By Jian Junbo
The NATO summit, a two-day event, opened on June 24 in The Hague, the Netherlands. One of the most closely watched topics was the proposed target for each NATO member state to raise its defense spending to 5 percent of its GDP. However, this target has met with strong opposition from Spain. On June 22, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced that Spain had reached an agreement with NATO to cap its defense expenditure at 2.1 percent of its GDP. Sánchez stated that NATO's proposed 5% target would force its members to cross red lines, raise taxes or cut welfare, while failing to deliver greater security guarantees through the alliance. Other NATO member states, including Belgium, Luxembourg, and Portugal, have also questioned the necessity of allocating 5 percent of their national GDP to defense spending.
The ongoing debate among European countries, which are both EU and NATO members, over defense budgets reflects a broader dilemma facing the EU within the NATO framework. Beyond defense spending, the EU and its member states find it difficult to reach full consensus on a range of key issues, including NATO's future development path and how to manage their relationship with NATO.
There is no fully unified stance within NATO, as EU member states hold divergent positions regarding the alliance's strategic direction. Eastern and Northern European countries within the EU have actively increased their defense spending, as they perceive a serious and ongoing threat from Russia. In contrast, Southern European countries such as Spain are geographically distant from Russia and find it difficult to share the same sense of urgency or threat perception as their Eastern and Northern counterparts.
Some Central and Eastern European countries have actively supported the US-backed proposals for NATO's eastward expansion and Asian Pacific expansion. However, these ideas have met with strong opposition from countries such as France. Differences also persist over how to allocate increased defense spending. While some Central and Eastern European states, as well as certain Western European countries, advocate for purchasing more off-the-shelf military equipment from the US, such as air defense systems, others, including France, insist on a "Buy European" approach, arguing that additional spending should be directed toward the development and procurement of European-made weapons and equipment. Divergences among NATO member states are also evident on the fundamental question of whether NATO still needs to exist. For instance, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto said on June 20 that NATO "as it is, no longer has a reason to exist," and asserted that NATO must adjust to a more global reality.
Diverging positions have made it difficult for EU member states within NATO to reach consensus on various alliance-related decisions. An even more complex issue lies in how to view and manage the relationship between the EU and NATO. For a long time, the EU's defense framework has been heavily reliant on NATO. It was not until the deterioration of transatlantic relations in the era of "Trump 2.0" that the EU truly began to advocate for defense autonomy. For Germany and several Central and Eastern European countries, independent EU defense is seen as complementary to NATO. However, countries such as France regard the two as alternatives rather than complements. From the French perspective, the balance of power between NATO and EU defense should shift over time, with the aim of achieving genuine autonomy in areas such as command structures, weapons systems, defense research and development, the defense market, and strategic protection.
Finally, there is a clear gap among EU member states in terms of their capacity to support NATO. Countries such as Spain oppose significantly increasing defense spending not only because of different threat perceptions, but also due to economic constraints. For various reasons, nations including Spain and Italy are under considerable fiscal pressure and lack sufficient budgetary space to substantially raise their contributions to NATO's military expenditure. To meet NATO's ambitious targets, these countries would have to cut welfare and other public spending, or even raise taxes, all of which would carry significant political, economic, and social risks.
In sum, for European members of NATO and the EU, geographic divides as well as differences in capabilities and political will make it difficult for them to reach consensus on NATO-related issues. Each country has its own security priorities and strategic calculations, and Europe's "security dilemma" is unlikely to be resolved in the near term.
(The author is the Director of the Center for China-Europe Relations, Fudan University)
Editor's Note: Originally published on huanqiu.com, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.
