Between Spanish rebellion and NATO ambitions, Portugal can have an opportunity to redefine its role in the alliance
Donald Trump dreamed, the covenant agreed but Sánchez rejected. To avoid a blockade at the Hague summit, which starts Tuesday, the NATO gave way: the Spanish government got the final statement to be changed to allow Madrid to be the exception to the alliance countries that will spend 5% of GDP in defense, a goal that Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has classified as “disproportionate and unnecessary.” Despite the last minute agreement, the impasse created “cracks” and the experts warn that a dangerous precedent was created that can call into question the alliance itself, even if it may benefit Portugal.
“It seems to me a very bad decision because the born may have opened a box of Pandora. When an exception is opened for a country like Spain, which is not exactly a miserable or poor country, it is preceded here that it can bring problems in the future,” argues the Major General Isidro de Morais Pereira, who stresses that there are nations “with less capabilities that meet more.”
The new goal proposed by NATO predicts that all allies increase defense investment to 3.5% of GDP, plus 1.5% in other areas that may be linked to defense, such as cybersecurity or infrastructure that can be used by the Armed Forces, such as roads, ports, bridges and airports. This latter category may also include infrastructures, the military-industrial complex and aid to Ukraine, altering the traditional basis for calculating NATO expenses.
Although the 5% goal is ambitious, the deadline to reach it was set for 2035, a “victory” for countries such as Italy and the United Kingdom – which feared a rapid increase that could destabilize their public finances. However, this widest date did not satisfy all: NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte had proposed a period of 2032, but Russia’s closest countries pressed for a shorter deadline. The final date will be reevaluated by 2029.
The fact that Spain joins the United States – Donald Trump has ensured that the goal does not apply to Washington either – can undermine the fulfillment of this goal from other countries. For Isidro de Morais Pereira, this is a decision that “undermines the spirit of the covenant” and questioning cohesion among the allies, where everyone should contribute proportionally. “In my opinion, there should be no exceptions,” he insists.
“From the point of view of the alliance this is terrible, the NATO already has cracks that arrive. This departure from the United States and countries like Spain that do not accept rearm … This comes to introduce a new note of dissonance into the NATO summit that was not necessary,” laments Diana Soller, an international relations expert.
The members of the alliance enter this summit with very different defense budgets. Portugal, who exceeded expectations by 2024 with an investment of 1.58% of GDP in defense (NATO predicted 1.55% spending), remains one of six countries that are least investing in their Armed Forces. The Portuguese executive executed 4,481 million euros on military expenses (including spending on the Republican National Guard), with salaries to be responsible for 58% of the money spent in the sector.
Despite being short of the goal set at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales, when alliance members agreed to increase defense spending by up to 2% of national GDP by 2024, the value of Portuguese spending has been the highest in the last ten years. In 2014, despite having more military personnel, Portugal spent only 2,253 billion euros, with 81.3% of this amount to be spent on salaries.
In all, nine countries have not yet reached 2% of GDP affection for defense, including Spain, which is the least spent. Although the number of countries complied with fired, and according to data from NATO, Croatia (1.81%), Italy (1.49%), Canada (1.37%), Belgium (1.30%), Luxembourg (1.29%), Slovenia (1.29%) and Spain (1.28%) remain below the goal of 2%. Still, the tendency is clear and almost all countries commit to reaching 2% of GDP later this year, including Spain. In 2022, the year of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, only seven countries met the established goal. Two years later, this number fired to 23.
“I know a lot of Spanish military personnel. They certainly understand that this is a political option and surpasses the Spanish. The Spanish military who are currently in role in the NATO barracks will feel ashamed to be the only country to be left out. And there is no other way to say it,” says Major General Isidro de Morais Pereira.
NATO arrives at this summit with only one member currently fulfilling this goal: Poland, which invested 4.12% of GDP in defense in 2024 and expects to increase spending to 4.7% this year, due to the proximity of the Russian threat. Some of the highest spending also belong to countries bordering Russia or have been occupied by Moscow, such as Estonia (3.43%), Latvia (3.15%) or Lithuania (2.85%).
Compared to 2014, only one country reduced spending in defense: the United States of America. The main military power invested 3.38% of GDP in its armed forces in 2024, less than the 3.5% they spent in 2014, when Russia invaded and attached the Ukrainian Peninsula of Crimea. They are also the only country, besides Spain, whom the alliance allowed not to meet the goal of 3.5% of GDP in defense. This scenario gives Portugal an opportunity, which can gain protagonism to Americans in this region of the globe.
“Portugal may benefit from this. In transatlantic relations, Spain has taken a position that was traditionally the Portuguese position and overlaps us because it is greater, richer and has more resources. This remoteness of Spain, which also attaches to ideological reasons, opens the way for Portugal to have a more interesting position with the United States,” Diana Soller suggests.
The government of Luís Montenegro pledged to reach the goal of 2% of GDP as early as 2025, although it has not yet announced how it intends to do so. This commitment represents an additional charge that can reach 1,500 million euros. But this additional financial effort threatens to undermine national public finances, with the Public Finance Council warning that the country can record a 0.6% deficit of GDP between 2027 and 2029, due to this measure. To reach 3.5%, Portugal would need to spend more than double the 4,481 million invested in 2024, which would have an even greater weight in public accounts. However, the executive insists that this investment will not affect social expenses.
For Diana Soller International Relations expert, this is the price to pay for “various wrong decisions” and pushes the idea “from the pink world” where Portugal is free from danger because it is geographically far from the main threat to the covenant. “Is there no risk? This is an illusion. Portugal is as at risk as Poland and Estonia. We are required to get into war if Russia invades Poland and Lithuania. That’s why we should not accept this idea that Portugal is free danger,” Diana Soller insists.
Portugal is responsible for the safety of several submarine cables that cross the vast national maritime space and allow communications on the European continent. Over the years, but with greater notoriety after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has carried out recognition actions in national waters with scientific research ships, which may mean the Russian availability of triggering hybrid attacks in the region, similar to what has happened in the Baltic Sea.
This aspect makes the increase in defense spending even more important to Portugal, which needs to ensure the safety of its maritime territory, but also the infrastructures of the entire alliance that pass through it. “Portugal is responsible for several submarine cables that are being watched by Russia. We cannot remain living in a pink world where things are no longer what they were,” says Diana Soller.
Portugal departs for this rearmament process a little further behind other countries and has clear budgetary restrictions, but for Major General Isidro de Morais Pereira, the size of Portugal is no excuse. Compared to Israel, which has a similar size and population, argued that Portugal needs “a credible defense device,” with sea capacity to watch over its vast oceanic platform and operational terrestrial forces. “We have two archipelagos in the Atlantic and clear responsibilities.”
