Nato wants to make a “quantum” leap in the investment in defense – up to 5% of GDP – and Portugal admits to anticipating the goal of 2%. Alliance Secretary-General Mark Rutte warns that danger does not disappear with peace in Ukraine. And expert Ana Santos Pinto explains why the debate is inevitable and complex, “but not impossible to explain to citizens”
Mark Rutte has not yet warmed the chair of Nato’s secretary general and already wants to make history. In London, where he spoke in the influential think tank Chatham House and met with British Prime Minister Keir Stmerer, the former head of government of the Netherlands launched a warning that intends to echo to The Hague Summit at the end of the month: NATO needs a “quantum leap” in its members’ military expense.
The proposal is not shy: a total investment of 5% of gross domestic product. That is, 3.5% for military expenses, plus 1.5% for critical infrastructures such as cyberderafes or submarine cables. The objective is also a 400% reinforcement in the air defense and anti -Simissal of allied countries. All to contain a Russia that, even if one comes to peace in Ukraine, will continue, in Rutte’s words, to be “a permanent threat.”
“The danger will not disappear even with the end of the war,” said the new leader of the Atlantic Alliance, citing the Russian war effort: 600,000 military military personnel, 6.5% of Dedicated Defense GDP and a war machine in full. “We see in Ukraine how Russia sows terror from heaven. So let’s reinforce the shield that protects our heavens.”
But Rutte was not just the air. He ordered “millions of additional ammunition, thousands of new tanks” and the replenishment of the allied arsenals. The warning of course: “Our armies need thousands of armored vehicles, more tanks, millions of artillery ammunition, and we have to duplicate our support capabilities – logistics, transportation, supplies and medical care.”
Moscow’s response arrived by the voice of Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who accused the born of becoming “an instrument of aggression and confrontation.” About Rutte’s proposal, he mocked: “European taxpayers will spend their money to counteract a threat that they say from our country, but it is just an imaginary danger.”
Rhetoric is not new, but the proposal is unprecedented. And raise a practical question: who will pay? The United Kingdom has already promised to gradually increase the expense in defense to 3% of GDP by the first half of the next decade. In the United States, the new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, endorses the idea. “What is at stake is dissuasive and peace through strength, but not dependence. It cannot be and it will not be about the dependence of America in a world of many threats.”
Portugal still below 2%
Luís Montenegro announced, in his inauguration as Prime Minister, that the country will anticipate compliance with the minimum goal of 2% of GDP in defense, “if possible this year.” The plan will be “ultimately in the coming days and developed in the coming years”, with prior knowledge of PS and arrival.
But the starting point is modest. According to the latest annual report from NATO, Portugal invested 1.46% of GDP in defense in 2024, being the sixth country of alliance with the lowest relative expense. The largest slice – 58.6% – went to staff. Still, the around four billion euros invested were the highest value since 2014.
Rutte’s proposal, 5% of GDP, puts serious challenges to all allies. And does not escape criticism.
Ana Santos Pinto, specialist in International Relations, Security and Defense, former Secretary of State for National Defense and who in the past was also president of the NATO expert group to the south flank, is clear: “The first thing that matters to underline is that, at this moment, the commitment within NATO is 2%. And only in the next summit will discuss a possible change of this goal. 1.5% for critical infrastructures “.
“It’s a blind goal”
For Ana Santos Pinto, there is a structural problem in the way the expense is calculated. “NATO’s metrics are quite restrictive with regard to the definition of military expense. And Portugal, like the other states, tries to adjust their expenses – not only in personal but also in equipment.”
Give the example of coastal guards. “In some countries they are under defense protection, elsewhere in the internal administration. And not all these expenses count to the NATO metric. That is, this goal is something blind. It is a blind goal because it often does not take into account – and I would say that in most cases it does not have – real needs and priorities in security and defense.”
Cyberdefesa is the most evident case of this new hybrid reality, where investments are not only military, but also civil, public and private. “Therefore, it makes no sense to apply a purely military metric to a much more hybrid reality.”
And the time? For Ana Santos Pinto, it all depends on the temporal horizon and the sustainability of the effort. “It depends a lot on the time that it is agreed between states for this process of gradual growth. And whether this goal takes into account only GDP or other factors – such as the level of indebtedness necessary to reach it.”
Not only in Russia lives the NATO
In Rutte’s speech, the Russian threat dominates. But the Portuguese expert warns of a broader view. “The focus should not be just Russia. NATO’s official approach is a 360 degree approach: it includes the east flank, the south flank, the Atlantic – which includes Portugal and the Azores – which then connects to the Arctic and the North Zone.”
And he recalls that Russia is not confined to one front: “It is present in the south, the Atlantic and the Arctic. There is therefore a comprehensive assessment.”
As for European investment, there is a paradox. “Yes, Russia has increased its investment in defense, China too. But just look at the latest data from the Military Balancewhich are public and comparable: the whole of European countries – European Union more United Kingdom – constitutes the second largest military expense block in the world. Above China and Russia. ”
The problem is “fragmentation”. “There are 30 countries – taking away the United States and Canada in the context of NATO -, each with its own savings, own hiring model, its own equipment and capabilities. And this dispersion reduces efficacy,” explains Ana Santos Pinto. In conclusion: “A centralized state, such as Russia or the United States, concentrates and uniform its investments. Europe does not. It has 27 economies, 27 distinct forces systems. And so, even spending more, the result is never the same.”
Defense as a presidential theme?
With presidential elections on the horizon, the expert expects the defense debate to gain space. “It was not exactly relevant in the legislatures. [Risos] But I hope it will be central. ”
Explain to populations that you need to invest up to 5% of GDP in defense may seem difficult mission. But not impossible, Ana Santos Pinto says. “We have to be pragmatic. See the case of Portugal: the country, by virtue of its constitution, has an area of jurisdiction – terrestrial and air – ten times higher than its territory. Which requires specific capabilities: surveillance, search and rescue, among others. Investment in defense is not antagonistic to social investment – both necessary.”
And there is a role for the future President of the Republic, he remembers. “He is the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, presides over the Superior Council of National Defense, appoints military chiefs, and this council gives fundamental opinions on laws such as the National Defense, the Military Programming Law, the Military Infrastructure Law, among other strategic documents.” Therefore, he argues, “the theme must be discussed in a presidential campaign – because there is an effective competence of the president in this matter, which is always articulated with the government.”
Conclusion? “This can be explained. It’s complex, but it’s not a binary choice between defense and well-being. This kind of speech, simplistic and mutually exclusive, doesn’t help to solve the challenges of the present.” And these challenges are no longer future; They are now.
