NATO 5% Defense Pledge Won't Make The Kremlin Shake In Its Boots

2025-06-25 09:01:12

(MENAFN- Asia Times) NATO has sort of agreed to raise defense spending to 5% of Gross Domestic Produc , although Spain has openly balked and has refused to do so.

This sort of NATO target does not require unanimous agreement because it isn't mandatory. That means each NATO member will try to reach the goal, or not at all in the case of Spain, but there is no penalty if they do not.

NATO's secretary general said that NATO will check on national defense contributions in 2029, or more than four years in the future. That should not make the Kremlin shake in its boots.

NATO also reaffirmed its commitment to collective defense, which is already agreed in the NATO Charter, mostly Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. President Trump, on board Air Force One on his way to the NATO meeting, said there are different ways to interpret Article 5, adding that it is up to the US President (and all the other NATO members) to decide for themselves (a) whether to respond and (b) how to respond to any attack on a NATO member.

One of the worries in the US and elsewhere is that a NATO member will provoke the Russians, leading to a declaration under Article 5. Trump's big caveat, already part of the language of Article 5 in any case, was intended to make clear that Article 5 is subject to interpretation and is not an automatic obligation under the NATO Treaty.

Here is the key language:

Article 6 of the NATO Treaty says that an attack on a NATO member can include: an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Neither Article 5 nor Article 6 defines an attack as restricted to a nation-state, so a terrorist attack could be (and, in one case, was) interpreted under Article 6. When 9/11 happened in the United States, the US asked NATO to support it under Article 5. NATO dithered for some weeks, and finally sent some AWACS planes to fly around the US for no appreciable purpose. End of story. Other terrorist attacks in Europe have not led to any declarations under either article.

Multinational AWCS crew in 9/11 (NATO photo).

There is a good reason why Article 5 has not been declared. Imagine that Turkey declares it has been attacked by Iraq, supporting the Kurds. Would NATO join Turkey to fight the Kurds and Iraq? Not exactly.

President Truman signs the NATO Treaty.

In fact, the language of Article 6, which tries to define the scope of what is meant by an attack, is wonky in the extreme, and out of date to boot. It ought to be rewritten, but that is unlikely given the rumble of dissent and unhappiness within NATO itself.

Beyond the actual treaty language and the alleged obligations under it, the bigger question is whether the NATO alliance really will be able to boost defense spending meaningfully. The major issues are: (1) affordability; (2) industrial base; (3) manpower.

MENAFN25062025000159011032ID1109725231

Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.