Ian Davis
3 February 2025
NATO has started a process to share some of its highly classified capability targets—that determine what kind of weapons and equipment member states need to produce—with the defence industry and the European Union according to media reports.
The move is apparently part of an effort by NATO to push for increased production in what new Secretary General Mark Rutte calls a “shift to a wartime mindset”. According to anonymous insiders, the alliance is looking for a way of expressing some of the aggregate targets in a format that can be safely shared, to convince companies to increase production capacity. The step would require consensus among member states. Separately, the alliance has also started a process to share some classified standards with the European Union, a move EU Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius called an “unprecedented” display of trust. All but nine of NATOʼs 32 members also belong to the EU. However, there appears to be no effort to extend this transparency to NATO parliaments or the public.
Strengthening of conventional deterrence on NATO’s eastward flank has been ongoing for several years and was ramped-up in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. At the NATO Vilnius Summit in 2023 a new “family” of regional defence plans was agreed containing thousands of pages of secret military strategies that detail for the first time since the Cold War how the alliance would respond to a Russian or a terrorist attack. Most of these plans were drawn up behind closed doors by the permanent Military Representatives at NATO headquarters in Brussels and other NATO and national defence officials, without any prior scrutiny by parliamentary bodies and independent experts.
There are three regional plans: The High North and the Atlantic (led by Joint Force Command Norfolk, United States); Central (covering the Baltic to the Alps, and commanded from Brunssum, Netherlands); and South-East (covering the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and commanded from Naples). Each plan reportedly sets out in more detail what is required given the geography of those regions to deter and defend against the threats. From those plans, force requirements are drawn up setting out the capabilities required in all domains—space, cyber, land, maritime, and air—to execute those tasks.
The NATO Secretary General has called on political leaders to raise the alliance's military spending target at the next NATO summit in June to finance the implementation of these military plans. Currently at 2 per cent of economic output the target is likely to be increased to at least 3 per cent of GDP, although President Trump and others have called for it to be increased to 5 per cent. A 5 per cent military spending target would mark a dramatic shift in NATO’s posture, reflecting a world increasingly shaped by great-power competition. While it could strengthen the alliance and enhance military industrial capacity, readiness and deterrence, the political and economic costs—domestic unrest, fiscal strain and alliance fragmentation—pose substantial risks. It could also lead to unintended escalation with adversaries.
While it will take a few years for these plans to be fully implemented, they set NATO and member states on a path from which it will be difficult to deviate. Hence, they need to be open and visible, with the reasons for likely outcomes clearly outlined. Otherwise, how can we be confident of moving in the right direction, especially given all the costs and risks of accelerating militarization? Proper parliamentary scrutiny is needed to ensure that the decision-making processes are clear, that the people taking decisions are held accountable for those decisions and to ensure that there are opportunities for national parliaments to influence and improve the plans.
However, none of the 32 NATO member states carries out systematic parliamentary scrutiny of NATO proposals before they are endorsed at summits, and post-parliamentary review of NATO decisions is sporadic and ineffective. Legislators know little about what goes on in NATO intergovernmental working groups, and their limited knowledge makes it hard if not impossible for them to scrutinize their government’s involvement in NATO effectively or hold anyone to account for decisions taken within the alliance.
To address this democratic deficit, each member state should establish a new NATO scrutiny select committee. This committee should sift all NATO draft proposals, to identify which require further scrutiny and draw them to the attention of other parliamentarians and the public. For significant areas of policy development, such as new military plans, the committees should be able to call for evidence by NATO officials and secure a parliamentary debate on issues they deem significant. In addition, each member state should commit to holding an annual “Status of NATO” debate.