NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte expects that at the upcoming Hague Summit allies will adopt a higher threshold of defence spending – as much as 5% of GDP.
That's what no NATO country is spending these days. The closest is Poland, which allocates 4.7% of the budget to strengthen its military power. In the summertime of 2025, 23 of the 32 NATO countries are expected to scope 2% of the expenditure agreed in 2014.
The clever plan of the NATO chief
Meanwhile, Rutte raised the stakes twice. He late wrote a letter to NATO members, calling on them to scope 3.5% of GDP for typically military investments in 7 years, and 1.5% for related expenditure: infrastructure or cybersecurity. Now, a period before the Hague summit, he combined these numbers into an impressively sounding 5 percent.
Jamie Shea, erstwhile assistant secretary-general of NATO, elder Fellow in Brussels think-tank Friends of Europe, says DW that Rutte – a erstwhile Prime Minister of the Netherlands, known as a good negotiator – proved clever.
Firstly, it is simply a consequence to the force of Donald Trump, who has been telling Europe for years that it should increase defence spending. In his opinion, Rutte wants to build a consensus and show the Americans that Europeans are liable allies, ready to keep their commitments. And while at the same time appease them, due to the fact that transatlantic relations are now "very delicate".
The Hague: A Chance of Understanding
Jamie Shea stresses at the same time that for many European leaders, Rutte's thought – if you take it apart – is very convenient.
The sense of a extremist increase in safety spending begins to see more and more EU capitals, mainly through the war between Russia and Ukraine. German MFA chief Johann Wadephul said on May 31 "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" that the government in Berlin is ready to devote 5% of GDP to defence. Lithuania and Latvia besides have specified a plan.
– But many allies are faced with slow economical growth, budget deficits, social programme spending, coalition governments, in which it is hard to agree on additional defence money – reminds the erstwhile NATO official. In his opinion, Rutte's solution has a chance not to be an "economic and financial suicide".
– Breaking down these 5% of GDP into 3.5% for strictly defence, military and 1.5% for alleged "security spending" is simply a very clever thought – he explains. It indicates that 3.5% of GDP is the threshold that everyone expects at the Hague Summit, due to the fact that they are aware that 2 percent of GDP is not enough.
– For the second basket, 1.5%, allies will be able to number on investments that they already make: dual-use infrastructure, cybersecurity, border protection. This will let to declare spending at 5% without having to mobilise specified a large sum of fresh money, which could increase the chances of consensus in the Hague – he explains.
Which way will the Alliance go?
– I think that this summit will affect Ukraine little than a fewer erstwhile ones," says DW Rachel Rizzo, European safety Expert from the Atlantic Council think tank. In her opinion, Europeans will put on the table what they have already done and do in terms of collective defence, collective safety and crisis management, and then they will say to the Americans, "this is why you should be active in this Alliance."
From the Republican Camp in Washington, D.C., the White House's eyes are not starting to appear today. Jamie Shea calms down:
– Throughout U.S. history, almost all administration weighed the Pacific and Europe strategies, but never made a decisive leap in either side. The U.S. operated and operated in both directions. And the real strategy of Europe is, I think, to keep NATO intact as long as possible and to get a more detailed image of the long-term strategy for change from the Americans: how many troops will leave in Europe and what about anti-aircraft defence and atomic weapons, says the expert Friends of Europe.
Europe, in its view, will effort to show that the interests of the Alliance in European and Asian theatre are actually converging, and bringing these theatres closer together would let more flexible deployment of NATO forces and consequence to crises.
What if the visions of Europe and the US at the summit are divergent?
– There have been affirmative signals from high-ranking officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Ambassador to NATO. So I am not afraid that the US will "derail" the summit in The Hague, nor that they will retreat from the Alliance," says Rachel Rizzo.
Have Europeans realized that times have changed? According to Rizzo, yes, due to the fact that they are beginning to realize that if the values or common interests of the US and Europe divided at any point, then Europe may gotta defend itself with or without a small aid from America.
– And I don't think it has its roots in Donald Trump's politics, alternatively in wider global changes – the expert at Atlantic Council is the 1 who claims it. As he recalls, during Trump's first term, Europe's consequence was: "we must spend more to avoid being put at risk", but now: "we must spend more due to the fact that we must build our own [defensive] capabilities." He adds that the best time was 10 years ago, but the second time is today.
Jamie Shea predicts that there is simply quite a few work to be done about defining what spending will go to the "basket 3.5 percent" and which to 1.5 percent. But how will the Americans respond to European plans to buy weapons in Europe alternatively than in the US?
Rachel Rizzo believes that American arms companies don't gotta worry about it due to the fact that buyers will find it, and Europeans gotta decide for themselves what to buy and what to produce themselves, and force from the US to "buy American" would be telling Europe what to do; as in the past 30 years.
New Commander-in-Chief
The summit can besides be expected to approve the fresh operational capabilities of the Alliance, but these will stay secret, and the fresh Commander-in-Chief of NATO's Joint Armed Forces in Europe (SACEUR). As DW learns, in this context the name of the Lieutenant General of the U.S. Air Force, presently working on the Pentagon staff, Alexus Grynkewich, appears, but there is not yet an authoritative confirmation of this candidacy.
SACEUR has always served as an American. “And the good news from Washington is that the Trump administration seems to have decided to continue,” says Jamie Shea.
He explains that the continued presence of Americans in NATO's command structure is information for Europeans, in which areas they will gotta invest to compensate for the reduced US presence, and in which they will not, due to the fact that American resources will stay in place.
