With the re-election of former U.S. President Donald Trump, NATO’s dynamics and expectations around defence spending gained heightened attention, especially among new member states that were once part of the Soviet bloc (and some who appear to express nostalgia for the days of the Cold War).
As nations like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic States integrated into NATO, they committed to the alliance’s collective defence principles, which included pledges on military spending.
Yet, despite this commitment, many have fallen short of the NATO benchmark: spending at least 2% of GDP on defense. Under Trump, the pressure on all NATO members to meet this target intensified, with the possibility of serious political repercussions if they failed.
Historically, NATO’s former Soviet bloc members have had unique defence needs due to their geographic proximity to Russia and shared history.
Joining NATO represented a shift from Soviet influence and a chance to align with Western allies, particularly the United States, to enhance security. However, membership came with obligations, and under Trump’s presidency, the U.S. pushed harder than ever for every NATO member to shoulder a fair share of the defense budget.
The 2% Benchmark and its Importance
The 2% GDP spending target for defence is not new. NATO has set this benchmark to ensure that all members contribute proportionally to the alliance’s military capabilities, helping maintain collective defence and deterrence against potential aggressors.
However, defence spending has varied significantly among NATO members. Wealthier nations like the United States, which has consistently spent above 3% of its GDP on defence, have covered much of NATO’s funding, while other countries, especially newer members, often struggle to reach even half of the 2% target.
Many of these newer NATO members face competing financial priorities, including infrastructure, healthcare, and education, and are cautious about diverting significant funds toward defence.
Additionally, some nations struggle with internal political divisions on military spending, while others are hesitant to strain relations with Russia through heightened military expenditures.
Yet, Trump’s vocal insistence that NATO members “pay their fair share” will place unprecedented pressure on these nations to meet their financial commitments or risk losing U.S. support.
Loss of Influence and Security Concerns
For former Soviet bloc nations, failing to meet NATO spending targets could result in diminished influence within the alliance.
Trump has often criticised NATO allies for what he perceived as freeloading on American military power, and he has implied that the U.S. might reconsider its support if allies did not meet their obligations. Such rhetoric was particularly concerning for Eastern European members who rely heavily on NATO’s military capabilities as a deterrent against Russian aggression.
A loss of influence within NATO would have a serious impact on these countries. It could mean less say in key alliance decisions, from military strategy to defence resource allocation.
For countries that share a border with Russia, like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, maintaining a strong NATO presence is critical to their national security. If they lose influence in NATO, they may also lose some of the strategic deterrence NATO provides, leaving them vulnerable to external threats.
Balancing Domestic and Alliance Pressures
To meet NATO’s requirements, some countries have taken steps to increase their defence budgets. Poland, for instance, has been vocal about its commitment to defence spending, pledging to raise its military budget above the 2% target and working closely with the United States on joint defence initiatives.
However, other countries find themselves caught between NATO obligations and domestic pressures. In nations where the economy is smaller and public priorities focus on social services or infrastructure, spending 2% of GDP on defence may seem excessive and politically challenging.
NATO’s Eastern European members thus face a complex balancing act. While the alliance’s security guarantees are essential, especially against a resurgent Russia, they must also address domestic political realities and financial constraints.
Furthermore, as NATO expands, it increasingly needs cohesion and mutual accountability among its members to maintain effective collective defense.
The days of Freeloading on Defence are Over
For former Soviet bloc members, this means they will face ongoing pressure to meet defence spending targets or potentially risk diminished support from the U.S., NATO’s largest and most influential member.
As NATO moves forward, its Eastern European members will need to reassess their budgets and prioritise defence spending if they wish to retain influence and maintain security guarantees.
The Trump administration’s strong stance on spending has underscored the reality that collective security comes with collective responsibility. NATO’s former Soviet bloc members must navigate these obligations carefully to secure their future within the alliance and reinforce their protection against any looming threats on their eastern borders.
