The NATO Summit in The Hague has begun, with one of its most controversial agenda items being the proposed increase in defense and military spending to 5% of GDP for all member states. If adopted, this move would result in over €500 billion in additional annual spending across the alliance. However, the proposal has already sparked strong opposition, especially from voices like Italian MEP Pasquale Tridico of the Five Star Movement (M5S).
“Increasing arms spending does not create conditions for peace. That’s why we are firmly against it,” said Tridico.
Protest Against Military Spending Planned
On June 24, during the summit, the Five Star Movement plans to host a counter-event to protest the proposed increase.
“This reminds us of a dark chapter in European history, when nations pursued security through arms buildup. That didn’t bring peace—it led to war,” Tridico told Newseria.
“Spending 5% of GDP on defense raises serious concerns. How much will be left for education, healthcare, or civil infrastructure? It’s a dangerous situation.”
NATO Proposal: A Decade-Long Spending Target
The proposal under discussion at the summit (June 24–25, 2025) includes a phased plan for NATO members to gradually increase defense spending by 0.2 percentage points per year over seven years, ultimately reaching 3.5% of GDP for military forces. An additional 1.5% of GDP would go toward broader security needs, such as cyber defense, infrastructure projects, and support for Ukraine.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called the proposal “a quantum leap—ambitious and essential for securing the future of allied nations.”
Budget Trade-Off Concerns
Some NATO members, including Spain, have expressed concern that higher defense expenditures could come at the expense of healthcare, pensions, and education. Critics argue that European budgets are already stretched and reallocating resources to reach even 4% of GDP for defense may force governments to scale back essential public services.
Former Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, also of the Five Star Movement, estimates that raising defense budgets to 5% of GDP would almost triple current levels, adding over €500 billion annually. Even the 3.5% target would require an additional €270 billion per year.
Pressure on the EU Budget Rules
As of June, 13 EU countries have formally requested the European Commission to activate a “defense opt-out clause”, which would exempt military spending from standard budgetary rules. More countries are expected to follow after the summit. According to the Five Star Movement, diverting funds away from sectors like health, education, public transport, and SME development could threaten economic and social stability rather than enhance national security.
“Europe was built on peace and the European social model,” Tridico said.
“Progress was made last year through soft power—sanctions, diplomacy, temporary suspensions of cooperation. That approach brought peace. More pressure and intimidation won’t.”
Public Opinion Split on Defense Budgets
According to the Spring 2025 Eurobarometer, 78% of EU citizens are concerned about the Union’s defense and security over the next five years, and 81% support a common EU defense policy—the highest level since 2004.
When asked what areas the EU should prioritize, 39% said security and defense, ahead of the economy (29%), migration (24%), and climate/environment (24%).
A report by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) titled “Guns and Butter” found that nearly 50% of respondents in 12 EU countries support increased military spending. The highest support was recorded in Poland and Denmark (approx. 70%), while the lowest was in Italy (17%).
Another survey by Le Grand Continent found that 43% of Europeans believe defense spending should rise to 5% of GDP to counter external threats—but 34% argued that other public expenditures are more urgent.
A Call for a Return to Helsinki Principles
Tridico concluded with a call to revive the Helsinki approach to diplomacy and peace:
“Back in 1975, in Helsinki, Europe pursued peace through de-escalation and cooperation between opposing blocs. That model worked. We must return to a diplomacy-driven framework, based on dialogue and mutual understanding—not on escalation and rearmament.”
