Why NATO’s 5% Defense Target Is a Dangerous Shift
Source: Wikimedia Commons/Informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Oslo
At the 2025 NATO Hague Summit in June, members of the committee agreed to raise defense spending from 2% to 5% of the GDP by 2035. This choice was justified as it was framed as staying ready in a time of consistent and persistent conflict. While this may seem like a simple budget change, it points to something much deeper and serious: European states and their allies are not gearing up for peacekeeping, instead confrontation.
The logic of this change is understandable to a certain extent. The modern-day landscape of security is unpredictable and volatile: from Russia’s hybrid war, China’s growth, and misinformation in general. Ignorance and complacency don’t seem to have a place in this landscape. This change also makes certain ideological sense. From a neo-realist perspective, for instance, this new defense target is extremely predictable as states must rely on their own capabilities for survival to protect their interest of security. However, despite the ideological arguments and observations on the current security landscape this new spending rule is more symbolic than anything, showing that Europe will take charge of its own defense, regardless of the United States leadership.
This new budget can be seen as a reaction to US leadership for many reasons. The United States’ response to the war between Ukraine and Russia, while very important, also shows the limitations of Europe’s dependence on the U.S. This is also important when talking about the domestic polarization in the U.S and their shifting priorities to the Indo-Pacific. This new rule isn’t just protection and an example of realism, but also shows a sign of autonomy and resilience from within Europe.
This decision at the Hague Summit is wildly different from previous actions of NATO members. In fact, many NATO members, like Germany, Italy, and Spain, previously failed to meet the previous defense spending goal of 2%. However, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the current state of the U.S in foreign affairs seems to be changing this mindset. NATO members have instead begun to adopt a more “wartime mindset,” which entails rearming and expanding industrial capacity at rates much higher than before.
This move also brings economic and political consequences however. For many NATO members, a 5% defense budget would mean cuts in other important sectors like health care, education, and sustainability efforts. In fact, countries like in France and Germany citizens are showing signs of dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the defense budgets given the current living standards; this shows how this new spending change has the potential to deepen distrust between citizens and their governments.
Leaders in Germany and France have already made concerns clear when it comes to these new defense targets. Many politicians argue that militarization should not come at the expense of social welfare or diplomatic engagement. For instance in Germany, parts of the ruling party and the public have pointed out that this new spending goes against the country’s post-WWII pacifist identity. On the other hand, in France, critics argue that excessive defense spending can lead to an arms race, which would totally negate Europe’s role as a stabilizing force. This shows that this new spending budget can not only pose a financial issue, but also a moral one related to Europe’s identity in international affairs.
Additionally, this change to a wartime mindset can hold the risk of normalizing constant militarization. NATO is known for its values of collective defensive, democratic accountability, stability, and peace, however if it continues to focus on defense and military rather than peacekeeping and problem-solving, it risks not following its core values and doing the very thing it wishes to avoid. From history it is clear that arms races don’t often, if ever, end in peace or equilibrium, but rather escalation. Ideologies like the security dilemma back up this claim as well.
Opposed to this increased defense spending, disarmament isn’t the answer, instead NATO states should focus on balance. Along with adding to their respective defenses, they should also focus on other aspects like energy independence and humanitarian capabilities. Such states should also focus on diplomacy by taking part in and building conflict prevention programs and development aid. “Wartime mindset” is good to deter war, but peacebuilding is what makes democracies sustainable.
Instead of connecting militarization with defense, NATO could invest in more peace-building initiatives. This can be conflict prevention, cybersecurity cooperation, and humanitarian assistance. Diplomatic meditation can also be a part of this, especially in regions with a lot of tension. Funding programs that aim for economic resilience and countering disinformation campaigns can also be a step in the right direction, instead of the new budget spending. These are only a few of the options that could be taken instead of this new defense target. NATO success should not come from increasing the percentage of GDP that goes towards arms, but instead they should focus on their citizens' security economically, socially, and politically.
Sudan is currently going through a civil war, fueled by a power struggle between the SAF and RSF. This has created a severe humanitarian crisis with millions killed, displaced, or starved. Failed peace efforts and international neglect worsen the issue while civil society fights for human rights amongst the instability.