5% GDP Goal - pro war

➡️ NATO's 5% SPENDING PLEDGE - Pro-War Rearmament

At the recent Nato summit in The Hague in June 2025, all members of Nato, with the exception of Spain, agreed to increase their defence spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.

This decision represents a massive paradigm shift in national security and budget policies. Even Nato's current 2% target, which many Nato members already fail to meet, is socially and politically controversial.

Jump straight to our resources on ➡️ NATO's 5% Spending Pledge

Explore our comprehensive guides on -

• NATO's 2025 Hague Summit and Previous NATO Summits

• Guides to NATO & the Military

• EU Special Debts for Rearmament

• The Arms Trade, the Arms Industry & Profiteers of War

• The Russian Invasion of Ukraine

• Israel's War on Gaza

• Guide to the Presidency of Donald Trump

• Conflict Regions & Fragile States

German speakers can visit our German site Bessere Welt Info for a guide to Nato's 5% Spending Pledge from a German perspective.

The move comes after intense pressure from Trump, who has previously threatened to withdraw from Nato unless other members increase their contributions. He has accused the EU of using the U.S. as a 'security blanket', stating that they take on an unfair financial burden in comparison to the other allies.

The increase to 5% will be comprised of 3.5% in traditional defence spending and the remaining 1.5% made up of vague broader spending, which may include infrastructure, energy security, cyber defences, and economic resilience.

The UK currently spends 2.3% of GDP on defence, which is expected to total £56.9 billion for the 2024/25 financial year. This massive increase in spending comes as the UK struggles with weak economic growth, rising borrowing costs, and public concern about further cuts to social spending. As NHS waiting times sit at their longest ever recorded, and 4.5 million children live in poverty, this increase is alarming.

By comparison, Poland at 4.7% is currently the highest contributor to Nato in terms of percentage of GDP. In monetary terms, the USA's contributions dwarf those of other countries, with investments of $967 billion in 2024. The second-highest figure comes from Germany, at $83.9 billion.

Consequences of Rearmament

Nato's Secretary-General Mark Rutte claims that the expenditure increases will guarantee the citizens of Nato countries freedom and security but experts and history tells us that increased military expenditure leads to instability, increased geopolitical tensions, longer and more frequent wars, massive cuts to social spending, dwindling trust in democratic institutions, suffering and death.

It is not just the vulnerable at home who suffer, aid and humanitarian budgets are already being cut as countries depart from their commitments to international development. Social inequalities in all aspects of society will widen as a result. The impacts on our ability to meet the Sustainable Development Goals remain to be seen, but even before the Nato expenditure increases were announced, the goals were failing.

Global military operations also contribute 5.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating the climate crisis. More weapons and more wars will increase this figure even further and push urgency towards climate action even further down the agenda.

Massive pushes for rearmament will also create a new arms race, not only with potential adversaries, but also within Europe itself. The danger of even further military escalation cannot be ignored, especially in this current fragile geopolitical environment where the need for trust and diplomatic relations is more urgent than ever.

Critics have also pointed out the poor efficiency of previous defence spending. History shows us that increases in funding do not guarantee greater operational readiness or modernisation of troops. Structural reforms, acceleration of procurement procedures, and strategic planning are often lacking.

The potential reintroduction of conscription is also likely to lead to massive social tensions in the future, as well as the gigantic pools of national debt that future generations will inherit.

In general, citizens do support strengthening defence, however, massive military expenditure increases will come at a cost to other areas of society. In a time of multiple crises - climate change, housing shortages, refugee influxes, massive humanitarian needs, weak economies – shifts in the national budget are highly controversial.

Note: In October 1997, the founder of this website, Dr. Norbert Stute, calculated what else could be financed with the €15 billion spent on the controversial Eurofighter project. If inflation is taken into account, six new Eurofighter projects worth €25 billion each could easily be launched each year in the future. The roll-call vote in the Bundestag on the procurement of the Eurofighter in November 1997 was a close call (during the Kohl V cabinet at the time). Interestingly, the majority of the SPD, Greens, and PDS were against it, while the CDU/CSU and FDP were in favor. - Please send interview requests to Norbert [at] besserewelt [dot] info (Norbert[at]besserewelt[dot]info).

International Perspectives on Rearmament

Some Nato members, such as Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia, welcomed the increase to 5%. In 2024, Poland already spent nearly 4.7% of its GDP on defence, driven by the war in neighbouring Ukraine and its goal to become a leading Nato state on the eastern flank. The Polish Defence Minister described higher military spending as "inevitable" if Europe wants to remain defensible. The Baltic states expressed similar views. Sweden, the newest Nato member, also aims for a gradual increase, seeing this as "a clear message to potential adversaries."

In Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, however, there are heavily critical voices of the 5% target. Under the condemnation of Trump, Spain rejected the proposal, declaring it "unreasonable", "counterproductive", and "unsustainable for a social market economy." This move by Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez showed other countries that they do not have to bow down to the warmongering demands of huge powers like Trump and Nato, especially if it is at the expense of your own country's best interests.

Outside of Nato, China currently allocates 1.7% of its GDP to defence, which is significantly lower than the new Nato target. Nevertheless, their figures are high, and with a defence budget of over $300 billion, China is one of the world's largest military powers. Their strategy for the coming years is to increase investments in technological modernisation, strategic partnerships, and expand its maritime presence in the Indo-Pacific.

Russia currently spends a huge 7% of its GDP on defence, partly in response to the war in Ukraine, and also as part of a long-term arms buildup. Given the lack of transparency in Russian budgets, there is uncertainty surrounding the reliability of this figure; however, Russia's military strength is driving Eastern European states to rearm and Nato leaders to pursue tougher goals.

From the scaremongering playbook, former Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently gave these words of caution - "If Russia spends twice as much as we do in just a few years, we'll lose our balance." If we look at the absolute figures, Nato as a whole currently spends more than ten times what Russia spends on its military budget.

In 2024, Nato countries collectively spent a total of $1.3 trillion, with $900 billion invested by the U.S. alone. Russia's military spending that year amounted to $150 billion.

Alternatives to Rampant Military Spending

Given new threats, in particular, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, it is understandable that Nato wishes to upgrade its equipment and preparedness. Instead of a blanket tripling of the defence budget at the expense of welfare, targeted, responsibly managed investments would be far more sensible. Investments, for example, in common security, cyber defence, technological innovation, modern drones, European defence cooperation, and the resilience of critical infrastructure.

Reforming the procurement system, reducing bureaucracy, and strengthening member cooperation in armament projects, troop structures, and logistics could save billions while simultaneously increasing operational readiness.

Nato should assume more international responsibility in key peacekeeping areas such as diplomacy, civil conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and development cooperation to avoid the need for military intervention in the first place.

Nato and the world need to rethink the concept of security, away from military solutions and towards cooperation, tolerance, and securing peace.

Prominent German peace activist Jürgen Grässlin has for many years advocated for the concept of "Five for Peace". Based on disarmament, it proposes that countries set an example by reducing their military spending annually by 5%. This gives other countries the opportunity to follow suit, reducing the risk of escalation, threats, and freeing up money for important societal needs. The proposal is in stark contrast to the endless spiral of proliferation, posturing, and a new arms race.

Leaders need to wake up and understand that security is not achieved solely through military spending and capability, it also requires social stability, a strong economy, and a commitment to democracy. Nato's current course seriously threatens the balance between these three pillars.

Better World Info is an open platform – We invite experts, NGOs, campaigners, and activists to contribute their knowledge and top resources! We are a constantly expanding, work-in-progress, committed to spreading reliable, critical, and investigative resources to help create an informed, knowledgeable, and curious world.

Author: Maximilian Stark 26.06.25, translated and edited by Rachael Mellor 30.06.25 licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

For further reading on Nato's 5% Spending Pledge see below ⬇️