Published ahead of the NATO summit in The Hague, June 2025.

As NATO leaders prepare for their meeting in The Hague, defence spending is back on the political agenda after many years. This time, however, a major change of course seems to be on the horizon. The 2014 target of spending 2% of GDP on defence is no longer considered ambitious enough. Many allies, whether or not under pressure from the U.S. President, are now calling for a new target of 5%, which would be divided into 3,5% for defence investment and 1,5% for broader resilience, such as cyber defence, infrastructure protection and civil preparedness. The latter in particular has emerged as a top priority in recent months.

Despite the apparent political will behind this proposal, it also becomes clear that not all member states are prepared to act quickly to reach this new target. Several governments support the idea in principle, but on the other hand want to delay its full implementation and redefine what counts towards the 5% and more specifically the second part that includes resilience. Some, for example, want to include the already existing national aid to Ukraine in their calculations. Others suggest that resilience spending can be interpreted broadly to meet the target. As one diplomat recently noted: “Everyone supports the figure. They just want to decide for themselves what goes in and when it starts.”

The above makes it all more important that the 5% target, if decided so in The Hague, to not become a vague, meaningless instrument. If the goal is to make NATO stronger, this must be supported by clear detailed agreements and shared priorities.

Ukraine’s role: a test for NATO unity and values.

The defence budget debate is closely linked to another pressing question, namely Ukraine’s future within NATO. While some voices within the alliance, particularly member states such as the United States, Hungary and Slovakia, urge delaying or blocking Ukraine’s membership, others – mainly NATO’s eastern flank – warn against abandoning those core values.

Lithuania is one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine’s accession. Defence Minister Dovilė Šakalienė recently stated that “Lithuania will never give up on Ukraine’s accession to NATO”. She also made it clear that if someone other than NATO, referring to Moscow, decides who will become a member, the credibility of the alliance will be seriously jeopardized. The message from countries like Lithuania is clear: political pressure or fear of escalation should not influence NATO’s decision-making.

President Zelenskyy’s invitation to attend the summit in The Hague – which was obtained only after strong pressure from several allies – has a strong symbolic importance . It is a strong signal, but it is by no means enough. The alliance must continue to speak with one voice and support Ukraine, not only with weapons and financing, but also with a clear political path to future membership. Or will they buy time here too and continue to postpone decisions?

A new target, but the same gap?

However, let’s dig deeper into the impending defence budget discussion. The proposal to increase defence spending to 5% is in many ways a response to the new reality of modern warfare in 2025. NATO needs to be able to defend its territory, support its partners, and above all, continue to prepare for new forms of conflict, including cyberattacks and hybrid threats. However, there is a risk that this new target will become a political symbol, filled with flexible categories and accounting tricks instead of real commitments.

One example is the idea of including aid to Ukraine in the 5% figure. While it is logical to recognize that aid to Ukraine contributes to European security, it should not replace or weaken national defence efforts. Investments in resilience are also necessary but should not be used to reduce spending on the armed forces themselves. Hence the need to take a clear and comprehensive decision this time.

To avoid confusion and fragmentation, stronger coordination between NATO and the European Union is also needed. Many EU member states struggle with overlapping requirements and complex rules. Better alignment of goals and programs will ensure that both NATO and the EU contribute to a coherent defence policy without overlapping. We may operate under different flags, but each member state has only one-armed force, and a hodgepodge of rules only makes functioning more difficult!

Moreover, any shift towards a 5% target, however it is defined, will have long-term implications on national budgets. Such a significant increase in defence and resilience spending will inevitably shape fiscal priorities across Europe for decades to come.

“This is the moment to seriously reconsider how we invest in our collective defence,” said Emmanuel Jacob, President of EUROMIL. “Instead of continuing with 27 fragmented national defence budgets, shouldn’t we finally begin discussing common European defence investments? If we are setting new long-term spending targets, then let’s make sure they are also tied to greater efficiency and solidarity.”

People need to be part of the equation!

Despite all the summit talks on percentages, many NATO member states are still struggling with the basics: how to attract and retain people for their armed forces? Recruitment is lacking in almost all European countries. Young people are not joining the army in sufficient numbers and experienced personnel are leaving. Morale is low in many places, and this is noticeable in the functioning of many of our armed forces.

Above all, this is not just a temporary problem. It is a long-term risk to operational readiness and today we are seeing with dismay the consequences of the policies pursued in this area over the past decades. Many armed forces are under pressure, not so much because of a lack of technology, but mainly because of a shortage of people. Soldiers are struggling with poor housing, outdated buildings, a high workload, not the right material and equipment and this is often supplemented by limited career opportunities. Their families often receive too little support. Moreover, these problems are not solved by simply increasing budgets. They require a clear political will and decision to invest in the human side of defence!

As EUROMIL we believe that military personnel should be at the heart of any defence policy, both nationally and internationally. Budgets should not only cover weapons and infrastructure, but also fair pay, decent housing, health care, mental health care, family support and career planning.

Defence spending should strengthen confidence, not weaken it!

In recent months, the temptation has grown among some governments to treat the 5% target as a flexible political instrument. There is a real danger that this approach will undermine trust between allies and make it harder to create real security. If some countries inflate their figures by redefining existing spending, as some sources suggest, while others make real sacrifices, the unity of the alliance will suffer.

The upcoming NATO leaders’ meeting in The Hague must show that the target percentage, whatever it is, is not just a number. It is a shared commitment to a credible defence, with mutual responsibility and based on the values on which the alliance is built.

“There is a growing risk that we will continue to talk and decide more about percentages than about people,” said Emmanuel Jacob, President of EUROMIL. “To maintain the credibility of NATO, hand in hand with the EU, the Alliance and its member states must invest in those who promote its values and missions. This means not only investments in systems and structures, but also in soldiers and their families.”

Hence today a repeated clear call from EUROMIL.

Just as EUROMIL did ahead of the Washington D.C. Summit in 2024, we thus once again call on NATO leaders gathering in The Hague not to lose sight of the essentials. While political discussions may focus on new targets and budget figures, we remind decision-makers that percentages alone do not build security, people do. Last year, we stressed the urgent need to address recruitment and retention challenges, invest in the well-being of military personnel, and ensure that defence budgets reflect not only strategic ambitions but also the daily realities faced by those who serve. That message is even more relevant today. If this Summit is to mark a turning point, let it be one that puts people at the center of defence policy.

Increasing defence budgets is undoubtedly necessary. But the much-needed budgets must be spent in a transparent, accountable and balanced way. Support for Ukraine is essential but must be integrated without weakening national long-term planning. Cooperation between NATO and the European Union must be deepened to avoid confusion and inefficiency. And finally, any defence policy must above all include the people who make defence possible.

Safety starts with credibility. But credibility starts with people. Without that human factor, every decision stands or falls!