The Meaning of Trump's '2% of GDP Defense Spending' Pressure on Europe [AK Radio]

Minimum Defense Spending Standards for Conflict Zone Countries
Key Issue: Enhancing Defense Capabilities Before Russia’s Military Expansion

The White House recently strongly urged NATO member countries in Europe to adjust their defense budgets to 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by the NATO summit in June. Although this was agreed upon by NATO in 2006, only about 30% of member countries have complied so far. President Trump has been pressing the remaining 70% of members to fulfill their commitments and has even argued that defense spending should be raised to 5%.

The 2% GDP defense spending benchmark holds symbolic significance in the international community. Generally, countries in peaceful regions maintain defense spending at around 1% of GDP, while those spending over 2% are considered to be located in conflict zones. Countries exceeding 3% are classified as needing to prepare for a constant state of war.

Looking at the current defense spending as a percentage of GDP among major countries, South Korea, which is divided and facing the North, spends about 2.8%, the United States 3.5%, and Russia, which is at war with Ukraine, reaches 6.7%. Among European countries, only France, Germany, and the United Kingdom slightly exceed 2%, while Poland, bordering Russia, spends 4%. On the other hand, most European countries such as Italy (1.5%) and Spain (1.3%) remain in the 1% range.

There are several reasons why European countries are reluctant to increase defense spending despite U.S. demands amid economic burdens and security threats. Western European countries feel relatively less threatened as they do not share direct borders with Russia, while Eastern and Southern European countries claim they lack the economic capacity to raise defense budgets.

Soldiers participating in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) joint exercise held in Romania on the 19th of last month (local time). Flags of various countries are displayed on the combat vehicles. Photo by EPA and Yonhap News.

Experts predict that even if European countries significantly increase their defense budgets starting now, substantial improvements in defense capabilities will only be possible around 2035, ten years from now. Meanwhile, Russia has already shifted its national economy to a wartime footing and replaced its defense minister with an economic official, focusing all efforts on military expansion. Russia is expected to recover from the damages of the Ukraine war and restore conventional forces capable of invading other countries by 2032. Due to this time gap, the U.S. is pushing Europe to accelerate its defense spending increases.

Another reason for the difficulties European countries face in raising defense budgets lies in historical and structural factors. The U.S., as a single large federal state, can coordinate defense spending through a unified government, but Europe remains divided into dozens of countries, making unified action difficult.

Discussions on establishing a European Union (EU) integrated army separate from NATO have been ongoing since 2003, but after 20 years, no tangible results have been achieved. The initially planned 50,000-strong integrated force was reduced to 5,000 due to stalled talks, but even this has not been realized.

Underlying these difficulties are historical resentments formed through World Wars I and II. Particularly, Germany, the central country of the EU, is viewed with concern by neighboring countries due to its past as a wartime aggressor. Because neighboring countries face a security dilemma where one side’s military buildup compels the other to follow suit, increasing defense spending is not an easy task.

In this context, recent remarks by France about nuclear sharing with Germany have raised concerns about nuclear proliferation within Europe. Currently, only France and the United Kingdom possess nuclear weapons in Western Europe, but if Germany acquires nuclear capabilities, other economically strong European countries are likely to pursue nuclear development as well.

JD Vance, Vice President of the United States, attending the Munich Security Conference (MSC) held in Munich, Germany, on the 14th of last month. Photo by Reuters and Yonhap News Agency

This would undermine the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and could seriously damage the global strategic system that the U.S. has promoted. If European countries develop nuclear weapons, economic powerhouses in Asia such as South Korea and Japan, as well as Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, would have justification to pursue nuclear development. This could lead to a global spread of nuclear war risks.

Ultimately, President Trump’s pressure on European defense spending signals a fundamental change in the relationship between the U.S. and Europe. With the U.S. strengthening its "America First" policy, such as pushing agreements to take 50% of mineral resource revenues from Ukraine, European countries are increasingly recognizing that they can no longer trust the U.S. unconditionally.

In this situation, if European countries resist U.S. pressure by building independent defense systems and even pursuing nuclear development, the existing alliance structure could completely collapse, leading to a worst-case scenario where the U.S. is surrounded by multiple adversaries. For this reason, the Trump administration may gradually reconsider its current hardline stance toward Europe.

As the global order is reshaped around the U.S., EU, Russia, and China, South Korea also faces a need to reassess its defense strategy. Discussions about indigenous nuclear armament have already become a sensitive issue within Korean society. In line with changes in U.S. alliance policies and the reorganization of global hegemony, South Korea requires in-depth consideration on how to design its future security strategy.

President Trump’s pressure on NATO members regarding defense spending can be interpreted as a signal heralding fundamental changes in the Atlantic alliance that has lasted over 70 years since World War II and the global security order. In this changing environment, countries, especially those like South Korea located in geopolitically critical areas, will need to respond with greater caution and strategic planning.