A mere figure to please Trump

The commitment of NATO countries, with the ambiguous exception of Spain, to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP —not a tenth more or less—is merely a response to Donald Trump's threats. The declaration signed this week by the Alliance's leaders sets the 5% target to be achieved over the next ten years; it could just as easily be stated as 4.5%, 6%... or 10%, since beyond percentages, the key to NATO's functioning are the so-called capability objectives that each member must meet. And all countries attended The Hague summit with their homework set out: on June 5, the allocation of trained—and equipped—military capabilities and forces to each ally was agreed upon so that the Alliance could respond to any crisis.

The capability objectives, contained in a secret document for obvious security reasons, are reviewed every four years. They are designed based on plausible scenarios, taking into account current geopolitics. The latest, valid until 2029, focuses on cyberspace, hybrid threats, and disinformation, without forgetting the Russian threat on the eastern flank. The goal is for each country to have ground units, logistical support, air defense, intelligence systems, and ammunition reserves, among a host of elements, to address threats in a cohesive manner.

The key to NATO is the capability targets that countries must meet, regardless of the 5%.

While the objectives assigned to Spain are not clear—some military sources point to a 30% increase in military capacity, others to strengthening missile defense or the availability of divisions for rapid deployment—what has emerged is that the government is clear that it can meet these targets by allocating 2.1% of GDP. Hence, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, in a press conference, argued that this figure did not come from the Moncloa Palace, but from the armed forces. Alliance sources, much less optimistic than Sánchez, raise this figure to 3.5% of Spanish GDP.

And here lies the key to the hypocritical dilemma of the figures. If NATO's calculations were met, with Spain achieving 100% of its capability targets with 3.5% of GDP, why try to invest another 1.5% in military spending just to please the President of the United States? What's more, if the government were to meet its target of 2.1%, it would have to allocate another 2.9% to defense at a time when the Spanish military industry would be unable—as major companies acknowledge—to absorb such a massive outpouring of millions. Indra, Airbus, and Navantia have no qualms about admitting that a possible "compulsive buying spree" to achieve the 5% target would entail the main risk of having to resort to non-EU businesses—the US being the main beneficiary—which would deepen Europe's enormous dependence. Specifically, Spain faces two major concerns in this growing sector: a weak supply chain due to a shortage of raw materials and a serious shortage of qualified personnel.

When the capability targets are reviewed, it will be necessary to assess whether the allies have met their targets—and how much of their GDP they have dedicated to achieving them. This will open up a new scenario in which, given the turbulent geopolitics, no one doubts that the needs to respond to threats will increase. And in this context, the 2.1% proposed by Spain falls far short.