What's the deal with Nato's new defence plan?
The Nato defence ministers agreed on new capability targets on Thursday. While the details remain confidential, it's clear that there will be a significant rearmament effort. After the meeting US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said that a deal in which Nato members spend the five percent of GDP on defence that Washington has demanded instead of just two percent was within reach.
"Frugal Four" now big spenders
Money is easier to come by when it comes to weapons, Avvenire observes:
“Galvanised by the need to defend Europe, the once thrifty no longer spare any expense. ... Mette Frederiksen, who is still Denmark's prime minister, said this openly on Tuesday: 'Last time, we had a leading role in the Frugal Four. Next time, we'll have a leading role in another group, because things have changed.' ... So weapons first. An idea that the old allies certainly share in the fight for austerity. One of them, the Dutchman Rutte, is now head of Nato and never misses an opportunity to demand that governments spend more on strengthening their armies. Another, the Swede Löfven, leader of the Party of European Socialists, is now a staunch supporter of the rearmament plan.”
Not at the expense of Ukraine
Rzeczpospolita emphasises the importance of aid to Ukraine as part of Nato's defence policy:
“This spending is closely linked to the new contingency plans: a carefully worked out scenario of who should participate in the defence against Russia and how. However, an essential part of these efforts will be support for Ukraine itself. Rutte emphasised that the increase in defence spending won't come at the expense of Western aid for Kyiv. The latter would be supplied separately and will continue for many years to come - as long as the threat from the Kremlin persists.”
Spend the money on modern weapons!
We must learn our lessons from the war in Ukraine, stresses Jyllands-Posten:
“But it's also important that haste doesn't become a vice. This applies both to the management of the planned huge expenditure of public funds and to ensuring that the arrangements actually correspond to today's - and not yesterday's - threat scenario. This is where the experiences of Ukraine come into play. Denmark, through its commendable support of the Ukrainians, has a better insight into the realities on the battlefield than most other countries. We have helped the Ukrainians - and their example can now help us to formulate a defence policy that is not trapped in the logic of the last century.”
Preparing for US withdrawal
Washington has achieved an important intermediate goal, emphasises Corriere della Sera:
“An agreement has been reached on the target for military spending. Five percent of GDP. ... This is the first concrete result that the Trump administration has achieved with regard to relations with Europe. ... The US could now withdraw from Europe - gradually rather than with a traumatic break. This topic will dominate the summit meeting of Nato leaders on 24 and 25 June in The Hague. In the coming months, the European camp will be called upon to redouble its efforts in order to fill the gaps left by the US when the time comes.”
At the climate's expense
Global rearmament jeopardises climate goals, The Guardian points out:
“The rearmament planned by Nato alone could increase greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200m tonnes a year. ... For every dollar invested in new hardware, there is not only a corresponding carbon cost but also an opportunity cost to potential climate action, critics say. ... Spending more money on militaries also reduces resources available for policies aimed at mitigating climate change. This already seems to be the case, with the UK, for example, funding its increase in spending by reducing its overseas aid budget - a move mirrored in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.”