NATO Adopts Ambitious 5% Defence Spending Target. Spain Pushes Back.

When NATO leaders convened in mid-2025, few anticipated that the alliance would set one of its most ambitious defence spending benchmarks in history.
The decision to raise the collective target from the long-standing 2% of GDP to an unprecedented 5% by 2035 marks a watershed moment for the Western security bloc.
Yet, within hours of the announcement, Spain openly rejected the target, signaling that not all members are ready or willing to follow this new trajectory.

From 2% to 5%: A Historic Leap

For decades, NATO’s 2% guideline on defence spending served as the baseline measure of allied commitment. While some states—such as the United States,
the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Baltic countries—consistently met or exceeded the target, many lagged behind. Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine
in 2022 changed the calculus dramatically.

By 2024, most allies had already crossed the 2% threshold. Discussions in 2025 reflected a consensus that NATO required far more resources to deter aggression
on its eastern flank, to sustain military aid to Ukraine, and to keep pace with technological advances in warfare—from hypersonic weapons to cyber capabilities.

The 5% benchmark is not merely symbolic. It reflects a recognition that modern defence requires sustained investment across multiple domains:
land, air, sea, cyber, and space. It also signals NATO’s intention to project long-term credibility both to adversaries and to partners in the Indo-Pacific,
where cooperation with Japan, South Korea, and Australia is expanding.

Spain’s Defiance

Spain’s immediate response stood out in contrast to the majority of NATO capitals. Madrid made clear that it would not adhere to the 5% rule,
arguing that the target is economically unsustainable and politically unjustifiable to Spanish citizens.

Spain currently spends just above 1.3% of GDP on defence—one of the lowest levels within NATO. Even doubling or tripling this figure would pose
significant fiscal challenges for a country still recovering from economic pressures linked to the pandemic, inflation, and structural unemployment.
To Madrid, the jump to 5% represents an unrealistic burden that risks undermining domestic stability.

Spanish officials also stress that military readiness should not be measured solely by spending ratios. They highlight Spain’s contributions in other areas:
hosting U.S. naval assets at Rota, providing air policing in the Baltics, and engaging in NATO missions in the Mediterranean and Africa. From Madrid’s perspective,
solidarity should not be reduced to a GDP percentage.

Diverging Perspectives Within the Alliance

While Spain resists, several allies have embraced the 5% goal as both necessary and achievable. Poland, for instance, has already increased its defence budget
to nearly 4.7% of GDP, driven by the perceived existential threat from Russia. The Baltic states and Finland, now a full NATO member, echo similar concerns and are
investing heavily in air defence, artillery, and troop readiness.

Germany, after years of criticism for under-spending, has accelerated procurement with new legislation designed to bypass bureaucratic hurdles.
The United States, still the cornerstone of NATO, spends well above 3.5% of GDP and has encouraged Europe to take on a larger share of the collective burden.

• Eastern flank priorities: Air defence, long-range fires, and readiness.
• Industrial base revival: Ammunition output, shipyards, and aerospace supply chains.
• Emerging domains: Cyber resilience, space-based ISR, and counter-UAS.

Strategic Implications

The adoption of the 5% target is more than a budgetary debate—it is a strategic signal. For Moscow, it demonstrates that NATO is not only united
but also prepared to invest heavily in long-term deterrence. For Beijing, it indicates that the Euro-Atlantic alliance is serious about sustaining
global relevance, even as China expands its military reach.

At the same time, the Spain episode reveals the risks of overreach. If targets are perceived as unattainable, they may foster division rather than cohesion.
NATO’s strength has always relied on consensus and collective resolve. Setting a bar that some members openly refuse to accept may undermine unity.

The Road Ahead

The coming decade will test whether NATO can translate the 5% pledge into tangible capability gains without fracturing political cohesion.
Spain may not be the only member to resist, and debates are likely to intensify in southern Europe, where economic constraints weigh heavily.

For now, the decision highlights both NATO’s determination and its internal strains. On the one hand, the alliance is adapting to a harsher strategic
environment with bold measures. On the other, it must find ways to reconcile ambition with realism, ensuring that defence commitments strengthen
rather than splinter the alliance.