Nato's billion-euro gamble: Why allies are bracing for war and betting big on defence
Here are some key questions and answers about the new target.
What are Nato leaders expected to approve?
They are expected to agree that Nato members should spend 5 per cent of their economic output — or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — on core defence and broader defence and security-related investments.
That's a hefty increase on the current goal of 2 per cent, which was approved at an alliance summit in Wales in 2014. But the new target will be measured differently.
Nato members will be expected to spend 3.5 per cent of their GDP on core defence such as troops and weapons — the items currently covered by the old 2 per cent target.
They will also be expected to spend a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on broader defence and security-related investments — such as adapting roads, bridges and ports for use by military vehicles, and on cyber-security and protecting energy pipelines.
How big a leap will this be for Nato countries?
Very big for a lot of them.
Twenty-two of Nato's 32 member countries spent 2 per cent of GDP or more on defence last year.
As a whole, alliance members spent 2.61 per cent of Nato GDP on defence last year, according to a Nato estimate. But that number masks big differences in spending among members.
Poland, for example, spent more than 4 per cent of its GDP on defence, making it the biggest spender. At the other end of the spectrum, Spain spent less than 1.3 per cent.
The US label is displayed in front of a seat at the venue of the upcoming Nato summit, in The Hague, Netherlands June 23, 2025. — Reuters pic
When are Nato countries expected to hit the target?
They will be expected to meet the target by 2035. The targets could also be adjusted when they are reviewed in 2029.
How much more cash are we actually talking about?
It's hard to say exactly how much extra cash Nato members would have to spend, not least because it will depend on the size of their economies for years to come.
Also, Nato does not currently measure spending on the new broader category of defence and security-related investments — so there is no baseline measurement to go by.
But Nato countries spent over US$1.3 trillion on core defence in 2024, up from about a trillion a decade earlier in constant 2021 prices. If Nato states had all spent 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence last year, that would have amounted to some US$1.75 trillion.
So, hitting the new targets could eventually mean spending hundreds of billions of dollars more per year, compared with current spending.
Why are Nato countries increasing spending now?
Russia's continued war in Ukraine, concerns about a possible future threat from Russia, and US pressure have led many European capitals to boost investment in defence and plan to increase it even further over the coming years.
'Russia could be ready to use military force against Nato within five years,' Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte said earlier this month.
Europe is also preparing for the possibility that the US under President Donald Trump will decide to withdraw some of its troops and capabilities from Europe.
'America can't be everywhere all the time, nor should we be,' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this month.
What will the new money be spent on?
Nato this month agreed on new capability targets for its members — the types of troops, military units, weapons and equipment that Nato says they should possess to defend themselves and the alliance.
Those targets are classified but Rutte said after they were approved that the alliance needed to invest more in areas including 'air defence, fighter jets, tanks, drones, personnel, logistics and so much more'.
Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte holds a press conference ahead of a Nato summit, in The Hague, Netherlands June 23, 2025. — Reuters pic
Is everyone on board?
Not quite. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez says his country can meet its military capability targets by spending just 2.1 per cent of GDP.
His government approved the draft summit statement with the new spending target but made clear it does not intend to spend that much. Nato officials say Sanchez does not have an opt-out — Spain's spending will be tracked and if it's not investing enough to meet the military targets, it will need to improve.
Some countries that have signed up to the targets may also not meet them, diplomats and analysts expect. But publicly, they have insisted they are committed.
Where will the money come from?
Every Nato country will decide on its own where to find the cash to invest more in defence and how to allocate it.
The European Union has moved to try to make it easier for capitals to spend on defence.
The EU is allowing members to raise defence spending by 1.5 per cent of GDP each year for four years without any disciplinary steps that would normally kick in once a national deficit is above 3 per cent of GDP.
EU ministers last month also approved the creation of a 150-billion-euro arms fund using joint EU borrowing to give loans to European countries for joint defence projects.
Some European countries are pushing for EU joint borrowing to fund grants — rather than loans — for defence spending. But they have met resistance from fiscally conservative countries including Germany and The Netherlands.
How does the Nato target compare to other countries' defence spending?
Nato allies dedicate a much smaller share of their economic output to defence than Russia but, taken together, they spend significantly more cash than Moscow.
Russia's military spending rose by 38 per cent in 2024, reaching an estimated US$149 billion and 7.1 per cent of GDP, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
China, the world's second-largest military spender, dedicated an estimated 1.7 per cent of GDP to military expenditure last year, according to SIPRI.
How does defence spending compare to government spending in other areas?
In Nato countries, defence tends to make up a small portion of national budgets.
Military spending accounted for 3.2 per cent of government spending in Italy, 3.6 per cent in France and 8.5 per cent in Poland in 2023, according to SIPRI data. In Russia that year, military expenditure made up nearly 19 per cent of government spending. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Markets, Trump in delicate policy dance
UNITED States President Donald Trump has faced little opposition in his drive to rip up the global economic rule book, whether from his fellow Republicans, political opponents or institutional guard rails. The only exception has been "the market". But now even investors are holding their fire, enabling more risk to build up in the financial system. Wall Street's reaction to Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2 was so ferocious that the president did something he had rarely done: he backed down. Trillions of dollars were wiped off the value of US stocks amid a 10 per cent nosedive from April 3-4. The only two-day selloffs since the 1930s that were bigger occurred during World War 2, "Black Monday" in 1987, the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. The stock market bottomed out on April 7 after Trump paused most of his country-specific tariffs. Wall Street has not looked back since, with the S&P 500 rebounding 35 per cent to a new all-time high. This episode suggests that "the market" is one of the few true checks on Trump's apparent pursuit to re-shape the US — and indeed the world — economy. The only problem is that the president has continued to pursue unorthodox policies in recent months — including challenging the independence of the Federal Reserve (Fed), firing statisticians and slapping tariffs on countries for non-economic reasons — and investors have failed to tap the brakes. The so-called "Trump put" — the idea that the president won't let the markets fall too far — is essentially a funhouse mirror version of the famous "Fed put", the long-held belief that, in the event of a crisis, the central bank will step in to restore stability. Trump seemingly did just that in April, but it was to clean up a mess of his own making. And one could argue that it was actually investors who came to the economy's rescue by putting pressure on the president to reconsider policies considered ill-advised by most economists. Trump and markets are, therefore, now in a curious dance. Investors appear to believe that markets can ultimately stop Trump from pushing the envelope too far on tariffs or other policies. But as a result, investors are not over-reacting — or reacting at all — to the latest controversies around the Bureau of Labour Statistics firing, his attacks on Fed chair Jerome Powell, his pressure on Intel's chief executive officer to resign, or the outsized tariffs slapped on Brazil and India. This, in turn, has powered the markets to new record highs, emboldening Trump to push the envelope even further. So even though the market has the power to rein in the president's economic policy excesses, it's not using it. Why hasn't the market pushed back? As the cliche goes, equity investors are paid to be optimistic. It's in their interest to keep the train hurtling along provided there aren't any immediate obstacles to derail it. There are, of course, a few pretty large hurdles on the horizon for the US economy, including the highest tariffs since the 1930s and some of the biggest budget deficits since World War 2 outside of crisis periods. But until these or other issues present an immediate economic threat, markets can choose to ignore them. By under-reacting to Trump's unorthodox policies, markets may be not only delaying the day of reckoning but amplifying the potential impact. Why? Genuine economic and geopolitical paradigm shifts are underway, and investors are not pricing in the attendant risk. Nobody knows what the ultimate impact of these shifts will be, but we do know that with greater uncertainty comes greater downside risk. Yet equity volatility is currently the lowest it has been this year, and even in the bond market — not known for its optimism — volatility is the lowest in 3½ years, while US corporate bond spreads are the tightest since 1998. Ultimately, the market is unlikely to call Trump's bluff until something truly unexpected or extreme hits. In the meantime, investors can justify this nonchalance by saying that corporate earnings growth is solid, artificial intelligence enthusiasm is high, economic growth remains decent, unemployment is low and consumers are still spending.
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
U.S. Senator Sanders favors Trump plan to take stake in Intel, others
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) listens as U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer testifies before a Senate Finance Committee hearing on U.S. President Donald Trump's trade policy, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 8, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Liberal U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday threw his support behind President Donald Trump's plan to convert U.S. grants to chipmakers, including $10.9 billion for Intel, into government stakes in the companies. "If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement to Reuters. The awards were part of the 2022 Chips and Science Act, which sought to lure chip production away from Asia and boost American domestic semiconductor output with $39 billion in subsidies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is looking into the government taking equity stakes in Intel and other chipmakers in exchange for the grants, sources told Reuters on Tuesday. Much of the funding for companies such as Micron , Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co and Samsung has not been dispersed. (Reporting by Alexandra Alper)
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
EU-US trade deal reduces but does not eliminate global uncertainty
GENEVA: The United States-European Union trade agreement has reduced global economic uncertainty without eliminating it entirely according to European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde. She stated that the deal maintains effective US tariff rates on EU goods within a 12% to 16% range during her World Economic Forum panel discussion in Geneva. Lagarde noted these rates exceed previous ECB forecasts while expressing concern about unclear sector-specific tariff plans from the Trump administration. The ECB president highlighted particular uncertainty surrounding potential levies on pharmaceutical products and semiconductor imports. She projected eurozone economic activity would decelerate in the third quarter following a robust start to 2025. Lagarde observed that global growth has maintained relative stability thus far primarily due to tariff-induced economic distortions rather than organic market forces. Importers significantly increased their inventory levels during the first quarter anticipating impending tariff increases according to Lagarde's analysis. President Trump implemented substantial import tariffs worldwide aiming to strengthen US manufacturing capabilities and reduce the nation's massive trade deficit. Initial threats of 30% tariffs on EU imports were reduced to 15% through last month's Brussels-Washington negotiation. The agreement included EU efforts to secure exemptions for specific industrial sectors from the tariff framework. Recent weeks have seen President Trump suggesting additional targeted tariffs particularly affecting pharmaceutical exports which represent 20% of EU shipments to the United States. The trade deal emerged shortly after the ECB governing council maintained interest rates following consecutive reductions. This decision reflected cautious policymaking while assessing potential impacts from US tariff measures. The ECB's June macroeconomic projections revised 2025 inflation forecasts downward to 2% citing lower energy costs and euro appreciation. Simultaneously the institution slightly reduced its 2026 GDP growth forecast to 1.1% acknowledging evolving economic conditions. Lagarde confirmed that upcoming mid-September forecasts will incorporate comprehensive analysis of the trade deal's implications for euro area economic performance. – AFP
