The leaders of three NATO nations urged allies to sharply increase defence spending, arguing that the alliance was “not ready” for military conflicts, The Independent reported.
Following Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, the leaders of Latvia, Estonia and Finland called on the Alliance to stop “endlessly debating” the Russian threat and reinforce Europe’s defence capabilities instead. Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs stated:
We are not ready. That’s absolutely clear. We can’t keep simply hoping for a situation where the US remains much involved in Europe.
The three countries are the only NATO members that border Russia from the northern tip of Finland to the southeastern part of Latvia. They also spend the most on defence relative to their gross domestic product (GDP).
NATO requires its member states to spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on defence. Until this year, only a third of countries had met the requirement, with experts still warning that spending is too low. In contrast, Russia is projected to spend 6.3 percent of its GDP on defence by the first quarter of 2025.
When Finland, along with Sweden, applied to join NATO in May 2022 and was subsequently admitted to the alliance, NATO’s border with Russia more than doubled. The Finnish armed forces were among the largest in Europe, comprising 280,000 troops who “can be mobilised and armed to the teeth in a week,” President Alexander Stubb said.
We don’t have this because we’re worried about Stockholm or London. We have this because we’re worried about Moscow.
Europe or Indo-Pacific
Trump’s return to the White House highlighted the poor arming of many European NATO members, especially in western Europe. The Republican also threatened that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” with those NATO members who failed to contribute their fair share to the military alliance.
This drew criticism for undermining NATO’s Article 5, which stated that an attack on one was an attack on all. However, Stubb backed Trump, urging the alliance to focus “more on capabilities rather than expenditure.”
Everyone needs to correct their defence deficit. I don’t think that we can have NATO without the United States.
While no European leaders stated that they believed in Trump’s withdrawal from NATO, they feared that the US president-elect would shift his attention to China and the Indo-Pacific region, including the defence of Taiwan.
Experts also noted that if the US moved its resources to the Indo-Pacific without giving Europe time to become more independent, Washington could be dragged back into the European conflict at a much greater cost. Stubb emphasised:
I think it’s in the vested interest of the United States to stay engaged [in Europe]. In any case, I believe that values-based alliances last much longer than interest-based alliances.
Europe’s need for more defence spending is based on support for Ukraine in its war against Russia. For his part, Trump promised to put an end to the prevailing Western philosophy of supporting Kyiv until Russia was completely ousted from Ukrainian territories.
Ukrainian issue
Trump also vowed to ensure an end to the war within 24 hours after assuming the office. However, many leaders voiced concern that this would entail forcing Ukraine to cede some of its lost territories to Russia.
Europe’s inability to defend itself, especially without the US, only emphasises its difficulties in continuing military support for Ukraine. Especially against the backdrop of a lack of visible military gains.
During a meeting in Brussels last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that it would be “impossible” to talk about the successful completion of hostilities if Ukraine received only European security guarantees. According to him, only US-backed guarantees may be enough to ensure sustainable peace.
Meanwhile, his Latvian counterpart Rinkēvičs stressed that Europe’s defence industry was not capable of producing the required volume of armaments.
I would say that currently one of the issues is not only that many nations are not ready to provide Ukraine with arms, it’s the defence industry that is not able to produce at the necessary level. We can provide Ukraine with what we can, but in many cases, we are already at the edge of what we have.
A UK government spokesman reiterated the commitment to Ukraine, pledging to “deliver £3bn a year in military aid to them for as long as it is needed.”
