While NATO’s new 5% of GDP spending target grabbed headlines at June’s annual summit in The Hague, a significant clause — tucked away within the final sentence of paragraph three of the communiqué — included “direct contributions towards Ukraine’s defense and its defense industry when calculating Allies’ defense spending.”
There is good news here, and possibly less good news. The commitment holds promise for increased Ukraine aid, as members will no longer face stark budgetary tradeoffs between defense spending and support to Ukraine. However, it is not yet clear whether some will argue that their Ukraine aid reduces the need to spend on domestic deficiencies that NATO’s pledge aims to address.
NATO’s 5% of GDP goal represents a considerable increase from the previous 2% figure, first introduced in 2014, which many allies initially struggled to meet. Had military aid to Ukraine been included over the past three years of war, five allies previously under the 2% benchmark would have surpassed it, and qualifying defense spending across the alliance would have increased by $61.6 billion in 2024 alone. This demonstrates that military aid to Ukraine can tangibly impact allies’ progress toward the new target.
So who are the big spenders in Ukraine aid? The Nordic and Baltic states consistently rank among the top contributors — Denmark and Estonia, for example, have provided more than 3% of GDP, most of it military assistance. Averaged over the three years of conflict, the seven largest contributors were all from that region, giving an average of 0.38% of GDP per year, compared to the broader NATO average of 0.16%. About half of NATO allies contributed less than 0.1% of GDP.
While levels of support to Ukraine will certainly continue to vary across the alliance, the inclusion of aid indicates heightened solidarity at a crucial time for NATO and Ukraine. Together with The Hague Declaration’s statement that “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine poses the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades,” it suggests that Ukraine’s defense is a high priority even if membership itself is not currently on the table.
Embedding aid in annual spending budgets also signals a longer-term commitment to Ukraine, potentially shielding assistance from fluctuations in domestic politics — an important factor as possible negotiations over Russia’s ongoing invasion loom.
However, the changes introduced in The Hague upend years of precedent designed to measure enhancements in military capability.