European NATO members are accelerating military expenditures at an unprecedented pace following the alliance’s June 2025 summit in The Hague, where leaders committed to raising defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 — a sweeping recalibration driven by the ongoing war in Ukraine, mounting concerns over Russian aggression, and persistent uncertainty about the durability of American security guarantees under the Trump administration. The pledge marks the most significant transformation of European defence posture since the end of the Cold War, reshaping fiscal priorities, industrial strategies, and the balance of transatlantic relations.
A Historic Pledge in The Hague
At the NATO Summit in The Hague, all 32 member states agreed to commit 5% of GDP annually to defence-related expenditures by 2035. The new target is divided into two components: 3.5% for “core” defence spending — including troops, weapons, and military operations — and an additional 1.5% for broader security investments such as cybersecurity, infrastructure resilience, and protection of critical supply chains. The agreement effectively replaces the long-standing 2% benchmark established in 2014, which many allies struggled to meet for over a decade.
The political weight of the decision cannot be overstated. President Donald Trump, who has long criticised European allies for what he calls “freeloading,” hailed the outcome as a personal victory. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, in a now widely circulated message to Trump, described the deal as “your win” — a phrasing that drew both praise and ridicule across European capitals but underscored the political choreography needed to keep Washington engaged with the alliance.
Why the Shift Now?
The acceleration is driven by several converging pressures. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, now grinding into its fourth year, has shattered assumptions about post-Cold War European stability. Intelligence assessments from agencies including Germany’s BND and Denmark’s defence intelligence service warn that Moscow could be capable of mounting a large-scale conventional attack on a NATO member within three to seven years if hostilities in Ukraine subside.
Equally important is the unpredictability of U.S. commitments. As detailed in coverage by Reuters, European officials have been quietly preparing contingency plans for a scenario in which American troop levels on the continent are reduced or repositioned. The combination of external threat and internal uncertainty has produced rare unity among historically divided European governments.
National Responses Vary Widely
Implementation, however, will be uneven. Poland already spends nearly 4.7% of GDP on defence — the highest ratio in the alliance — and has signalled it will reach the 5% threshold well before 2035. The Baltic states, viewing themselves as front-line nations, have similarly announced steep increases. Germany, having abandoned its decades-old fiscal restraint after Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition pushed through constitutional reforms loosening the debt brake for defence, plans to roughly triple its military budget over the next decade.
Southern European countries face a steeper climb. Spain, which negotiated what Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez described as a flexible interpretation of the target, has openly questioned whether 5% is economically sustainable. Italy and Belgium have raised similar concerns. Analysis from the International Institute for Strategic Studies suggests that meeting the target across the alliance will require more than €600 billion in additional annual expenditure by the mid-2030s — sums that will inevitably collide with social spending, climate investments, and debt sustainability rules within the European Union.
Industrial and Strategic Implications
The spending surge is already reshaping Europe’s defence-industrial base. Companies such as Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Leonardo, and Saab have seen order books swell and share prices climb. Brussels has launched the SAFE (Security Action for Europe) instrument, a €150 billion loan facility designed to encourage joint procurement and reduce reliance on non-European suppliers. Yet bottlenecks remain: ammunition production, shipbuilding capacity, and skilled labour shortages threaten to slow delivery timelines.
Strategically, the rearmament also raises difficult questions about command structures, nuclear deterrence, and the future role of the European Union in defence — traditionally a NATO and national prerogative. French President Emmanuel Macron has revived calls for a more autonomous European defence identity, while Eastern European states remain wary of any structure that might dilute the U.S. security umbrella.
What to Watch Next
The next eighteen months will be decisive. Annual NATO assessments will track progress, and member states must submit credible spending trajectories. Domestic political backlash — particularly in countries facing austerity pressures — could test the durability of the pledges. Meanwhile, the trajectory of the war in Ukraine, the outcome of any ceasefire negotiations, and Washington’s evolving posture toward Europe will all shape whether the 5% commitment becomes a transformative reality or another aspirational target lost to political drift.
For more in-depth coverage of geopolitical trends, defence policy, and international affairs, visit science.wide-ranging.com for related articles and analysis.
