NATO Summit in The Hague: How Foreign Media Assess the Alliance’s New Military Strategy Regarding Increased Military Spending

On the eve of the NATO summit in The Hague, which will take place next week, European and American media are actively commenting on one of the main topics that will be discussed: the increase in military spending by member countries up to 5% of GDP. This demand is promoted by the administration of US President Donald Trump, arguing that it is necessary to strengthen the defense capability of the alliance in the conditions of the new geopolitical reality. At the same time, analysts in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Scandinavia publish articles with critical assessments of this initiative, emphasizing the risks to social budgets, political stability and European unity. The media is debating whether it is justifiable to require allies to spend 5% of their GDP on defense, whether countries already facing budget problems will be able to do so, and how it might affect the domestic politics of NATO countries. This summit, according to the comments of the leading publications, can become a turning point not only because of the figure in the budgets, but also because of the shift in focus from social needs to military priorities.

Le Figaro – France. The summit in The Hague should focus on specific needs, Jean-Louis Thieriot, the former French Secretary of State for Defense, gave this advice in the pages of the Paris newspaper Le Figaro:

“Instead of focusing on the abstract goal of five percent of GDP, it is necessary to properly analyze real needs. First of all, we are talking about key strategic components that currently depend on the funds of the United States: these are surveillance satellites, radars, air defenses, command and control centers, means that provide the ability to launch deep strikes, and strategic types of transport.

In addition, it is necessary to develop a strong and sovereign European industrial base that would be able to support the defense strengthening of Europe.”

De Volkskrant – Netherlands. A goal of five percent of GDP will require drastic cuts in all other spending, Amsterdam’s De Volkskrant warns:

“Strengthening of defense will take place at the expense of security in society, health care, education and culture – even if the tax burden is increased at the same time. Once this race is over or the threat context changes, European defense and the budgets allocated to it will need to demonstrate flexibility – so that course can be adjusted.

Just as the Netherlands, and indeed all of Europe, spent years in the naive belief that the status quo would remain unchanged and therefore spent very little on defense, so any country that you don’t take can face the fact that it spent too much on defense!”

De Morgen – Belgium. Europe should first assess the degree of the Russian threat, the Brussels-based De Morgen believes:

“To what extent should we be afraid of Russia, which is not even able to protect its own allies – and is losing them one by one in the person of one or another rogue state? Naivety has no place here! Putin’s imperialist appetites are quite real.

However, it would be wise to carefully analyze the danger from Russia, and primarily against the background of the fact that NATO requires its members to raise defense spending to sky-high heights. An honest assessment of the situation would again increase the degree of support and agreement with the demand for increased spending on European defense. And maybe it would save us from crazy expenses.”

Le Soir – Belgium. The state treasury of Belgium does not have the funds to increase defense spending, according to the Brussels-based Le Soir:

“How can you prepay such sums if you don’t know where to get them from? How dare you show up for the NATO summit with empty pockets? How to promise “mixed” expenses – half for civilian needs, half – for military – in the amount of 3.5 to five percent of GDP per year, if even for the previously promised two percent, there is “not a cent” in the treasury?

Spending money that you don’t have is already bad, and allowing citizens’ money to be spent without even informing them about it in advance is a complete abuse of trust!”

Pravda – Slovakia. Bratislava newspaper Pravda welcomes the fact that the country’s president, Peter Pellegrini, immediately spoke out against the statement of Prime Minister Robert Fico, who suddenly spoke about Slovakia’s possible neutrality:

“With his mention of neutrality, Fizo confused everyone, because such statements had never been made before. Slovak President Pellegrini categorically rejected the idea of ​​neutrality, as, in his opinion, it would cost the country much more than NATO membership.

According to the president, the prime minister is only provoking. That is, instead of discussing the increase in costs for our security, we are having non-binding discussions about some imaginary neutrality that is completely out of the question for us. Fico just wants to please the voters who support the country’s exit from NATO.”