Nato: implications of higher defence spending?
Nato member states will convene for a two-day summit in The Hague next week. The main topic will be to asses the strength of alliance and how its members can achieve the target of five percent of GDP for defence spending, as demanded by US President Donald Trump. Commentators debate how much sense such an increase makes in view of the tight budgets - and how acute the threat is.
No need to panic about Russian attack
Reports have started to come in that Russia is no longer sending all the ammunition and equipment it produces to Ukraine but has begun reinforcing its western borders instead - in particular the border with new Nato member Finland. Delfi calls for calm:
“Right now we're talking about limited shipments of equipment and the expansion of infrastructure. This information doesn't necessarily mean that Russia is preparing an attack. The time factor must also be taken into account. Even if there are aggressive intentions, a conventional attack would take time to prepare - at least one to five years, according to German intelligence. Nonetheless, the Russian preparations must be subject to serious scrutiny.”
Good that Germany is rearming
Helsingin Sanomat praises the German government's plans to increase defence spending:
“At the same time, Germany is building a permanent base in Lithuania where around 5,000 soldiers will be stationed. This move demonstrates Germany's commitment to defending the eastern border. ... Of course it would be better if there were no need to rearm. But the times are what they are. Russia is an aggressor state whose leader sees targets for 'denazification' everywhere but where they really exist: in the mirror. And the President of the United States, the so-called leader of the free world, is doing everything he can to woo his Russian counterpart. So it's good that Germany is rearming.”
Kyiv needs clear pledges
A meeting between Zelensky and Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit would be of strategic importance for Ukraine, insists journalist Vitaly Portnykov in Espresso:
“Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are not looking promising at the moment. Ukraine must reach an agreement with the US - either on further aid, or at least on the purchase of more US weapons. And new sanctions against Russia must be put in place. Even if these sanctions will have little impact on the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war, they would send a signal that the US, at least in economic matters, is prepared to keep its distance from Russia - as long as President Putin continues to cling to his war of attrition against our nation.”
Peace is far more profitable
Ultimately rearmament is about waging war, warns Mladina - casting a suspicious eye at the US:
“The world is heading for World War III. The arms race and military spending is accelerating, military conflicts are escalating. ... Washington has long been planning a major confrontation over shaky world domination and the unpredictable Trump is merely the predictable outcome of this process. But wars never end as planned. They will cause the US to lose its hegemony, and Europe to again suffer the fate of a crumbling continent. The economic impact of the arms race is always a short-lived scam, the costs of war always exceed the benefits of peaceful coexistence between countries.”
Don't focus on abstract goals
The meeting in The Hague should attend to specific requirements, writes Jean-Louis Thiériot, former vice chair of the Armed Forces Committee in the French National Assembly, in Le Figaro:
“Instead of being fixed on the abstract goal of five percent of GDP, we must ask ourselves what our essential requirements really are. The priority is to develop enablers, that is strategic capabilities that currently depend on US resources: observation satellites, particularly radars, ground-to-air defence, command and control centres, deep strike capabilities and strategic transport. It is also vital to develop a powerful and sovereign European industrial base capable of supporting Europe's resurgence.”
Flexibility crucial
The five-percent target will require enormous sacrifices, warns De Volkskrant:
“More defence will come at the expense of social security, healthcare, education and culture, even if tax revenues can be increased at the same time. ... As soon as the target has been achieved or the threat situation changes, European defence and defence budgets must be flexible enough to adjust course. Because just as the Netherlands and Europe have spent far too little on defence for years, based on the naive assumption that the status quo would continue, a country can also reach the point where it is spending too much on defence.”
Thorough analysis should come first
Europe should first carefully examine just how much of a threat Russia poses, De Morgen argues:
“How afraid should we be of a Russia that can no longer even protect its allies and is losing its rogue-state friends one by one? ... We must not be naive here: Putin's imperialist belligerence is real. ... Nevertheless, a thorough analysis of the Russian threat is warranted now that Nato wants to impose insane spending on its member states. An honest assessment would boost support for necessary investments in European defence. ... And it might also save us from incurring excessively crazy costs.”
Breach of taxpayers' trust
Belgium has no money for an increase in defence spending, Le Soir criticises:
“How can anyone dare to commit to such sums without knowing whether and how they can be financed? ... How can anyone dare to travel to a Nato summit with such a threadbare budget? How dare they even set a target for 'mixed' spending - half civilian, half military - of 3.5 to 5 percent of GDP per year when 'not a cent' is available for the 2 percent already promised? ... Spending money you don't have is bad enough, but spending citizens' money without fully informing them beforehand is a breach of trust.”
Pure provocation
Pravda is glad that President Peter Pellegrini immediately contradicted Prime Minister Robert Fico after the latter unexpectedly sparked a debate on neutrality in Slovakia:
“Fico's mention of neutrality confused everyone - there had never been anything like it before. President Pellegrini categorically rejected the idea of neutrality because, in his view, it would cost Slovakia far more than Nato membership. ... According to the president, the prime minister is only provoking. ... So whereas we're supposed to be talking about increasing spending on our security, we're having a non-binding debate about a fictional neutrality that is completely out of the question for us. Fico is catering to voters who reject Nato membership.”