NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has warned alliance members that if Russia's invasion of Ukraine succeeds, the cost of restoring NATO's international credibility will run into trillions of dollars.
Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Rutte stressed the economic argument for increasing military spending to support Ukraine’s war effort. “If Ukraine loses, it will be a much, much higher price to restore deterrence to the rest of NATO than what we are currently considering in terms of increasing our spending and increasing our industrial production,” Rutte said. “It will not be billions more. It will be trillions more.”
To underscore his warning, the NATO chief evoked images of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian allies celebrating their victory over the West. “If we make a bad deal, all it will mean is that we will see the president of Russia shaking hands with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and China. We cannot accept that. That would be a big, big geopolitical mistake.”
Rutte’s alarming forecast comes as NATO leaders face calls from new US President Donald Trump for member states to increase defence spending from the current 2 per cent of GDP to 5 per cent. Trump has also been pushing for Europe to play a much larger role in the coalition of countries backing Ukraine. He argues that the Russian invasion is primarily a problem for European leaders to solve, and has long criticised what he sees as an uneven security relationship between Europe and the United States.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky echoed Trump’s position on the need for a sharp increase in defense spending in Europe. In a blistering address to the World Economic Forum this week, he suggested the continent was in danger of sliding into geopolitical irrelevance and needed to be able to defend itself. “All European countries should be prepared to spend on security as much as is really necessary, not as much as they have become accustomed to over the years of neglect. If five percent of GDP is spent on defense, so be it,” the Ukrainian leader said.
Several senior European officials have already voiced their opposition to Trump’s vision of a sharp increase in defense spending. While defense budgets across the continent have been growing in recent years amid Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many NATO members are still struggling to meet the current two percent recommendation and see talk of a jump to five percent as completely unrealistic.
European countries also struggled to expand domestic military production in response to Russia’s invasion. In the early stages of the war, existing stockpiles of weapons and equipment from across Europe were sent to Ukraine. However, these stockpiles are now largely exhausted. While Russia has managed to transition to a wartime economy, Europe’s defense sector remains unable to adequately supply the Ukrainian army, despite some progress.
Critics of the Western response to Russia’s incursion say there is still a lack of urgency in many European capitals, despite the unprecedented security challenges posed by the continent’s biggest armed conflict since World War II. Instead, decisions on arms supplies to Ukraine have often been subject to lengthy delays, while measures to boost Europe’s defence production capacity have often fallen victim to domestic politics or intra-EU rivalries.
Europe's hesitation on defense spending is shortsighted, to say the least. As NATO's Secretary General noted in Switzerland this week, the cost of supporting Ukraine's defense would be dwarfed by the cost of confronting a triumphant Russia if Putin were allowed to complete his conquest and subjugation of Ukraine.
Even if a victorious Russia does not immediately advance further, Europe's sense of security will be shattered and the balance of power on the continent transformed. Putin's war machine will be greatly strengthened by the acquisition of Ukraine's enormous military might, its vast industrial capacity, and the country's natural resources. He will have control of Europe's two largest armies and a firm foothold along the eastern borders of the European Union.
In such favorable circumstances, it is dangerous and misleading to assume that Putin might voluntarily stop or adopt a conciliatory approach to Europe’s largely vulnerable countries. He has made no secret of his desire to reverse the 1991 verdict and upend the current world order. Victory in Ukraine would give Putin a unique opportunity to achieve these historic goals. Europe’s current levels of defense spending are unlikely to deter him.
The debate over European defense budgets looks set to intensify in the coming months, as the new Trump administration and officials in Kyiv make the case for a radical rethink. Many in Europe will support it in principle, but past experience suggests that not all of these allies will have the political will to act accordingly.
The importance of this debate cannot be overstated, because its outcome will determine the course of the war in Ukraine and the future of European security. For anyone who understands the threat posed by Putin’s Russia, the case for increasing European defence budgets and industrial production seems irresistible. Supporting Ukraine today may be expensive, but it is far cheaper than facing an emboldened Russia tomorrow.
Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council's UkraineAlert service.
Source: Source
