending is to go to the European industry, and 40% of new products are to come from Union countries' cooperation. This is to significantly strengthen the domestic defence industry and make it competitive in global markets.
Currently, Europe has enough time to start arming and adapting its armies to changing conditions. Russian involvement in Ukraine is so significant that the Kremlin currently lacks the capability to conduct another conflict. This will certainly change over time. Therefore, the problem lies in convincing citizens that increasing defence spending is a necessity.
Sławek Zagórski for Wirtualna Polska
