usatoday24
A few days after the NATO Summit in The Hague is held, the main concern among allied leaders does not revolve around To Ukraine or Russiabut how to prevent Trump from dynamite. The US president has become the axis around which he orbits the transatlantic policy, and in an effort to maintain their support (or at least their neutrality), the organizers have compressed the format less than two days.
What nobody expected was the “bomb” that It had Spain.
Spain and the rearme. Yes, the planned summit has been involved in a strong tension After the firm opposition of the president of the Spanish Government, Pedro Sánchez, to the new objective of military spending that the United States seeks to impose. In a categorical letter sent to the Secretary General of the Alliance, Mark Rutte, Sánchez qualifies “Irrazonable” The claim to raise the 5% defense expense of GDP, a requirement promoted by Trump under the threat of withdrawing US military protection to countries that do not comply.
The Spanish refusal is not symbolic: it calls into question the political foundations of the summit and could dynamite a consensus that It was assured Among the 32 members, at a time of deep uncertainty About him future commitment Washington with European security.
The Spanish model. Sánchez argues that a hurried adoption of such a threshold would have negative consequences both economic and social. In his opinion, fulfilling 5% would force Increase taxes On the middle classes, drastically reduce essential public services and sacrifice high economic impact investments in sectors such as education, health, technological research or ecological transition.
Sánchez and two dangers. The warning according to Spain is double: on the one hand, Budgetwarning of a brake to growth derived with greater indebtedness and inflation. On the other, policypointing out that this sacrifice would fall on structural pillars of the welfare state.
In Your letterthe president also emphasizes that this imposed goal would lead to countries to make hurried military purchases that would only increase the dependency of non -European suppliers and would erode the industrial base of defense of the continent. Beyond the economic, Spain exposes a strategic concern about the Interoperability and operational cohesion Within the alliance if the Member States begin to rearm without a common road map.
Fracture within the alliance. The Financial Times counted that the Spanish position coincides with the resistance of few other members, although most have given their support to the Rutte proposal to reach an expense of 3.5% of GDP in direct defense plus 1.5% in critical infrastructures and cybersecurity, configuring a total equivalent to 5% required by Trumpbut more nuanced.
However, the Negative of Spain It arrives at a time of special institutional fragility: Trump has demonstrated manifest disinterest by multilateral summits, leaving a G7 meeting after disregarding the meetings with Zelenski and showing irritation to Macron to hinder their aspirations on Greenland.
European makeup According to the New York Timesthe (re) flag -bearer definition in the matter of “rearme” has generated a mixture of confusion and discomfort among the defense ministers, many of which are not clear about what can be included or when the objective should be achieved.
The result is, in the words of European analysts, a makeup operation Political: an inflated figure with inaccurate concepts to satisfy Trump without really compromising the economic and social model of several countries. According to Nathalie Toccidirector of the Institute of International Affairs of Italy, “3.5% is real and responds to the needs of NATO, 1.5% is pure theater to calm Trump.”
Without compass club. The scenario also reflects other tensions. The main one: the debate has revealed deep divisions Within the alliance. Some border countries with Russia demand Accelerate spending To dissuade a possible Russian offensive in the next five years, while others (such as Canada, Italy, Spain or Luxembourg) barely have just achieved the 2% target set a decade ago (Spain or that). Germany asks A “realistic commitment” between what is necessary and the feasible, while Luxembourg denounces that the figures should not guide securitybut real capacities.
The Rutte proposal Nor has it managed to clarify whether part of military aid to Ukraine can Computing as an expense Internal defensive, a key aspect for countries that wish to sustain their contribution without weakening their own national capacities. This ambiguity has led to debates about what is considered military investment and what enters the “related” spending category, leaving the land paid to opportunistic interpretationsdouble computations and/or statistical divergences that can erode mutual trust.
Europe under pressure. Even if governments promised to spend more, it is not clear that the defense industry (neither European nor American) can absorb quickly Those funds. The bottleneck It is not just prosecutorbut logistics, industrial and technological. In addition, increasing spending without a common strategy could be translated In precipitated purchasesuncoordinated and focused on external suppliers, aggravating operational fragmentation.
While, I remembered the Times that the Russian threat is still tangible. NATO’s intelligence services estimate that, once the war in Ukraine ends, Moscow could reconstitute an offensive force capable of directing directly to the eastern flank of the alliance within five years. We have already told it, countries as Estonia or Finland consider that There is no time to lose and demand immediate actions. However, the United Kingdom will not reach 3% to 2034 And other allies continue to drag Structural delays that question their real commitment.
The structural challenge. So, Spain, one of the few allied capitals that has not even reached the current threshold of that 2%, is now in the center of a pulse strategic that transcends the budget.
The Sánchez letter raises Two outputs A RUTTE: to be exempt from any new approved objective or allow a flexible formula that volunteers will volunteer the 5%goal. Thus, what is at stake is not only spending, but Shared Defense Model and the principles of balance and proportionality between allies.
Historical Summit. In short, Sanchez’s letter reveals a deep crack between the strategic priorities of the different governments, especially among those who adopt a broad vision of security (which includes social policies, sustainability and development) and those that prioritize rearmament at all costs before the threat of bang United States. If NATO opts for a tax and military imposition logic without political consensus, it runs the risk of fracture the unit Allied precisely at a time when international order claims cohesion, rationality and credibility.
Therefore, the Posture of Spain does not point only to a budget objection, but to a Defense of balance between military security and social stability as a legitimate basis for collective defense. In that context, the Hague Summit could go down in history, not for what is remembered, but for what is omitted so that nothing breaks.
Image | BORN
In Xataka | The “rearme” of Europe has begun in a Volkswagen factory in Germany: instead of cars they will produce tanks
In Xataka | Europe before its time of truth: we have entered the era of “rearme” and the EU has a plan not to be behind
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings