The world is returning to a military race: who spends more on defense?

BarcelonaThis week's annual NATO summit in The Hague focused on one thing—one number—to the exclusion of all other issues. the spending target relative to GDP that Donald Trump demands from all alliesBut the summit raises some questions. Is this 5% an arbitrary figure, or is such a significant increase really necessary in Europe? What is the situation elsewhere? Are these figures factual or easily manipulated and adapted to each country's interests?

On paper, NATO determines which items to include when calculating defense spending. These figures are included in each country's budgets. In fact, official NATO figures, in some cases, differ from those of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the world's leading reference for military spending, or from other sources, highlighting the difficulty. The Delàs Center's defense and military industry budgets assert that "each state can add whatever it wants to defense spending," despite NATO having established criteria for determining how military spending is computed. the costs of paramilitary personnel of the Civil Guard, credits for military R&D, military missions abroad, and debt interest corresponding to total defense spending.

"Until last year, Spain only allocated defense spending for what was recorded in the Ministry of Defense," says Font, because "it wanted to give the impression to the Spanish public that it spent little." "Now, if you want to tell NATO that you spend more, you calculate differently, including items from other ministries. It depends on who you want to address," he adds.

Record defense spending

The NATO summit has served to definitively confirm that The West is immersed in a new militaristic race, which has accelerated a trend that began in 2014 with Russia's annexation of Crimea and the war in the Ukrainian Donbas, which was the first warning of Vladimir Putin's expansionist aspirations. $2.718 billion, the highest global total ever recorded by the Swedish center and the tenth consecutive year of increases. The five countries with the highest military spending in the world are the United States, China, Russia, Germany, and India, which together account for 60% of global military spending.

However, the picture changes if we look at spending relative to the size of each country's economy. In this case, Ukraine stands out clearly, having spent more than three years defending itself against Russian aggression and last year allocating 34% of its GDP to defense, far more than any other country in the world.

The United States is therefore by far the largest contributor to NATO. However, the total military spending in Europe It's accelerating at breakneck speed. Last year, it increased by 17% to $693 billion, with all countries registering an increase, with the sole exception of Malta. Compared to 2014, all European countries have increased defense spending, both in absolute terms and relative to the size of their economies, but the Baltic countries and Poland stand out the most.

Thus, despite Pedro Sánchez's dissident stance in The HagueThe Spanish government is following the general upward trend regarding its defense budget. In 2023, it increased by 23% compared to the previous year, to €14.45 billion, around 1% of GDP. But with NATO now putting pressure on, the government informed the Alliance of expenditures it had not previously included, such as social security and military pensions, military mutual insurance, and participation in military organizations such as NATO, according to the Delàs Center. Thus, spending grew to €17.7 billion, 1.28% of GDP, according to NATO figures. However, the Delàs Center estimates that actual spending is around €28 billion.

5%: A Necessary Target?

However, Spain is the NATO country that spends the least on defense relative to its GDP, and is far from the 5% target. But where did that figure come from? Is it a logical and necessary goal for European security? Domènec Ruiz, senior researcher and CIDOB representative in Brussels, criticizes the "arbitrary" number chosen by Trump and considers it a "very outdated" way of evaluating defense spending. "The important thing is the capability targets, because you can spend a lot and be very inefficient," he concludes.

"It's an illogical position, and I find it surprising that, to please Trump, the other countries have supported it," says the analyst, who argues that all European states should have taken the same position as Spain and not succumb to "articulating the transatlantic relationship in this way." He warns that there is a risk that, in order to achieve the 5% target by any means, "not only social and environmental objectives will be jeopardized, but money will be thrown out the window," which he points out will go, above all, to buying weapons from American companies.

Ruiz points out what many other experts have been saying for some time: that Europe must increase its defense capabilities, but with measures such as improving interoperability between state militaries, joint arms purchases, and the joint development of military capabilities. "It's about spending better, spending together as Europeans and more efficiently," he concludes.