The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a cornerstone of global security since the end of World War II, is facing an unprecedented challenge as its member nations are divided over defense spending targets, largely due to pressure from former U.S. President Donald Trump. According to Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary-general and now a distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, Trump’s demands have split the alliance’s European nations into three distinct groupings. This division underscores the growing tension within NATO, as member states grapple with balancing their own national security priorities with the expectations of their allies, particularly the United States.
The first group, which Grand describes as “relatively small,” includes the Baltic nations—such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—and Poland. These countries are already spending nearly 5 percent of their GDP on defense, a figure that exceeds the alliance’s official target of 2 percent. This high level of spending is driven by their geopolitical reality: they are situated on NATO’s eastern frontier, directly adjacent to Russia, and therefore perceive a significant threat from Russian aggression under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. As a result, these nations are not only willing but also feel compelled to meet the higher spending threshold to deter Russia and, as Grand puts it, “pay the price” to keep the United States invested in the alliance. For these countries, the cost of defense is seen as a necessary expense to ensure their security and sovereignty in the face of an increasingly assertive Russia.
Giedrimas Jeglinskas, another former NATO assistant secretary-general who now chairs the Lithuanian parliament’s Committee on National Security and Defense, echoes this sentiment. He argues that the 5 percent figure is not unreasonable, particularly for countries on NATO’s eastern flank. “In the eastern frontier of NATO, I think that makes sense,” he said, highlighting the unique challenges these nations face. From their perspective, the 5 percent target is not an arbitrary number but a reflection of the real and present danger posed by Russia. This viewpoint is rooted in their historical experiences and the ongoing tensions with their eastern neighbor, which have only intensified since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its ongoing involvement in Ukraine.
The second group within NATO consists of countries such as the Nordic nations (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland) and the United Kingdom. These nations have defense budgets that already exceed 2 percent of GDP, and they are open to increasing their spending further, potentially up to 3 or even 3.5 percent. However, as Grand notes, they are not willing to “blindly say yes to 5 percent.” While they acknowledge the importance of strengthening NATO’s collective defense capabilities, they also believe that defense spending should be rooted in a realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation rather than an arbitrary target. For these countries, the decision to increase defense spending is more nuanced, balancing their commitment to the alliance with their own national priorities and budgetary constraints.
The third and final group includes Southern European countries, such as Spain, Italy, and Portugal, which are more resistant to increasing their defense spending. Unlike the Baltic states and Poland, these nations do not face an immediate threat from Russia and are more focused on addressing non-traditional security challenges, such as migration and terrorism. As a result, they are less inclined to allocate additional resources to defense, preferring instead to invest in other areas that they believe are more critical to their national security and economic well-being. This divergence in priorities has led to inevitable tensions within the alliance, as the United States and other nations pressure these countries to contribute more to the collective defense effort.
The division within NATO over defense spending raises important questions about the alliance’s future and its ability to maintain unity in the face of diverse national interests and security concerns. While the alliance has historically been able to overcome internal disagreements, the pressure from the United States to meet the 5 percent target has exposed deep fissures within the organization. For the Baltic states and Poland, meeting this target is a matter of existential importance, given their proximity to Russia. For other nations, such as Germany and France, which have significant defense budgets but have traditionally been more cautious about military spending, the issue is more complex. These countries are torn between their commitment to the alliance and their desire to prioritize other areas of national spending.
In response to these challenges, some experts have suggested that NATO adopt a more flexible approach to burden-sharing, one that takes into account the diverse security priorities and economic realities of its member states. Grand proposes that the alliance could, for example, allow countries to contribute to collective defense in ways that go beyond direct military spending, such as through investments in cybersecurity, infrastructure, or other forms of support. By broadening the definition of defense spending, NATO could create a more equitable and sustainable system that acknowledges the different roles that member states can play in maintaining the alliance’s overall security.
Ultimately, the debate over defense spending within NATO highlights the broader challenges that the alliance faces in maintaining its relevance and cohesion in a rapidly changing global security landscape. While the United States has historically served as the backbone of NATO, the Trump administration’s demands for increased contributions from European allies have underscored the growing tensions between the two sides of the Atlantic. As NATO looks to the future, it will need to find a way to balance the competing interests and priorities of its member states, ensuring that the alliance remains a united and effective force in addressing the complex security challenges of the 21st century.
In conclusion, the division within NATO over defense spending is a symptom of a broader issue: the challenge of maintaining unity and purpose in a alliance that spans multiple continents and includes nations with vastly different security concerns and economic capabilities. While the immediate focus is on meeting the 2 percent target, the deeper question is how to ensure that NATO continues to serve as a credible and cohesive alliance in the years to come. By engaging in open and honest dialogue, embracing flexibility, and recognizing the diverse contributions that member states can make, NATO can work towards a more sustainable and equitable approach to burden-sharing—one that strengthens the alliance for the challenges ahead.
