By Peter Dickinson
Jan 23, 2025
Atlantic Council
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has warned alliance members that if the Russian invasion of Ukraine is allowed to succeed, the cost of reestablishing NATO’s international credibility would be measured in the trillions of dollars.
Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Rutte highlighted the economic argument for increased military spending in support of the Ukrainian war effort. “If Ukraine loses then to restore the deterrence of the rest of NATO again, it will be a much, much higher price than what we are contemplating at this moment in terms of ramping up our spending and ramping up our industrial production,” commented Rutte. “It will not be billions extra. It will be trillions extra.”
Underscoring his warning, the NATO chief conjured up images of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian allies celebrating victory over the West. “If we get a bad deal, it would only mean that we will see the President of Russia high-fiving with the leaders from North Korea, Iran, and China. We cannot accept that. It would be a big, big geopolitical mistake.”
Rutte’s alarming forecast comes as NATO leaders grapple with new US President Donald Trump’s calls for member states to increase defense spending from today’s two percent of GDP to five percent. Trump is also pushing for Europe to play a far more prominent role in the coalition of countries backing Ukraine. He argues that the Russian invasion is primarily a problem for European leaders to address, and has also long been critical of what he sees as the uneven security relationship between Europe and the United States.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has echoed Trump’s position on the need for dramatically increased European defense spending. In a strongly worded address to the World Economic Forum this week, he suggested that the continent was in danger of sliding into geopolitical irrelevance and must be able to defend itself. “All European countries must be willing to spend as much on security as is truly needed, not just as much as they’ve gotten used to during years of neglect. If it takes five percent of GDP to cover defense, then so be it,” the Ukrainian leader stated.
A number of senior European figures have already voiced their opposition to Trump’s vision for sharp rises in defense spending. While defense budgets across the continent have been growing in recent years against the backdrop of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many NATO members are still struggling to meet the current two percent guidelines and see talk of a leap to five percent as wholly unrealistic.
European countries have also struggled to expand domestic military production in response to Russia’s invasion. During the initial stages of the war, existing stockpiles of weapons and equipment across Europe were sent to Ukraine. However, these reserves have now been largely exhausted. While Russia has managed to make the transition to a wartime economy, Europe’s defense sector is still unable to keep the Ukrainian military adequately supplied despite some progress.
Critics of the European response to Russia’s invasion say there is still no sense of urgency in many capitals, despite the unprecedented security challenges presented by the continent’s largest armed conflict since World War II. Instead, decisions regarding weapons deliveries to Ukraine often remain subject to extended delays, while measures to boost Europe’s defense manufacturing capacity have frequently fallen victim to domestic politics or internal EU rivalries.
Europe’s hesitancy over defense spending is short-sighted, to say the least. As the NATO Secretary-General pointed out this week in Switzerland, the cost of supporting Ukraine’s defense will be dwarfed by the price of confronting a triumphant Russia if Putin is permitted to subjugate Ukraine.
Even if a victorious Putin did not choose to immediately go further, his war machine would be greatly strengthened by the acquisition of Ukraine’s immense military strength, its vast industrial capacities, and the country’s natural resources. He would have Europe’s two largest armies under his control, and would also occupy a dominant position on global agricultural markets. In such circumstances, it is dangerously delusional to think that Putin might suddenly adopt a conciliatory approach toward the largely undefended neighboring nations of Europe. On the contrary, he would almost certainly look to exploit his obvious advantages.
The debate over increased European defense spending looks set to escalate during the coming weeks, with the new Trump administration and officials in Kyiv making the case for a radical rethink. Many will support them in principle, but past experience suggests that not all of these allies will have the requisite political will to act accordingly.
The importance of this debate cannot be overstated, with the outcome set to shape the course of the war in Ukraine and the future of European security. For anyone who recognizes the threat posed by Putin’s Russia, the arguments for larger European defense budgets and expanded industrial production seem overwhelming. Supporting Ukraine today may be expensive, but it is a lot cheaper than facing an emboldened Russia tomorrow.
Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.