NATO members renewed a debate on increasing defense spending in Brussels on Wednesday, with the alliance’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, arguing that the current target of 2 percent of GDP should be the minimum. However, this approach is not shared by all member states, dividing NATO into two groups of countries, AFP and EFE write.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought the question of defense budgets back into the spotlight, and it will be one of the central topics of the July NATO summit.

“We have to stop thinking of 2% as a ceiling”

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has insisted for several months that significant investment is needed to modernize the Alliance’s military capabilities.

In particular, he mentioned the replenishment of ammunition stocks depleted by aid to Ukraine and the need for the Alliance to have an industrial capacity that can produce sufficient weapons and ammunition for a high-intensity war like the one taking place in Ukraine, whose army consumes a large amount of ammunition , which is several times higher than the production capacity of NATO countries.

• “We need to stop looking at 2% as a ceiling, we need to look at this 2% as a minimum and more firmly take a long-term perspective.
• When we see the need for munitions, air defense, training, preparation to reach maximum power, it is clear that this 2% for defense is the minimum,” Stoltenberg said on Wednesday, at the end of the meeting of defense ministers from NATO countries, writes Agerpres, referring to EFE and AFP.

“The important thing is that 2% is effective and useful spending”

• “I share this assessment. I believe that simply approaching the 2% target will not be enough. This should be the basis for everything that follows.
• The German government is discussing this now and will soon reach an agreement,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius responded.

The government in Berlin announced in December that it could only promise to meet NATO’s target of 2% of GDP on defense starting in 2025, arguing that the capabilities of the arms industry were preventing it from meeting that target.

According to French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, it is not the budget itself that is allocated to the army that is important, but how these costs are distributed.

• “Besides the issue of 2% of GDP, what is important is that 2% is effective and useful spending,” explained the French minister, who mentioned France’s commitment to make “large investments in its defense at an unprecedented cost of 413 billion euros.”

NATO divided defense money into two groups of countries

But this goal divides NATO countries. Some caution against setting targets that are too ambitious or too rigid, or believe that they are already making a significant contribution through investments in the defense industry or participation in Alliance missions and operations.

The 2% percentage “is good, but we also have to make sure that we have some flexibility because the countries are different,” said Luxembourg Defense Minister Francois Bausch.

According to a senior US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the defense budget issue is dividing NATO into two groups of countries: on the one hand, those that, like the Baltic states and Poland, are pushing for a more ambitious increase. in this distribution, with a target of at least 2.5% of GDP, and on the other side countries such as Canada, Spain, Luxembourg and to some extent Italy, who believe that such a target would not be adapted to their situation.

• “In summary, I think the obvious conclusion is that 2% is not enough.
• And I would say that most allies share this analysis,” the same American official concluded.

At a ministerial meeting that ended on Wednesday, NATO countries began assessing what a new acceptable target for defense budgets might be, with a view to formally endorsing it at a summit in Vilnius in July.

“If Europe fought against Russia, some countries would run out of ammunition in a few days”

The speed of ammunition shipments to Ukraine, where Kyiv’s forces use up to 10,000 rounds a day, has depleted Western stockpiles and exposed problems in supply chains that are not fast enough, efficient and understaffed.

• “If Europe were to fight Russia, some countries would run out of ammunition in a few days,” a European diplomat told Reuters.

NATO recently completed an inventory of remaining ammunition stocks, a NATO official told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Each member state has a target for munitions, and most countries had not met those targets before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the official was quoted as saying.

Stockpiles are now even lower because of the war in Ukraine, so NATO is likely to raise the target level of ammunition stocks in member countries, the source said.

Information about the munitions in each state’s arsenals and the targets each country takes is classified, one of the alliance’s best-kept secrets, Reuters reported.

In general, NATO establishes certain capabilities for each member state that the alliance can use in the event of a conflict. This might mean, for example, that a particular ally might have an armored division—somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 soldiers—fully equipped and supplied with ammunition, capable of fighting at a certain level of intensity for a certain period of time.

Taking into account all these conditions, the respective country will have to provide a certain amount of ammunition, tanks, howitzers and everything else that will be needed to fulfill NATO’s requirements.

The war also drew attention to the lack of industrial capacity needed to rapidly ramp up production, after many production lines had disappeared in recent decades due to reduced orders from governments.