All should support Trump’s proposed 3% spending goal for NATO

OPINION:

Anyone in favor of a strong and secure Europe capable of defending itself, and anyone in favor of an America more capable of meeting national security challenges in the Indo-Pacific, should have absolutely no reason to oppose former President Donald Trump’s recent proposed policy of setting 3% of gross domestic product as the new defense spending target for NATO members.

The United States has been calling on NATO to spend more on its defense for almost 20 years — well before the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Despite accusations from across the pond that the United States isn’t doing enough to support Ukraine, the truth is that Russia likely would not have been so bold in the first place had European members paid their fair share and taken defense more seriously.

European NATO members dwarf Russia in economy and population and can do far more than they have over the last few decades. Europe’s economy is seven times as large as Russia’s, and Europe’s population is five times as large. During the Cold War, European NATO members fielded large and capable militaries essential to the collective defense of Europe, deterring the Soviets from ever attempting an attack on a member of the alliance.

After the Cold War ended, however, spending dropped dramatically and are only now beginning to recover. In 1985, non-U.S. NATO members spent an average of 3.1% of their GDP on defense. By 2015, this had fallen to only 1.3%; by 2022, it had risen to just 1.7%.

Mr. Trump deserves credit for pushing European members of NATO to reach their spending commitments as president. When Mr. Trump took office — roughly three years after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea — only three members of NATO were meeting their commitments. Pressure from Mr. Trump led to a significant increase in spending among NATO members well before Russian leader Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine under the current administration.

Now, both as a result of pressure put on them by Mr. Trump and by the focusing effect the Russian invasion of Ukraine has had, European NATO members have significantly increased their defense spending, and far more of them are now above the current 2% threshold. This is progress, but it isn’t enough.

The European nations that are increasing their investments also deserve praise for doing so. Poland, the Baltic states and the Scandinavian countries stand out for taking their defense spending seriously in recent years and should serve as model members of the alliance. Poland is especially impressive, as it spends 4.12% of its GDP on its military.

Unfortunately, other NATO members are still not spending anywhere near what they need to be. Italy, Spain and Canada are among NATO’s wealthiest members, yet all three still spend well under the required 2% on defense. To its credit, Germany has increased defense spending over the last couple of years, but it will need to do even more to make up for several decades of underinvestment.

Setting 3% as the new threshold would continue this trend, encouraging our allies to spend percentages closer to that of the United States, which has been consistently above 3% since the end of the Cold War. This is especially important because the United States cannot focus all of its attention on Europe, especially given China’s unprecedented economic rise and military buildup. Indeed, a realistic analysis of the current balance of forces and potential threats calls for reallocating U.S. military resources out of Europe and into the Indo-Pacific.

The wealthiest NATO members will be pivotal in this effort. As America focuses more on the challenge posed by China, European NATO members will need to fill the capability gaps left on NATO’s eastern and southern flanks. A good first step in this direction would be adopting Mr. Trump’s proposed 3% policy as the new defense spending minimum.

• Wilson Beaver is a defense policy adviser at The Heritage Foundation. Heritage is listed for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this piece are the author’s and do not reflect any institutional position of Heritage or its board of trustees.