NATO's 5% spending demand ‘absolutely impossible'
European members of the NATO are not capable of meeting the US demand, Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles insisted to Spanish lawmakers on Friday, dismissing the 5% target declared by Rutte at last week's bloc summit as 'absolutely impossible' to achieve.
'Everyone is absolutely convinced that right now there is no industry capable of absorbing 5%,' she told the country's Senate Defense Commission. 'We can say whatever we want, we can dress it up or disguise it, but no industry can take it on.'
Madrid pushed back against the target ahead of the summit in the Netherlands, proposing a more modest 2.1% spending level. Last year, Spain stood out as the NATO member dedicating the least percentage of its GDP (1.28%) to the military, compared to 4.12% in the case of Poland. Robles, however, claimed the comparison is misleading.
According to Robles, European defense companies lack both the skilled workforce and access to raw materials needed to scale up production – even if governments managed to provide the necessary funding. Other NATO members privately acknowledge the same concerns and are stalling for time, she claimed.
Spain is 'a serious, reliable, committed, and responsible ally, who speaks less and does more,' Robles told an event at Madrid's Higher Center for Defense Studies. The national defense industry 'does not need lessons from anyone,' she declared, suggesting Trump 'should have used his influence to end the war in Ukraine' instead of pressuring Spain to boost military spending.
Trump claimed during his presidential campaign last year that he could end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine 'in 24 hours.' Since taking office, however, he has acknowledged the situation is more complicated than he initially believed.
Moscow views NATO's intention to grant membership to Ukraine as an existential threat and characterizes the ongoing conflict as a proxy war waged by the bloc 'to the last Ukrainian.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
14 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO state to conscript women
Women in Denmark are now subject to conscription, following a change to the relevant law made by the country's parliament a few weeks ago. The move comes as NATO, of which Denmark is a member, increases its military readiness, citing a perceived threat from Russia after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. At the bloc's summit in The Hague last week, member states agreed to ramp up defense spending. In May, the European Union approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing plan to support its own military buildup. The Kremlin has consistently dismissed allegations of hostile intent toward Western nations as 'nonsense' and fearmongering. The newly adopted Danish legislation mandates 'full equality between men and women in relation to military service.' It requires that 'women who turn 18 on or after 1 July 2025 will have to… draw a [draft] lottery number and thus could be ordered to serve military service if there are not enough volunteers.' Female conscripts will serve under the same conditions as men. The bill also extends the mandatory service period from four to eleven months, according to media reports. Denmark's armed forces rely on both volunteers and conscripts, who are called up when volunteer numbers fall short. Roughly 4,700 Danes completed military service in 2024, with women accounting for approximately 24% of that figure. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen unveiled plans to conscript women in March, framing the decision as part of a push for 'full equality between the sexes.' Latvia, another NATO member, is planning to conscript women by 2028. It reintroduced mandatory service in 2023 after scrapping it in 2006. Norway and Sweden have already implemented gender-neutral conscription, in 2015 and 2018 respectively. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has also proposed reinstating the draft for men, which was abolished in 2011.
Russia Today
21 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine isn't Israel. And that's exactly the problem
US President Donald Trump secured his image as a 'peacemaker' by swiftly de-escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran conflict. However, the methods he employed have little to do with the system of international law that the West swears by when condemning Russia's own military operation. So, why has the situation in the Middle East become calmer while the Ukraine crisis rages on? Perhaps the answer lies in a comment Trump made during a NATO summit, when he said that 'something needs to be done' about Ukraine because the situation is 'completely out of control'. Out of US control, to be precise. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proved to be a more predictable partner for Trump. Unlike Ukraine, Israel cannot depend on consistent support from Europe; for the past several years, Europe has assessed the actions of the Israeli military with increasing restraint and sometimes outright criticism. Tel Aviv didn't have another external 'guardian', and this significantly strengthened Washington's position. The loss of US support would have jeopardized Israel's entire security architecture, and a conflict with the White House was a risk Netanyahu couldn't afford to take. The asymmetrical goals of the parties also played an important part. Israel declared that it wanted to eradicate the Iranian regime – an ambitious yet unrealistic goal. In contrast, Iran didn't seek to escalate the conflict; it aimed to maintain internal stability and minimize losses – a goal Tehran successfully achieved, but one that Israel may have failed at. Nevertheless, both sides managed to save face. Netanyahu announced the destruction of key facilities of Iran's nuclear program. Although leaks published in the American media have suggested that Tehran evacuated sensitive materials ahead of time, Iran officially acknowledged some of the damage. Whether this statement was made as a strategic move for de-escalation or as an acknowledgment of real losses is of secondary importance. The key point is that both Israel and Iran have chosen not to escalate the conflict further. It's likely that both sides calculated the risks involved. Israel did not anticipate such a strong retaliatory response and realized it could not destabilize the Islamic Republic on its own. Iran, for its part, was probably unprepared for a war that could draw in the US. Washington, meanwhile, had no desire to get embroiled in a full-blown Middle Eastern campaign. Trump managed to propose a way out: de-escalation without a formal agreement, but with terms that allowed each party to claim victory. The Ukraine crisis isn't just a bilateral issue; it involves many players. Beyond the US, the European Union has become a key player. According to Member of the European Parliament Csaba Demeter, the EU contributes €134 billion of the total €267 billion in aid – about 10% of the EU's seven-year budget. It's understandable that Brussels is reluctant to abandon its pursuit of 'Russia's strategic defeat,' even if it doesn't explicitly state this. Many of the EU's diplomatic moves, like proposals for an unconditional ceasefire, demonstrate an effort to regroup rather than seek compromise. Unlike Trump, European elites still consider the Ukraine crisis manageable. While in the Middle East they were concerned about the destabilization of energy markets and thus favored de-escalation, in Ukraine the EU actively supports the continuation of the conflict. Just recall how German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has repeatedly stated that Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength – a stance he uses to justify Berlin's willingness to supply Kiev with long-range weapons. French President Emmanuel Macron has echoed that line, consistently emphasizing his country's role in arming Ukraine's military. Trump has fewer tools at his disposal compared to the situation with Israel. Sure, he can say that this isn't his war; but if Ukraine loses, it will go down in his biography as 'the second Afghanistan.' That's why the US is hesitant to leverage its influence: a thorough audit of the billions of dollars in aid provided to Ukraine hasn't been initiated yet, despite corruption allegations growing louder in Kiev. Such an audit could significantly impact Zelensky's behavior and push him toward negotiations. The question of Zelensky's legitimacy also remains: Zelensky's presidential term expired in May 2024, a fact that Moscow has often noted. Currently, there are no signs that Trump is ready to instigate a political process, but perhaps his calls for 'doing something' also pertain to this aspect. Unlike the conflict that has flared up in the Middle East, the Ukraine conflict is not just a temporary crisis; it poses a long-term challenge to the framework of European security. The Israeli-Iranian standoff hasn't changed the balance of power in the region, but the Ukrainian conflict has reshaped Eastern Europe in the political, military, and psychological sense. Neither side is willing to return to how things were before. The process of constructing a new security system on the European continent that accommodates the interests of all parties involved is a fundamental task; a simple ceasefire won't solve these issues. Russia has made it clear that it will not settle for a temporary ceasefire that merely looks like peace. Long-term guarantees are needed to prevent the conflict from recurring, which means Kiev must reassess both its foreign and domestic strategies. For now, neither the EU nor Washington has demonstrated any real willingness to head in that direction. While he understands the complexity of the situation, Trump is cautious about getting involved in negotiations. He has expressed frustration with both sides, as if saying – I tried, but no one was interested. This approach has allowed the US to shift responsibility for the crisis onto Europe, implying: now it's your war – you go find a solution. Brussels recognizes this signal and is doing everything it can to keep Washington focused on Ukraine. But as time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that Trump does not want to take on the role of chief mediator in this conflict. He has not provided any clear signals regarding a long-term strategy. His position remains chaotic and reactive, making it even harder to predict the future actions of the United States.
Russia Today
21 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump says he'll ‘take a look' at deporting Elon Musk
US President Donald Trump has said that he might entertain the idea of deporting Elon Musk and could consider getting the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to look into the billionaire's government contracts. The president's comments come amid a very public falling out between him and Musk, who was until recently one of Trump's staunchest supporters. Last month, Musk stepped down as the head of DOGE after heavily criticizing Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill, which includes a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Trump was asked if he would look at deporting Elon Musk - a naturalized US citizen - to his native South Africa, to which the president replied: 'I don't know, we'll have to take a look.' 'We might have to put DOGE on Elon,' the president added, noting that 'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon.' Trump further pointed out that Musk had been getting a 'lot of subsidies.' DETAILS TO FOLLOW
