Across European capitals, the writing is on the wall for unity on defence spending.
Finland’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines recently, while Spain and Italy resist the push for higher NATO defence spending targets.
The European Union now confronts a clear choice. Member states can either work together to meet rising security threats or watch their defence cooperation fall apart.
The growing rift between Nordic resolve and Mediterranean reluctance endangers the bloc’s credibility at a time when Russia’s war effort demands a unified response.
Security Threats Drive Northern European Decisions
Finland’s withdrawal from the landmine treaty is pure strategic calculation.
The country shares a 1,340-kilometre border with Russia and recognises that wide terrain requires every defensive tool available. Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Polish governments have made similar decisions, proving that frontline states take security threats seriously.
President Alexander Stubb defended the move. "We have as our neighbouring country an aggressive, imperialist state called Russia," he said.
Finland's Defence Minister Antti Hakkanen added that "protection against the Russian threat takes priority."
Mediterranean States Baulk at Spending Increases
Spain and Italy take a different stance on defence spending obligations.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez warned that committing to NATO's proposed 5 percent GDP target would be "unreasonable" and "counterproductive."
Spain currently allocates merely 1.28 percent of GDP to defence: the lowest among NATO members.
Italy encounters similar pressures. Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti hopes to reach the current 2 percent target through creative accounting that includes civil infrastructure costs. Italian officials privately question whether NATO and the European Commission will accept these accounting tricks.
Economic Constraints Versus Security Needs
Spain and Italy contend that higher defence spending would damage their welfare systems and force tax increases on the middle class.Â
Sánchez maintains that rushing to meet the 5 percent target would force EU states to buy equipment from outside the bloc, undermining European defence industrial capabilities.
Under current fiscal rules, Italian Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti called EU budget rules “stupid and senseless” for penalising countries under deficit procedures.Â
Italy seeks to avoid breaching planned deficit reduction targets while still meeting defence spending obligations.
Budget Rules Need Urgent Reform
The European Commission has proposed allowing member states to raise defence spending by 1.5 percent of GDP annually without triggering deficit procedures.
However, countries already under EU infringement procedures cannot use such flexibility, building a two-tier system that punishes highly indebted states.
However, Italy has a preferred option: issue common EU debt to finance higher defence spending. Such a plan would require support from other bloc members, especially Germany and the Netherlands, who traditionally oppose debt mutualisation.
Political Opposition Complicates Decisions
With domestic coalitions under pressure, defence spending increases become harder to achieve. Spain’s Socialist government partners with the left-wing Sumar party, which opposes increased military expenditure.Â
The Podemos party, often a parliamentary ally, also rejected the spending hike.
Italy's defence spending push has become politically toxic amid a new round of austerity measures. The broad European rearmament push remains hugely unpopular among Italian voters confronting economic hardship.
Consensus Requirements Grant Leverage Powers
NATO’s consensus-based decision-making gives individual members veto power over alliance agreements. Spain insists it will not block other allies from agreeing to higher targets but wants either flexible wording or a proper carve-out for itself.
One senior European official told Reuters that Spain's position "doesn't look good" but negotiations persist. "Spain has demonstrated to be a steadfast ally so far," the official added.
Critics Oppose Fragmented Methods
Opponents of flexible defence spending targets contend that the EU cannot afford a patchwork method to security. With Trump demanding higher NATO contributions and Russia maintaining aggressive postures, European unity on defence becomes more pressing than ever.
The Nordic and Baltic states’ willingness to withdraw from humanitarian treaties proves their commitment to defending themselves. Their actions make Southern European reluctance look like free-riding on others’ security guarantees.
Common Funding Offers Best Way Ahead
In light of these divisions, the EU should establish common defence bonds to fund increased military spending across the bloc.
Such a method would spread costs fairly while avoiding the political troubles individual governments encounter in raising defence budgets.
Joint procurement programmes could help European defence industries compete with American manufacturers. The EU’s recent joint ammunition purchases for Ukraine prove how collective action can work when political will exists.
Time for European Strategic Autonomy
Europe’s security cannot depend on accounting tricks or political compromises.
Finland’s landmine treaty withdrawal proves that some threats require hard choices. The country’s parliament voted 157 to 18 to prioritise security over international humanitarian commitments.
Spain and Italy should recognise that their Mediterranean location does not insulate them from broader European security problems. Hybrid warfare tactics, migration pressures, and cyber attacks affect all EU members regardless of geography.
Keep up with Daily Euro Times for more updates!
Read also:
Finland to Dubai: Exploring Two Models of Well-Being
Iceland and the EU: A New Stage in Strategic Partnership
Defence: NATO’s New Strategy in Eastern Europe
