Addressing NATO's Funding Deficit: A Crucial Next Step

The 75-year history of NATO can be summarized in three acts, each marked by threats to Western security.

First, during the Cold War, NATO faced the Soviet threat. In the 1990s and 2000s, Act Two saw NATO deploying troops for the first time in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

From 2014 onwards, Act Three began with Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and ISIS's self-proclaimed caliphate. These events brought armed threats back to the alliance's borders as the United States and its allies were slowly withdrawing from global engagements.

NATO’s next chapter could be shaped by a crisis that has been developing slowly. For more than ten years, allies have consistently spent less on defense while their opponents in the West have been upgrading and strengthening their military forces.

The clearest example of this is seen in Russia’s complete invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Putin is ultimately responsible for Russia's invasion, but experts in Western security policy point out that warnings to strengthen defenses were ignored in favor of financial concerns after the 2008 financial crisis.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (standing, second left) is applauded by the Turkish, British and US leaders at a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council during a NATO summit in Vilnius on July 12, 2023.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky received applause from the leaders of Turkey, Britain, and the United States during a NATO-Ukraine Council meeting at a NATO summit in Vilnius on July 12, 2023.

The applause was captured in a photo by Murat Kula of Anadolu Agency/Getty Images.

During a meeting at the Pentagon in 2012, Rasa Juknevičienė, Lithuania’s defense minister from 2008-2012, was told by US officials that Russia would be able to test NATO by 2019.

Despite this warning, by 2014, only three out of the 30 NATO allies were able to meet the target of spending 2% of GDP on defense. By 2019, this number had only increased to seven.

Juknevičienė, who is now a member of the European Parliament, shared with CNN her thoughts on NATO's approach in the 2010s. She mentioned that NATO was more focused on the war on terror rather than regional threats, leading to low defense spending across the West. This was not only due to budget constraints but also because countries, including the US, were hesitant to provoke Russia.

According to Juknevičienė, this lack of seriousness in NATO's defense strategy allowed Russia to perceive the alliance as weak. As a result, invading Ukraine seemed like a less daunting prospect for Russia.

Underfunding defense budgets over a long period has several consequences. This includes lower troop numbers and poorly maintained equipment. However, in the context of the war in Ukraine, the limited and quickly depleting ammunition stocks for the West to provide to Kyiv have been particularly damaging.

According to John Herbst, the former US ambassador to Ukraine, if allies in Europe had met their 2% target, especially Germany, there would be a greater supply of weapons to offer Ukraine without compromising the defense of their own countries.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accepted the NATO ratification documents from Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in a ceremony held at the US State Department on March 7, 2024.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken receives the NATO ratification documents from Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson during a ceremony at the US State Department on March 7, 2024.

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

“Maybe if there were more weapons there would have been more of a deterrent to Putin,” he added.

NATO's primary role is not to protect Ukraine from invasion since Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Ukraine only expressed its intention to join after the invasion in 2022.

The support provided by NATO allies to Ukraine, including direct military assistance, has highlighted the vulnerability of the alliance due to years of underfunding.

Low military spending not only results in low weapon stocks but also creates a lack of demand, which means private arms companies have no reason to invest in manufacturing weapons. Simply having money is not enough to purchase weapons that are not being produced. On the contrary, Russia has significantly increased its munitions production and has sought additional weapons from Western adversaries like North Korea and Iran.

According to Herbst, it is evident that the US and its allies do not have arms industries that can sufficiently produce equipment for a major-power war.

NATO's members have acknowledged the progress made in meeting the 2% minimum spending commitment. More allies than ever before are stepping up, and this trend is expected to continue leading up to the summit in Washington in May, which will celebrate the 75th anniversary of NATO's creation on April 4, 1949.

NATO officials, who are typically cynical and skeptical, are surprisingly optimistic about the increased focus on spending by many governments, especially in the realm of arms procurement.

The leader of the bloc, Jens Stoltenberg, mentioned in February that 18 member countries are projected to allocate at least 2% of their GDP towards defense spending this year.

Many nations have committed billions of dollars and have also put forth plans to increase the production of ammunition and weapons. However, most of these plans are actually for the long-term as it takes time to construct factories and train personnel.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently toured the location of a future arms factory in Unterluess, Germany. The factory is set to be operated by weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall and is scheduled to start producing munitions in 2025. The visit took place on February 12, 2024.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visits the future site of an arms factory where weapons maker Rheinmetall plans to produce munitions from 2025, in Unterluess, Germany, on February 12, 2024.

NATO allies are faced with a new challenge. It's not just about meeting Ukraine's weapon demands anymore. They also need to figure out how to undo years of neglect in funding their own defenses.

European diplomats, especially those from Baltic countries, often talk about the importance of not just replenishing the weapons shed for Ukraine, but also constructing a brand new shed that requires its own weapons.

Despite the new promises of spending, European defense officials recognize that it will still be a lengthy process to reach the level of ammunition stocks they believe is necessary.

Stoltenberg himself is very aware of this. At a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, he mentioned that NATO could take on a greater role in coordinating military equipment and training for Ukraine. He also emphasized the need for allies to provide more support for Ukraine and rely less on voluntary contributions.

According to Stoltenberg, it is crucial to have a consistent, trustworthy, and predictable security assistance for Ukraine.

Peter Ricketts, the UK’s former ambassador to NATO, shared with CNN that while it's positive to see more countries meeting the 2% mark, it takes time for new funds to translate into actual capability. This becomes a concern as the threat in Europe has escalated, especially with the potential of a future Trump presidency pulling back from Europe.

NATO's situation at 75 is quite unique. On one hand, there is a sense of optimism as countries are more aligned on long-term goals and are willing to invest in them. Central coordination is in place for new initiatives such as rapid response forces, training exercises, and troop deployments.

The alliance has grown even stronger, with Finland and Sweden joining in the past year.

According to Douglas Lute, former US ambassador to NATO, he believes that NATO is in a positive position. Lute stated in an interview with CNN that NATO's territorial border is clearly defined and allies are working together to strengthen it. When asked about Putin's potential for a direct attack, Lute suggested evaluating both his capabilities and intentions. He also noted that Putin has shown respect for NATO's borders.

Old resentments still exist among some allies. There are doubts about whether others will continue to be as generous with defense spending if the Russia-Ukraine war were to come to an end. Even officials from countries that have consistently met their commitments see their counterparts as freeloaders who may not fully understand the lessons of this war happening right at their doorstep.

Editor's P/S:

The article meticulously outlines the history and current challenges faced by NATO, emphasizing the importance of addressing underfunding and strengthening defense capabilities. The invasion of Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of the alliance, highlighting the consequences of years of neglect in defense spending.

NATO's commitment to supporting Ukraine has highlighted the need for greater coordination and increased production of weapons and ammunition. While optimism prevails among allies, concerns remain about the long-term sustainability of defense spending and the potential for future threats. The article underscores the importance of addressing these challenges to ensure the resilience and effectiveness of NATO in the face of evolving security threats.