Trump's Bluff? NATO partners are already maneuvering to wriggle out of the 5% military spending limit.

BrusselsThe NATO summit in The Hague was a major political victory for Donald TrumpHe returned to Washington with a swollen ego and a 5% military spending target of gross domestic product (GDP). Except for Pedro Sánchez, all European leaders laughed at him and bowed to his demands without even a second thought. However, just days after the agreement, several Atlantic allies are already looking for ways to spend less than the Pentagon demands and achieve the agreed military spending percentages through various tricks.

The case that has raised the most controversy so far is Italy. Giorgia Meloni's government wants the bridge over the Strait of Messina, which would link Calabria with Sicily, to be considered a strategic infrastructure for security and, therefore, for its cost to be counted as military expenditure. This maneuver would allow Italy to substantially and suddenly increase the percentage of its GDP spent on defense, since the bridge is estimated to cost around €13 billion, and the Italian country currently spends €32 billion a year on security, according to NATO data.

The Italian far-right government's justification is that it is a military infrastructure because there are several military bases in Sicily operated by NATO, such as the Sigonella air base, and in the event of an attack they could be activated for the security of the Atlantic Alliance. However, it would be an infrastructure for eminently civilian use: it could carry six million cars and 60,000 trains per year, according to calculations by the bridge's design firm, Webuild Group. However, this is a construction that Rome has been considering for decades and has never quite gotten off the ground, although it would be a good way for Meloni to reach Trump's spending percentages.

Another ally already backtracking is Slovenia, which has directly asserted that it does not intend to reach 5%. Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob recalled in a television interview on Tuesday that the conclusions of the NATO summit in The Hague were reached by consensus, not by vote. Therefore, he believes the commitment to achieving minimum military spending is not binding. In fact, the Slovenian leader, who is a Socialist, asserted that his position is "identical" to that of the Spanish government and insisted that he would only comply with the target of allocating 3% of GDP to defense by 2030, as approved by the Slovenian Parliament.

Sánchez has consistently maintained that Spain military spending would remain at 2.1% And in no case would it reach the percentages imposed by the Pentagon. However, he did not veto the conclusions of the NATO summit and maintains that, despite spending less money than the rest of the allies, he will reach the level of military capabilities that corresponds proportionally. These are calculations that neither the rest of the allies nor the Atlantic Alliance fully believe, and that is why Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever ironically stated that if Sánchez achieves it, he will be a "genius."

In fact, the leader of Belgium, one of the Atlantic allies most reluctant to rearmament, is also one of those who has always been ambiguous about the commitment to achieving NATO's minimum military spending. The NATO allies claim that Belgium's "budgetary situation" does not allow it to achieve 5% "either in the short or long term." Belgium spends a lot of money on defense due to tensions with Turkey, another NATO partner.

The backtracking of several countries shows that the NATO allies' commitment to minimum military spending is purely political in nature. In no case is there a court that, as is the case in the European Union, compels partners to comply with treaties. However, Trump's pressure to compel European allies to comply with agreements is very powerful, and on more than one occasion, during the war in Ukraine, he has threatened to withhold protection if they are victims of an attack. In the specific case of Spain, for example, the New York magnate even threatened trade retaliation.

It is in this context that we understand the willingness of European allies to please Trump even if they ultimately fall short of the 5% target imposed by the White House, a completely inflated figure. Beyond the statements against complying with the conclusions, it is worth remembering that the 1.5% of the 5% minimum may include broader security concepts than those previously considered, such as the fight against terrorism or cyberattacks. In other words, in reality, the allies must achieve 3.5% of traditional military spending—still one and a half percentage points above the NATO average—but Trump has used this to sell the US on the fact that he has managed to impose the 5% target he had promised on Europe.