NATO allies will meet in The Hague next week and are expected to agree to significantly boost military expenditure, but Madrid is reluctant.

Spain wants a carve-out from NATO’s likely future defense spending goal of 5 percent of GDP, the country’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said ahead of next week’s high-stakes alliance summit in The Hague.

“Spain will continue to fulfil its duty in the years and decades ahead and will continue to actively contribute to the European security architecture. However, Spain cannot commit to a specific spending target in terms of GDP at this summit,” Sánchez told NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in a letter seen by POLITICO.

Spain has the lowest military spending of any NATO member, allocating just 1.3 percent of its GDP to defense in 2024. Sánchez said earlier this year that Russia didn’t pose an immediate security threat to Spain.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      They don’t need a reason, really. 5% of GDP is moronic, the number alone is reason enough to pass. Not 5% of the national budget. 5% of GDP. Insane.

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Spain has to deal with millions of pensioners from across Europe retiring there. Germany was complaining anout the drag on it’s economy when hundreds of thousands of working age Syrians came into the county during the 2010’s. Spain has to spend billions of euros every year caring for residents who don’t work, need extra medical care, and displace actual working people. Their economy is incredibly weak as is, they can’t justify spending 3x what they currently are on their military.

      • Ice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        Every European nation has to deal with waves of retirees leaving the work force. It’s no excuse. The general solution is increasing retirement age & per capita productivity whilst cutting down on government spending in other areas unless they fancy debt financing. Different GDP strengths is exactly why it’s a % goal rather than an absolute amount to keep things fair.

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m not talking about Spanish workers retiring. I’m talking about English and German pensioners moving to Spain to retire. Spain and Greece have become to Florida and Arizona of Europe where they are stuck picking up the tab for people who never contributed to the local economy and are now draining it of resources. The only reason Greece meets their NATO obligations is because they are in an arms race with Turkey. It’s one thing to care for your elderly parents when they start to get older. It’s an entirely different matter when all of a sudden you are expected to care for some elderly couple that you have never met before.

          • Ice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            where they are stuck picking up the tab for people who never contributed to the local economy and are now draining it of resources

            Pensions in the EU are entirely different from how it works in the US. I don’t know how it is there, but here it is the nation you worked in that coughs up the pension money. Additionally, from what I’ve heard from retirees who did move to Spain, they have to pay income tax on their pensions to the Spanish government which means that these people would actually be contributing to the state coffers similarly to someone who was working. So, in other words you have money coming in from abroad, being contributed in taxes and spent on goods & services locally, boosting the economy.

            Besides, the people who can afford to move abroad for retirement usually are the wealthier sort, so not the burden you make it out to be.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      “It doesn’t impact us”. The most shortsighted, idiotic reason possible.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That is not the argument stated in the article

        Sánchez argued that Spain doesn’t need to spend 5 percent of its GDP to fulfill its so-called capability targets, meaning new objectives of weapons inventory agreed by NATO defense ministers earlier this month.

        He also wrote that a 5 percent defense spending goal would jeopardize the country’s welfare system, force the government to increase taxes on the middle class, scale back commitments to the green transition and curtail international development cooperation.

        “It is the legitimate right of every government to decide whether or not they are willing to make those sacrifices,” he wrote.

        Rushing to 5 percent would also force Madrid to buy off-the-shelf equipment instead of fostering its own industrial base, as well as take money away from welfare policies, Sánchez also wrote.

        The Spanish Socialist party is in a coalition with the junior left-wing Sumar party, which opposes increased defense spending and whose members are expected to attend a counter-summit for peace in parallel to the NATO summit.

        • Renohren@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          France is deep in public debt ( if they weren’t in the EU, the world bank and IMF would have already stepped on the breaks) yet still makes the stupid 5% promise because that’s what it is: a statement towards Russia.

          • Synapse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah, Macron and previous governments are also very interested in dismantling entirely the welfare state, all kinds of public services, public healthcare, retirement pensions, culture. Of course he is happy to push the military budget, this will make his rich friends richer and happier. This defense budget and military inventory won’t do any good once it falls into the hands of fascist that are aligned with Putin!

            • Renohren@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              He did nationalise the electric and nuclear giant EDF, the french state did buy a majority share in Eutelsat. So it’s not as clear cut a situation as it seems.

              • Synapse@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                Re-nationalise. First thing he did is to cut the tax for the most wealthy and second is to ask everyone else to work longer for worst retirement pension. And it’s under his presidency and government that the French economy as tanked so low. Not that the predecessor didn’t have their share of the blame, though. In the end, these guys are delighted to have a fresh new excuse to push forward with austerity and ultraliberal measures and cut everything remaining of social en cultural welfare.

      • baldingpudenda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Isn’t that the same reasoning that allowed Hitler to take so much land at the beginning of the war?

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          And the same reason that allowed Putin to take so much land too. Appeasement and the “I don’t care what happens in 10 years” mentality. People are ultimately shortsighted and having a detterrent isn’t popular when it is working (i.e. why do we need to spend so much, there wasn’t a war)

    • koper@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s an absolutely massive amount of money. And it’s not temporary while there’s a war in Ukraine, it’s indefinitely. All because Trump pressured the rest of NATO and wants more money going to his buddies in the weapons industry.

      Even without the US, European NATO countries already spend more than Russia and China (sources from 2024 and 2025). Just how much more should it get?

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        All because Trump pressured the rest of NATO and wants more money they signed an agreement promising to do so.