NATO’s 5% spending target and the implications for Italy

by Andrea Molle in the United States

The adoption of the new NATO spending objective of 5% of GDP at the Hague Summit on June 24–25 is not merely a budgetary adjustment—it marks a strategic shift that redefines the very concept of defense. The 3.5% + 1.5% formula—three and a half points for classic “hard defense” and one and a half for dual-use investments supporting national resilience—encapsulates the central lesson of the war in Ukraine: without reinforced transportation routes, secure energy reserves, and protected cyberspace, tanks won’t reach the front and drones won’t take off.

For Italy, the challenge is twofold. On one hand, the Government has pledged to meet the new target while remaining on a path of fiscal consolidation; on the other, it starts from a “pure” defense spending level of roughly 1.57%, well below the 3.5% required for the traditional military component. In concrete terms, this means securing an additional €32 to €42 billion annually over ten years for weapons, training, and operational readiness—on top of investments in infrastructure and cyber resilience. NATO itself has made clear that the 5% goal is to be reached gradually: 3.5% for military defense and 1.5% for civil security, both spread over a decade. The effective increase is therefore modest, amounting to no more than 0.3% of GDP annually. It is a demanding but not unmanageable commitment.

The Ministry of Defense will no longer be able to spread increases evenly across the three branches. For the Army—long relegated to third place behind the Navy and Air Force—this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity: to close gaps in armored vehicles, long-range artillery, precision munitions, and counter-UAS capabilities; to modernize training ranges and maintenance infrastructure; to acquire strategic sensor systems currently monopolized by the United States. Without this shift, Italy’s commitments on NATO’s eastern flank will remain purely nominal.

The 1.5% portion opens the door to industrial policy. Ports like Gioia Tauro, TEN-T rail corridors, and Italy’s 5G/quantum backbone can be co-financed by the EU under the “Military Mobility” framework, channeling investments that benefit both defense and national logistics competitiveness. Here the Army can become a bridge between Civil Protection and critical infrastructure, redefining its role as a territorial force within the broader design of total defense.

The 2035 horizon offers a gradual implementation that softens the budgetary impact, but should not create illusions: procurement cycles are measured in decades. Contracts for the Ariete, Dardo, PzH 2000, and SAMP/T NG must be signed now to avoid another decade of half-measures. This is also a political test: if Rome fails to turn the 5% target into an opportunity for industrial modernization and credible deterrence, it risks becoming just another symbolic benchmark—like the old 2%—never truly met.

What’s at stake is not just appeasing Washington or avoiding future tariff threats; it is proving to allies that an Italy with five million virtual reservists, but no ammunition and no roads navigable by a Leopard tank, is a weak link. If the country can instead combine European ambition, fiscal realism, and renewed investment in its Army, the 5% goal could become a catalyst for a security architecture finally integrated across barracks, factories, and bridges.

This new paradigm also calls for a rethinking of the relationship between the Armed Forces and civil society, after decades of cultural and institutional separation. Investment in national resilience, in the protection of critical infrastructure, and in countering hybrid threats gives the military a renewed role—visible, concrete, and embedded in the nation’s fabric. No longer just professionals deployed in missions overseas, they can become central actors in collective security, guardians of the homeland, and partners to citizens. It is a historic opportunity to rebuild that bond—one based not on rhetoric, but on strategic utility and democratic transparency.