By Editorial
The pledge by NATO members to spend 3.5% of gross domestic product on military capabilities and 1.5% on defense infrastructure is the alliance鈥檚 boldest commitment in decades. It concedes a basic truth: Russia鈥檚 war in Ukraine has exposed critical shortfalls in Europe鈥檚 defenses at a time when U.S. support has become less certain. The challenge now is to translate that ambitious target into deployable firepower fast enough to meet the threat.
The starting point is finding the money to meet the new commitments. France, Italy and the UK already run heavy budget deficits. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez is claiming his country has eked out a concession to spend just 2.1% of GDP. Over time, Germany鈥檚 weak growth and fractious politics could undermine its resolve, despite the loosening of its debt brake. Discipline, and likely continued pressure from the U.S., will be required to ensure members don鈥檛 renege on their spending promises.
Even more important will be spending the money wisely. The first task must be to address Europe鈥檚 fragmented defense industrial base and the duplication of weapons systems. The region produces more than a dozen main battle tank variants and is pursuing two rival sixth-generation fighter programs 鈥 the Future Combat Air System (France, Germany, Spain) and the Global Combat Air Program (Britain, Italy, Japan).
Some progress is being made, such as the pooling of ammunition orders by Nordic states through Norway鈥檚 Nammo AS. And 19 EU countries are funding joint drone and electronic warfare projects through the European Defense Agency, an EU body.
European members should also acknowledge where domestic production makes sense and where it doesn鈥檛, rather than insisting on broad 鈥渂uy European鈥 provisions. Europe still relies on the U.S. for a range of critical needs from air and missile defenses to cyber and electronic warfare, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Countries should continue buying critical capabilities from the U.S. and license production locally where possible.
Progress will need to be carefully monitored, not just in spending levels but also in weapons delivered. NATO鈥檚 classified capability reviews should be distilled into an annual public scorecard for taxpayers to review. Governments should also be forced to show that the funds designated for infrastructure are actually going to reinforce rail beds, widen tunnels and build logistics hubs 鈥 all essential to address shortcomings in military mobility -鈥 rather than politically driven projects rebadged as defense.
Finally, European leaders must be honest with themselves and, most important, with voters. While defense R&D can spin off useful breakthroughs that benefit the broader economy, military outlays rarely deliver the jobs boost that investments in health care or green energy can. Massive defense spending is and should be defended as insurance against Russian aggression, not as a quick fix for stagnant growth.
NATO leaders deserve credit for overcoming parochial concerns and political resistance to agree on the new spending targets. They should recognize, however, that their fight has only just started.
Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service