NATO’s secretary general argued that allies should increase defense spending to 3.7% of GDP, in order to guarantee the security of the old continent. But analysts interviewed by CNN Portugal say that “the threat that Russia will invade Europe is nothing more than will-o’-the-wisp”
“If defense spending does not increase, Europeans must prepare to learn to speak Russian or move to New Zealand,” said NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, expressing himself “deeply concerned about the”. “We are safe now, but what will it be like in four or five years”, he asked in his first speech to the European Parliament, on Monday, stating that it will probably be necessary to demand that Alliance members spend up to 3.7% of GDP on defense.
Rutte’s statements come after, last week, the US president-elect asked allies to spend 5% of GDP on defense. “We are not at war, but we are not at peace either”, considered the NATO secretary general. “This means we need to invest more in defense and have more capabilities. This cannot wait. We must increase the resilience of our societies and critical infrastructure.”
Rutte’s concern is legitimate, considers Major General Agostinho Costa. After all, as Secretary General of NATO, his mission is precisely to guarantee the security of allies. However, CNN Portugal’s military expert believes there is some exaggeration in these concerns, as it is unlikely that Vladimir Putin would want to invade and occupy Europe. “There are some critical areas, like the Suwałki corridor, which connects Belarus to Kaliningrad in Russia, and the Baltic Sea. There is a group of more nervous countries there that want to close the Baltic Sea to the Russians, but so far there have been common sense on the part of the European Union”, he says. “We also know that there are countries, such as Estonia and Latvia, that have a fairly large percentage of Russian population, and this could serve as an argument for the Russians to intervene. But in Poland, don’t even think about it. The Russian issue is not territory, it is the issue of the Russian populations.”
Tiago André Lopes, a specialist in international politics, also believes that “the threat that Russia will invade Europe is nothing more than will-o’-the-wisp.” “If Putin wanted to, he could have already invaded Moldova or he could have done it in Georgia or Kazakhstan, and he didn’t. This threat doesn’t work”, he argues, recognizing that “these concerns must exist, but they must not be exacerbated”. In his opinion, Rutte is trying to scare Europeans, but “that is the discourse of populism and it is ineffective”.
João Annes, a specialist at the SEDES Security Observatory, has a different opinion, who argues that Europe has to invest now if it wants to “keep up with Russia’s gigantic growth in terms of defense”. “Right now, Russia does not have the military capabilities on a scale to threaten Europe as a whole, but it is investing like never before in defense and in four or five years it will have a much greater military capacity than Europe. Therefore, the European countries must also invest now to deter future conflicts. When we are dealing with powers with imperialist tendencies and who see war as a way to achieve political objectives, we know that they will not stop in any other way: they must feel that the other side does too. is a threat and it is not can come into conflict to avoid mutual destruction”, he explains.
João Annes also draws attention to the political changes that are taking place on the other side of the Atlantic: “America has been bearing Europe’s defense expenses, but has already shown that it is not willing to continue doing so. On the one hand, because your main competitor right now is China, that’s your concern. pay your share, as Biden and Blinken have said recently.”
2% or 3% of GDP: how much should Europeans spend on defense?
Tiago André Lopes remembers that “Mark Rutte was prime minister for 13 years, 8 months and 2 weeks and only last year did the Netherlands reach spending of 2% of GDP”. “And now it is demanding that other states spend 3.5%. The only country that meets this percentage is Poland, which spends more than 4%. Not even the USA, which spends 3.38%, reaches that level”, underlines.
In addition to these, of the 32 NATO members, only Greece, Latvia and Estonia reach 3%. “And Greece is because the economy has not yet leveraged and has a very low GDP”, explains Tiago André Lopes. There are other countries, such as Canada, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg, that do not even reach 1.5%.
Portugal has committed to reaching 2% in 2028, but “this implies political choices”, warns the expert.
At a time when Trump is preparing to take power in the USA and force negotiations with Russia, “it will be very difficult to convince public opinion to invest more in defense”, predicts Tiago André Lopes. “It is only accepted if there are real and tangible threats. Now, public opinion wants an end to the conflict and will want to resolve housing and health issues.”
And even if countries increased their defense spending, “where and with whom?” “It’s a political problem”, says Tiago André Lopes.
3% is an “absolutely unaffordable” value for the vast majority of countries, agrees Major General Agostinho Costa. “Rutte talks about 3.5%, Trump wants 5%, based on what?, what is the criteria?”
Furthermore, Agostinho Costa is also of the opinion that one can “invest a lot in defense and invest poorly”. “When we are buying ‘patrols’ we are not investing in defense, we are investing in internal security, they are different things, but it goes into the defense budget. When we are supporting Ukraine, on the other hand, we are investing in defense So why isn’t this included in the 2% of GDP?”
“We should sit down and think, because we can even invest 15% but then, if we don’t have men and women to join the ranks, it’s no use. And we are in a time of technological change, what are we going to invest in? That has to be considered”, argues the military expert.
Mark Rutte, “Washington’s errand boy”
Mark Rutte added, however, that jointly purchasing weapons and equipment, as well as investing in innovation, could reduce the amount of funding needed. NATO’s secretary general insisted that Europe is still dependent on the US to meet its security needs and considers it an “illusion” to think that Europe can defend itself alone. “Involving non-EU allies in the EU’s defense industrial efforts is vital, I believe, for Europe’s security,” he said. “Transatlantic defense industrial cooperation makes us all stronger.”
What Rutte meant by this is that Europe has to continue buying defense material from the USA. Tiago André Lopes states that Rutte “came to play the role of Washington’s errand boy”, saying that “the European Union has the legitimacy to develop the defense industry but must also buy material”, implying that it must buy it from the USA.
For Agostinho Costa, “Trump is a businessman”. “See the 5% as a transfer of capital from Europe to the USA. At the moment, with the end of cheap energy, the production of war material is unaffordable in Europe, it has to buy almost everything from the USA. 75% of the material that Europe is giving in to Ukraine is imported”, he recalls.
Rutte is, “above all, fighting to maintain the position he just won”, trying to prove himself relevant to Washington at a time when political forces in the world are changing, notes Tiago André Lopes. And Agostinho Costa endorses: “We know that Trump is not one of NATO’s biggest enthusiasts. Rutte is capable of having a downgrade of importance”, he warns. “Let’s see if he is called to the negotiating table when Trump speaks to Putin. What we are seeing is that neither the European Union nor possibly Ukrainians nor NATO will be called.”
