Nato: the 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 how well the alliance is positioned in security matters and how countries can achieve the target of five percent of GDP for defence spending demanded by US President Donald Trump. Commentators debate whether such an increase makes sense in view of tight finances.
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.”