NATO鈥檚 leaders agreed this week to invest 5 percent of their countries鈥 gross domestic product (GDP) on 鈥渃ore defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035鈥. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called it a 鈥渜uantum leap鈥 in spending that would guarantee 鈥渇reedom and security鈥 for the military alliance鈥檚 one billion people. It certainly is historic in terms of military escalation, but will it deliver security 鈥 and if so, for whom?
The headline demand for 5 percent GDP spending has been so loud, it鈥檚 easy to forget that for a long time, many NATO members considered the previous 2 percent goal either unachievable or unimportant. NATO first committed to its 2 percent GDP goal in 2002, but by 2021, only six of its members had achieved it. Yet three years later, 23 members had met the goal and all 32 are expected to comply by the end of 2025.
This week, NATO has committed to more than doubling its spending to 5 percent of GDP. This will be partly met through creative accounting and reflects a desire to trumpet a big number to satisfy a petulant President Trump. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Even so, it reflects a huge escalation of military expenditure over the next decade from an already very high level.
Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military 鈥 more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure. It鈥檚 an impossible figure to grasp, but if you stacked it in one-dollar bills, you could make almost four piles that reach the moon. It could also be distributed as a one-off cash bonus of $1,674 to every person on the planet.
In reality, the money will be diverted 鈥 most of all from social and environmental spending 鈥 even though 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet and climate scientists warn that we have two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who fought for a partial exemption from the 5 percent goal, was the most honest about this costly trade-off: 鈥淚f we had accepted 5 percent, Spain would have to spend by 2035 an extra 300 billion euros on defence. Where would it come from? From cuts in health and education.鈥
Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases 鈥 a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon.
Europe is falling far behind on its own environmental and social goals, with its primary funding vehicle, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), expiring in 2026. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concludes that most European NATO members will be unable to meet the 3.5 percent NATO target without cutting budgets, raising taxes or changing fiscal rules.
NATO鈥檚 spending spree will not only divert money 鈥 it will worsen the climate crisis. As one of the world鈥檚 biggest carbon polluters, it is investing in more gas-guzzling jets, tanks and missiles. Military emissions are notoriously hard to track due to limited data, but one report estimates that 3.5 percent of GDP spending would lead to 2,330 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 鈥 roughly the same as the combined annual emissions of Brazil and Japan.
NATO鈥檚 justification is that increased investment is needed to confront the threats of 鈥淩ussia鈥 and 鈥渢errorism鈥. Yet there is no rationale behind the 5 percent target or details on why threats to NATO have so drastically increased. Nor is there self-examination on how NATO鈥檚 actions partly set the stage for Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine. Russia has increased military spending, but it still spends 10 times less than NATO. Nor could it catch up militarily with NATO鈥檚 32-strong alliance, given its economy: $2 trillion in 2024 (nominal GDP), compared with $26 trillion for non-US NATO countries and $29 trillion for the US alone. As for 鈥渢errorism鈥, the idea that NATO鈥檚 increased spending could deter it ignores the failures of the 鈥淲ar on Terror鈥, where NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya prompted instability and fighter recruitment.
The security NATO seems most concerned with is that of its arms firms. Long before Trump鈥檚 pressure, arms firms have pushed for higher European military spending through lobbying groups like the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). They have successfully made military security an overriding European Union objective, winning ever more public money for research and industry support. Now they are reaping the rewards with booming revenues and profits. Before the NATO summit, BlackRock released an investment report celebrating the arms industry as a 鈥渄ynamic growth industry鈥 and a 鈥渕ega force鈥 that will drive investment trends in the coming years.
NATO鈥檚 idea of security diverts money from social needs, worsens the climate crisis, rewards arms firms profiting from global conflict, and chooses war over diplomacy. Its bellicose stance in The Hague this week makes it one of the greatest threats to global security 鈥 even to life on this planet. It is up to the peoples of NATO countries to reject this deadly path and reclaim security based on cooperation, justice and peace.