A temporary structure is being erected in preparation for the upcoming NATO Summit on June 10, 2025 in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: VCG

Editor's Note:

The NATO summit is set to take place on Tuesday and Wednesday. Raising defense and security spending among member states to at least 5 percent of GDP is expected to be a central issue at the summit. However, according to NATO's latest estimates, only 22 of its 32 members met the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense in 2024 - making the ambitious 5 percent goal seem unlikely. What kind of pressure would allocating 5 percent of GDP to defense place on Europe? And would a surge in military spending truly enhance European security? In an interview with Global Times (GT) reporter Qian Jiayin, Henk Overbeek (Overbeek), an emeritus professor of international relations at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, discussed these questions.

GT: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently called on NATO members to increase their defense spending, aiming for a broad defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP by 2032 in line with the US target. In light of the tensions and uncertainties caused by US trade policies, what would the implementation of this target mean for European countries?

Overbeek: The implementation of a possible new NATO spending target of 5 percent, to be realized by 2032, would be challenging but not financially impossible, as shown, for example, by Poland. 

However, if all European NATO countries do reach this goal, I do see two other potential problems or risks that could arise. 

One is that formulating such quantitative financial targets is a recipe for inefficiency, waste and even large-scale corruption. If spending money becomes more important than strengthening concrete military capabilities, this opens the door for corporate lobbies and makes procurement officials liable to hasty, unwise or even fraudulent decisions. 

The second problem is the inevitable political struggle over the sources of funding. Will these increased expenditures be financed through debt, or must they be financed out of the current budget? If the latter, will the funds be raised by cutting spending in other areas such as welfare, education or healthcare, or by increasing taxes? And finally, to the extent that they will be funded through taxation, who will be taxed: labor or capital; low to middle income earners or the wealthy?

GT: In a previous interview, you pointed out that achieving strategic autonomy in defense would require political consensus among governments, political elites and the broader public. In your view, how likely is it that such a consensus could be reached?

Overbeek: Well, first, it will be extremely difficult to achieve political consensus on such enormous military spending increases. We see that the far right, which is politically ascendant in many European countries, as well as parts of the left, strongly oppose the idea, and are in many cases quite critical of NATO. 

Center-right and center-left forces are much more supportive but differ on how to finance this additional spending. In such a political landscape, achieving a political consensus for a radical policy change seems to me a very unlikely prospect. And where centrist forces prevail, this will come at the cost of increased public contestation and political polarization.

GT: The US has repeatedly pressured NATO allies to increase their defense spending, even warning that failure to meet the targets could risk losing American security protection. Data shows that all NATO member states have increased their defense budgets to varying degrees in 2024. In your view, does this suggest a passive position for Europe within the transatlantic partnership? How do you perceive the "security protection" that the US provides to Europe?

Overbeek: Leading political circles in Europe have been shocked by the US' turn to unilateralism and by repeated US threats of force withdrawals and reduced security guarantees for European countries, to take effect in the near future. At the moment, European leaders are hoping to buy time by acceding to spending demands. In this way, they hope to keep the US in NATO and to salvage what they can of American "protection." 

In my view, this will not work. The current US government has made it clear that its priorities have moved: Europe is no longer the US' top priority. The inevitable conclusion is that the American security umbrella is leaking and needs to be replaced by an alternative that is shaped by Europe's own security interests which no longer converge with those of the US. 

In other words, European governments will need to develop real strategic autonomy.

GT: Some argue that in order to protect the European continent amid an increasingly volatile global security environment, political leaders must significantly increase defense spending. However, other analyses point out that NATO's continued eastward expansion - departing from the post-Cold War promise of peace - has in fact intensified regional tensions and become a key factor contributing to rising security risks in Europe and beyond. In your view, what is the fundamental cause of the security challenges currently facing Europe?

Overbeek: In my view, the fundamental cause of the current challenges facing Europe is to be found in the transition in the international system from a unipolar US-dominated order with Europe in a subordinate but privileged position as the US' key ally, to a global system with a number of great powers. 

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the dominant neoconservative view in the US has held that Russia's status as a global power must first be weakened. The new US government, however, considers China the main threat and wants to normalize relations with Russia, so that it can concentrate on confronting its "mortal" enemy. 

The Europeans were caught unprepared by this sudden shift in American grand strategy. They have so far not yet been able to develop a coherent and credible strategic posture to deal with these new realities.

GT: The Russia-Ukraine conflict has dragged on for more than three years. Although the two sides have recently resumed negotiations, no substantial breakthroughs have been made on key issues of concern. In May, NATO conducted military exercises near Russia's borders recently. Could such actions further escalate geopolitical tensions? Some believe that Europe is the one paying the price for the Russia-Ukraine conflict. What is your take on this?

Overbeek: The military and financial support for Ukraine and the sanctions imposed on Russia are certainly imposing a heavy economic toll on the Europeans, and the end is not in sight. Unfortunately, none of the parties involved currently seems interested in building a lasting and inclusive peace in Europe. 

The war is more likely to drag on and eventually end in an unstable armistice, with unrest and possible confrontations flaring up intermittently, not just in Ukraine but also in the Baltic states where there are multiple potential sources of tension between the Baltic states, the EU and NATO on one side and Russia on the other.