Italy at the Crossroads: 5% NATO Spending Reveals Weaknesses and Imposes Real War Plans, Between New U.S. Strategic Reality and Billion Dollar Unknowns

Key points

• NATO's 5% GDP defense target: By 2035, NATO countries commit to allocating 5% of their GDP to defense. This target consists of 3.5% for traditional military spending and a controversial 1.5% for investments in civilian sectors with military relevance (cybersecurity, satellite technology, telecommunications, infrastructure resilience).

• Financial impact on Italy: For Italy, 5% of GDP means a leap from approximately €33.4 billion currently to over €100 billion per year by 2035, with annual increases estimated between €9 and €10 billion. This poses significant financial sustainability challenges for a country with high public debt.

• The 1.5% controversy: The definition of "defense and security-related investments" is broad and potentially ambiguous. Experts and think tanks fear "accounting engineering" by member states and a lack of clear objectives, which could undermine transatlantic trust.

• Non-binding nature of the target: Despite strong advocacy, the 5% target is not legally binding. The flexibility granted to some countries (like Spain) in meeting NATO's capability goals suggests that the path might be interpreted differently at the national level.

• Geopolitical motivations for the 5%:

  • New US posture: The United States is shifting its strategic focus to the Indo-Pacific (China), urging Europe to take on greater responsibility for its conventional defense to free up American resources.

  • Shortcomings exposed by the war in Ukraine: The conflict revealed insufficient ammunition stockpiles, limited industrial production capacities, and a vulnerability to hybrid and cyber threats (including Russian and Chinese attacks on critical infrastructure like power grids and hospitals).

• Italy's weaknesses in cyber and technology: Italy faces significant gaps, including a shortage of specialized cybersecurity personnel, fragmentation of coordination efforts, the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, and reliance on foreign satellite assets.

• Opportunities and bridging strategies: Investments within the 1.5% aim to strengthen Italy's National Cybersecurity Agency (ACN), enhance cyber defense capabilities, invest in proprietary satellite technology, and make telecommunications more resilient.

• Role of Italian industry: Prime Minister Meloni emphasizes the importance of strengthening Italian companies in this process, creating a "virtuous cycle." This includes not only traditional armaments but also innovative technologies like drones, where Italy already has players like Leonardo and new joint ventures (e.g., with Baykar).

• Need for European cooperation: Think tanks like Bruegel highlight the "cost of non-Europe" in defense (€18-57 billion per year) due to fragmentation. Closer cooperation in planning, procurement, and industry between NATO and the EU is crucial to maximize investment effectiveness.

• European army vs. NATO: The prevailing message is that European strategic autonomy does not entail creating a separate and distinct European army from NATO. Instead, it involves strengthening and optimizing existing capabilities within the Alliance, improving interoperability, and leveraging the operational structure already in place for a unified response to evolving threats.

Credit Extrema Ratio

The dawn of new global investments: defense redefines itself

The world stands at a crossroads, and global security is redefining itself in unexpected ways. NATO's commitment to allocate 5% of GDP to defense by 2035 is not merely an evolution, but a true revolution forcing member states to fundamentally rethink their priorities and military capabilities.

But what exactly does this 5% entail, and what is its most controversial part? The largest portion, 3.5% of GDP, is earmarked for "fundamental defense spending": traditional investments like tanks, jets, drones, soldiers, tons of new artillery ammunition, and, of course, troops. However, the remaining 1.5% raises further questions. NATO has broadly defined it as "defense and security-related investments." This includes civilian and IT infrastructure designed to enhance and support military operations, such as strategic bridges, roads, ports, storage systems, as well as cybersecurity and the protection of critical infrastructure like oil pipelines. Yet, this portion of the budget is considered vague and subject to national interpretations, which makes it the most contentious aspect.

For Italy, this translates into an unprecedented financial commitment: estimates suggest over €100 billion per year to be invested within less than a decade, a massive leap from the current approximately €33.4 billion. But this is not merely a matter of figures; it marks a profound qualitative shift in the perception and practice of defense.

What exactly happened? This ambitious goal emerged strongly from the latest NATO summit, in response to a profoundly changed geopolitical landscape. The war in Ukraine has dramatically exposed the shortcomings in the defense capabilities and arms production of many European countries, as well as highlighting the persistent reliance on the United States for the continent's security. Facing growing threats and the need for a more autonomous and resilient Europe, the Alliance decided to raise the bar, moving from the previous 2% of GDP target to a much stricter 5%.

Modern warfare is no longer fought exclusively with tanks and jets. It's hybrid warfare, a conflict that combines traditional military tactics with cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, economic destabilization, and political pressure. It is precisely on this invisible front that the most innovative part of NATO's commitment, and thus Italy's, is focused: beyond the 3.5% of GDP allocated to "strict" military spending, a crucial 1.5% will be invested in civilian sectors with military relevance, such as cybersecurity, satellite technology, and telecommunications. Italy is called upon to transform its historical and current weaknesses in these areas into new frontiers of resilience and strategic autonomy.

This article thoroughly examines what this shift means for Italy, highlighting the specific implications in terms of cyber and dual-use technology investments, the current weaknesses to address, and how the country intends to do so. It presents the voices from the government, with the positions of Defense Minister Guido Crosetto and Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and the challenges of financial sustainability that such a commitment entails. Finally, it analyzes the geopolitical reasons that led NATO to such an ambitious goal, the new US strategic posture with its重心 shifting to the Indo-Pacific, and the key role of analysts like Elbridge Colby in defining the need for a more autonomous and responsible European defense. Through data, documents, and comparative case studies, the article outlines a comprehensive picture of a transformation set to change the face of Italian and European security.

Italy's new defense frontier: a strategic 1.5% for cyber and technologies

Italy's commitment to dedicate 5% of its GDP to defense by 2035 is not just a quantitative adjustment to NATO's demands, but represents a qualitative paradigm shift in national security strategy. While 3.5% of GDP will, as traditionally understood, go to "strict" military spending – meaning equipment, armaments, and personnel for conventional armed forces – the additional 1.5% of GDP reveals the true innovation and understanding of "hybrid warfare" and its implications for Italy.

This 1.5% will be specifically directed towards investments in civilian sectors with military relevance, recognizing that a country's security no longer depends solely on the strength of its armies, but on the resilience of its digital and communication infrastructures. This strategic allocation is earmarked for:

• Cybersecurity: In an era where hospitals, power grids, financial systems, and government networks are constantly targeted by cyberattacks, cybersecurity becomes the frontline of defense. Investments in this field aim to protect critical infrastructure, develop advanced cyber intelligence and defense capabilities, and train a highly specialized workforce, which is currently lacking. The goal is to build digital shields capable of preventing, detecting, and effectively responding to invisible threats that can cripple a nation. General Pasquale Preziosa, former Chief of Staff of the Italian Air Force and security analyst, has repeatedly stated: "The cyber dimension is now dominant. Investing in it is not an option, but an imperative for national sovereignty."

• Satellite technology: The ability to control space is fundamental for surveillance, secure communications, navigation, and intelligence. Investing in satellite technology means reducing dependence on systems from other countries, ensuring Italy greater strategic autonomy and resilience in times of crisis. This involves the development of proprietary satellite constellations and the protection of space assets from physical or cyber threats.

• Telecommunications: Communication networks are primary targets in a hybrid conflict, essential for the functioning of society and military operations. Investments in telecommunications aim to make infrastructure more secure and resilient, with a focus on next-generation networks like 5G and future 6G, ensuring continuity of services and the protection of strategic communications from interception or attacks.

• Hybrid warfare and dual-use technologies: This 1.5% is allocated to everything related to "hybrid warfare." This includes the development of dual-use technologies, innovations that can be employed for both civilian and military purposes, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, advanced cryptography, and composite materials. This is about investing in research and development that can provide a competitive edge in modern conflict, where information manipulation, economic destabilization, and unconventional attacks are as important as traditional military force. Italy is thus redefining the very concept of "defense," embracing a more holistic and technological vision of national security.

This ambitious Italian plan aims to transform the country by addressing existing weaknesses in technology and cybersecurity to make it more resilient in an increasingly complex global environment.

The 1.5% controversy: a vague objective, risk of "creative accounting"

The distinction between 3.5% for traditional defense and 1.5% for "defense and security-related investments" is the cornerstone of the new NATO agreement, but also its most controversial point. Although the logic is to include strategic civilian and IT infrastructure – such as bridges, roads, and ports, storage systems for supplies, cybersecurity, and the protection of oil pipelines – the definition remains broad and potentially ambiguous.

The German think tank Bertelsmann Stiftung has expressed concern, highlighting that, given the diverse traditions of civil preparedness in member states, there is a risk of "accounting engineering" and an opportunistic definition of priorities, which could hinder cooperation. Without clear and measurable objectives set by the Alliance, countries might include expenses already planned in civilian budgets, without generating a real increase in resilience capabilities. The think tank warned that if the 1.5% target fails to produce measurable improvements in European resilience, it could backfire and strain transatlantic trust, suggesting that NATO should establish a structured capability planning process that mirrors its defense capability planning process, with clear objectives for the entire alliance.

Military innovation: focusing on future technologies, with a focus on drones

During the NATO Summit 2025 in The Hague, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni emphasized that increased defense spending also offers concrete advantages for Italian companies, highlighting the crucial importance of innovation. It is now clear how warfare, like any other social and economic phenomenon, evolves with technological advancement. Industry, not just the traditional defense sector, is called upon to play a leading role in meeting new demands.

The awareness of technology's central role in military activities is now well-established. Meloni herself illustrated this concept by citing the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, where "some of the greatest results achieved by the Ukrainian front were brought about with drones costing a few thousand euros that destroy technological instruments costing much more." This demonstrates how "we are moving towards a world where a satellite can be more strategic than a tank." The Prime Minister reiterated that "a discussion must be had on this; the issue is not just how much we invest but what we invest in and what kind of world we are heading towards."

The Rapid Adoption Action Plan from early June identified nine key technologies that NATO aims to leverage to maintain global competitiveness. These include areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnologies, advanced materials, and autonomy. The appeal launched by Dutch Prime Minister Rutte at the summit's forum to actively involve companies and entrepreneurs highlights that this transformation concerns not only the traditional defense industry but also the role of innovative startups, scale-ups, and all tech sector entities.

Regarding drone production, Italy is not starting from scratch. Companies like Leonardo are already active in producing various UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), including mini-drones for the Italian Army and collaborations on larger projects like the P2HH Hammerhead. Furthermore, the conversion of trainer aircraft like the M-345/M-346 for unmanned roles in future programs is being explored.

A recent and significant development is the joint venture between Leonardo and the Turkish giant Baykar (producer of the well-known Bayraktar TB2 and Akinci), aimed at producing advanced, AI-powered "super-drones" in Liguria, Italy. This partnership represents a strategic move to rapidly integrate AI expertise and cutting-edge drone technologies directly into Italian production, targeting a significant share of the global military drone market. Alongside these major players, smaller Italian entities like Italdron, a leader in the civil market with high-performance drones for surveillance and rescue, and Beluga Drone, which designs NATO mini-category drones with multi-mission and AI capabilities, also exist.

Italy's "gap" in this regard is not an absolute absence of production, but rather the need to:

• Scale production: Increase the capacity to rapidly produce cost-effective drones, as demonstrated in the Ukrainian conflict.

• Acquire cutting-edge technologies: Accelerate the integration of artificial intelligence and autonomy capabilities into drone systems.

• Ensure supply chain resilience: Protect know-how and critical components under national strategic control, also in light of previous foreign acquisition attempts of Italian companies in this sector.

• Integrate drones into hybrid warfare doctrine: Move from individual drone platforms to integrated operations, with drone swarms and counter-drone measures, as a fundamental part of military strategy. The Italian Army, for example, is already actively recruiting drone pilots with UAS licenses, signaling a strategic embrace of this technology.

The impact of increased defense spending on Italian businesses

What will be the consequences of this approach for Italian businesses? While there is concern that seeking foreign suppliers might lead to missed opportunities for the national production sector, the stated goal is precisely to enhance domestic industry. Meloni herself emphasized that "a significant portion of these resources will be used to strengthen Italian companies," aiming to create a "virtuous cycle" if opportunities in investment and increased production can be leveraged. For the Prime Minister, "the big issue we must address is our companies' capacity to meet a significant commitment, and this will be the next challenge. However, the reasoning should not be solely in terms of costs, but also in terms of returns and economic projection."

Historical weaknesses and NATO recommendations: the context of investments

The urgency of these investments is amplified by the structural weaknesses Italy has shown in the past and the recurrent recommendations from NATO. For years, the Alliance has urged members not only to focus on conventional military spending but also to invest more in capabilities that support 21st-century security.

Italy's main weaknesses in these sectors include:

• Shortage of specialized personnel: One of the most critical gaps is the scarcity of cybersecurity experts, in both the public and private sectors. Despite academic excellence, the "skills gap" between the demand for and supply of professionals capable of addressing sophisticated cyber threats is significant. This makes proactive protection and effective response to attacks difficult. NATO has repeatedly emphasized the need for greater training and education for personnel dedicated to cyber defense. As Professor Roberto Baldoni, former Director General of the ACN, highlighted: "The biggest challenge is not technology, but people. We must train a generation of cyber-defenders capable of facing the threats."

• Fragmentation and coordination: Although various entities are involved in cybersecurity (such as the National Cybersecurity Agency - ACN, the Defense's Network Operations Command - COR, and police forces), the fragmentation of competencies and the need for more complete integration and coordination can slow down reaction and critical information sharing during large-scale attacks. NATO recommendations have often pushed for greater interoperability and standardization among national and allied cyber defense structures.

• Vulnerability of critical infrastructure: Many essential infrastructures in the country (energy, transport, healthcare, finance) are still exposed to high cyber risks, often due to legacy systems or insufficient investment in their protection and upgrading. NATO has repeatedly emphasized the vital importance of protecting the essential networks and services on which modern society depends.

• Dependence on foreign satellite assets: Despite a solid and recognized space industry, Italy still has some dependence on foreign satellite systems for certain critical capabilities, such as secure communications and intelligence. This dependence represents a strategic vulnerability in crisis scenarios, and NATO has encouraged allies to develop greater strategic autonomy in space.

• Security of new-generation networks: The transition to 5G and future 6G networks introduces new security challenges related to the complexity and pervasiveness of these technologies. Protection from attacks and espionage requires continuous investment and rigorous supply chain security, aspects on which NATO has urged all allies to strengthen themselves.

• Technological development and research: Maintaining a competitive edge in the development of dual-use technologies (Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, advanced cryptography, new materials) requires significant investment in basic and applied research and greater synergy among academia, industry, and the military sector.

The 5% GDP commitment, with a specific allocation of a significant portion to these sectors, is therefore a direct and strategic response to these weaknesses. It will allow Italy not only to strengthen its conventional military capabilities but also to build the essential cyber and technological resilience to face future hybrid threats, aligning better with the expectations and collective security needs of the Atlantic Alliance.

The European contribution: overcoming challenges for shared and sustainable defense

This new global scenario necessitates that European states, including Italy, demonstrate a concrete and sustainable commitment to increasing defense spending. Claiming to aim for the target without detailed financial plans, adequate control mechanisms, and a system of penalties for non-compliance would not be an effective strategy.

Unfortunately, Italy is a clear example of this discrepancy between declarations and reality. Having never even reached the 2% GDP target for NATO spending – despite benefiting from American military protection – this attitude now demands a decisive change of course. How can a country expect to maintain international diplomatic and military credibility if it is unwilling to invest adequately in its own security?

• Financial pressure and transparency: Reaching 5% of GDP in less than ten years requires a clear financial and strategic roadmap, which must be fully transparent. Where will these resources come from? The Minister of Economy and Finance will face difficult choices. The debate on budgetary sustainability and the potential impact on other public spending areas, such as healthcare or welfare, will be unavoidable. It is crucial to avoid accounting maneuvers to mask non-compliance; stringent monitoring is needed to ensure that promised investments translate into real capabilities. As Professor Lorenzo Codogno, former chief economist at the Treasury and visiting professor at the London School of Economics, points out: "Italy has a very tight budget constraint due to its high public debt. Any significant increase in spending must be accompanied by a credible funding plan, otherwise it risks fueling tensions in financial markets."

• Role of ministries and economic impact: Not only the Ministry of Defense will manage this amount of money. The Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy will play a key role in directing investments towards national industry, while the Ministry of University and Research will be fundamental for training and R&D. The impact on GDP and employment is debated: while the defense (and dual-use) industry could experience exponential growth, such massive diversion of resources towards military spending could also create a "crowding out" effect, drawing capital and talent away from other civilian productive sectors.

For Europe to better manage the "two-front" situation for the US, alleviating the burden of conventional deterrence in Europe while also providing a strategic contribution in the Indo-Pacific, a radical change is essential in how Europe invests in military expertise, capabilities, and technologies. This requires closer cooperation in defense planning and industry between NATO and the EU, focusing on investments targeted at concrete operational needs.

Voices from the government: Crosetto and Meloni in contrast

Reactions to the 5% GDP commitment reveal nuanced differences within the Italian government, despite a shared strategic objective.

Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, a prominent figure in Italian politics and co-founder of Fratelli d'Italia, has articulated a position that, while acknowledging the need for greater investment, has also highlighted certain critical points:

• On feasibility and Italy's situation: In the past, Crosetto had already underscored Italy's difficulties in meeting lower spending targets, such as 2% of GDP, emphasizing that the country has "little room for maneuver." He also stated that Italy is "behind other" NATO countries in terms of preparedness and military spending. This assertion underscores awareness of the structural challenges Italy faces in meeting Alliance standards.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, leader of Fratelli d'Italia and current head of government, has, in contrast, adopted a more assertive and reassuring tone regarding Italy's commitment:

• On adherence to the 5% target: Meloni confirmed Italy's adherence to the NATO agreement to raise defense and security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, defining these commitments as "necessary" and "sustainable."

• On financial sustainability and Italian priorities: A key aspect of her statements is the reassurance that "No euro will be taken from policies for Italians." She reiterated that spending would be sustainable and would not divert resources from other government priorities, adding that there would be "total flexibility" in implementing these commitments.

• On the interpretation of the increase: Meloni sought to frame the increase as a continuation of previous commitments, arguing that the 1.5% increase for security is not "far from the commitment Italy already made in 2014." She also expressed some perplexity regarding calculations estimating an annual increase of €100 billion, stating, "I don't know how you make those calculations, frankly."

• On Italy's role in NATO: Meloni reaffirmed Italy's full support for Ukraine and the need to maintain pressure on Russia, emphasizing the importance of strengthening defense and security in a demanding global context.

Governance, transparency, and the necessary public debate

An investment of this magnitude, with such profound repercussions on society and the economy, requires impeccable governance and utmost transparency.

• Monitoring and accountability: How will transparency in the allocation and use of these funds be guaranteed? Will independent audits and periodic reports to Parliament be provided? The risk of waste or misuse of resources is high without robust control mechanisms.

• Role of Parliament and the public: Will Parliament be fully involved in strategic decisions regarding these investments, or will choices primarily be made at the executive level? An informed public debate is essential for the legitimacy of such decisions, especially in a country where military spending is often a polarizing issue.

• Ethical balance: The development of autonomous AI-based weapon systems, advanced surveillance, and other emerging technologies raises profound ethical questions. Will Italy establish dedicated ethics committees to guide technological development in line with democratic principles and human rights?

Why we've reached this point: the new US posture and the reasons for NATO's 5%

To fully grasp the urgency and scope of the 5% GDP defense target, it is crucial to analyze the geopolitical context that generated it. This is not a sudden decision but the culmination of strategic trends and international pressures.

The new US doctrine: the center of gravity shifts to the Indo-Pacific

The primary driver behind increased NATO expectations is the new global strategic reality of the United States. As highlighted by defense experts like Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for the United States under the Trump administration, the main threat to American military power today is no longer just in Europe but comes from the Indo-Pacific, where China represents the dominant challenge.

The United States finds itself simultaneously managing a "two-front" scenario: the Russian front in Europe and, crucially, the Chinese front. The 2022 National Defense Strategy of the Biden administration explicitly acknowledged that the US lacks the capacity to simultaneously fight a high-intensity war with China and another significant conflict, such as in Europe. The scarcity is not so much in the total number of soldiers or overall spending, but in critical platforms, weapons, and support assets that represent key advantages in modern warfare: heavy bombers, attack submarines, air transport, logistics, and precision munitions.

In this scenario, the idea that the United States can continue to defend Europe without a substantial increase in contributions from its allies is, as Colby would say, "entirely out of place." The call to raise NATO spending to 5% of GDP is not a whim but a clear strategic necessity to free up American "strategic bandwidth" and enable the US to focus on Asia. Expecting unconditional protection while sharply criticizing the protector is simply unsustainable. This shift in US focus compels Europe to assume greater responsibility for its own security.

Shortcomings revealed by the war in Ukraine and the need for European resilience

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 acted as a catalyst, starkly exposing the structural shortcomings of European defense capabilities.

• Insufficient ammunition stockpiles: Many European countries found themselves with inadequate ammunition and armaments to sustain a prolonged conflict, making it difficult to support Ukraine without compromising their own readiness.

• Limited production capacity: The European defense industry, downsized after the Cold War, struggled to rapidly scale up production to meet new demands.

• Hybrid and cyber threats: The war in Ukraine demonstrated the crucial importance of hybrid warfare, with cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and influence operations accompanying conventional military actions. In this context, the risk from state actors like Russia, but especially China, with their advanced capabilities to attack and sabotage critical infrastructure such as telecommunications, power grids, and hospitals, has become increasingly evident. Many European countries were not adequately prepared to face this dimension of the threat, which can cripple a country without firing a shot.

• Energy and technological dependence: Dependence on foreign suppliers for energy and critical technological components exposed strategic vulnerabilities.

In the face of this evidence and increasing Russian aggression, NATO recognized the need for a radical change. The 5% GDP target is therefore a direct response to these challenges, aimed at:

• Strengthening deterrence and collective defense: Increasing military capabilities to deter potential aggressors and ensure a robust response in case of attack.

• Promoting the re-industrialization of European defense: Incentivizing investment in the defense industry to boost production autonomy and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

• Investing in emerging and dual-use technologies: Preparing for the warfare of the future, where artificial intelligence, drones, cybersecurity, and space will be crucial battlegrounds.

• Ensuring greater burden-sharing: Distributing the burden of collective defense more equitably among all members, alleviating the strain on the United States.

In essence, the 5% of GDP is not merely a number but the symbol of a new era for European security, where strategic autonomy and 360-degree resilience become categorical imperatives.

The binding nature of spending targets: a non-trivial detail

Despite the strong rhetoric surrounding the 5% commitment, the "devil is in the details" regarding its actual binding nature. A letter from NATO sent to Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez seems to suggest that the target might not be as stringent as it appears.

The letter states that Spain "will have the flexibility to determine its own path to achieve the capability goals set by NATO," opening up a potentially less rigid interpretation of the obligation. This implies that other allies could make similar requests for flexibility. Furthermore, some allies might consider this permission to allocate less than 5% if they can demonstrate that they still achieve their "capability goals" (the list of which remains classified). These reassurances from NATO followed Spain's concerns about what it considered "unreasonable" spending targets.

"Allocating 5% of GDP to defense would slow economic growth through an increase in debt," stated the Spanish Prime Minister. Currently, the country spends approximately 1.28% of its GDP on defense, one of the lowest percentages in the alliance. The new NATO agreement, while requiring countries to increase their spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, stipulates that allies' "spending trajectory" will be reviewed in mid-2029. This interval offers leeway for potential national adjustments or reinterpretations of the path.

Data, documents, and think tank reports: the full picture

To fully understand the challenges and opportunities associated with increased defense spending, it is essential to analyze concrete data and strategic documents, as well as learn from the experiences of other NATO countries.

• Analysis of defense budgets in Italy: between past and imposing future

  • The historical path: Italy has historically struggled to meet NATO spending targets. While spending showed growth from an average of 1.4% of GDP in 2014 to an estimated 2% by 2024 (albeit partly due to accounting recalculations that include current expenditures in cyber, space, telecommunications, military mobility, and for other military bodies like the Coast Guard and Guardia di Finanza), the new 5% target marks a clear break.

  • The financial impact of 5%: Reaching 5% would mean Italy's spending would jump from approximately €33.4 billion in 2024 to over €100 billion per year by 2035. This figure would, for example, exceed the entire 2024 allocation for public education (around €79 billion). Annual increases could hover around €9-10 billion.

  • Implications for public finances: The financial burden is such that it necessitates profound reflections on sustainability. With high public debt, Italy would face a choice: either raise taxes or drastically cut other public spending items to free up the necessary resources. The "flexibility" promised by Meloni for the approach path will be crucial for managing the budget impact. In general, such a high target for an economy with significant public debt will require very painful budgetary choices, or an unlikely above-average GDP growth.

• National and NATO strategic documents: guidelines and ambiguities

  • The National Cybersecurity Strategy (2022-2026): This document, though predating the 5% target, forms the basis of Italy's cyber strategy. It envisages strengthening the National Cybersecurity Agency (ACN), enhancing prevention, monitoring, and response capabilities, and adopting "zero trust" guidelines for public administrations. Investment 1.5 Cybersecurity of the PNRR has already allocated funds for virtual polygons and the protection of satellite links and Defense's 5G networks.

  • NATO strategic documents: NATO reports and declarations, particularly those following the The Hague summit, reaffirm the need to invest not only in "pure defense spending" (3.5%) but also in "broader security" (1.5%), including cyber defense, dual-use infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports, airports for better military deployment), and preparing societies for future conflicts. This validates Italy's vision for the 1.5% in civilian sectors with military relevance. However, NATO targets, while strongly pushed, are not legally binding.

• Think tank reports: estimates, warnings, and European perspectives

  • Bruegel: The economic think tank Bruegel estimated that to "defend Europe without the US," the continent might need 300,000 more troops and an increase in defense spending of at least €250 billion per year in the short term (equivalent to approximately 3.5% of European GDP). A subsequent report indicated that to reach a 3.7% GDP spending target, several countries, including Italy (with high public debt), would face "immense fiscal challenges." This underscores the difficulty of reaching even intermediate targets and suggests the need for common European funding mechanisms (e.g., Defense Eurobonds).

  • Atlantic Council: This American think tank analyzed what could fall under the 5% of GDP, noting that the 1.5% allocated to "broader security" can be interpreted flexibly, including investments in civilian infrastructure with strategic military value. Some analysts express skepticism about the actual economic capacity of most allies to reach 5% without a strong impact on national economies, suggesting that a more "intelligent" approach to investment, focused on resilience rather than just gross spending, is more effective.

  • IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) and EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service): These institutes highlight the need for greater European cooperation in defense spending to leverage economies of scale. They estimate the "cost of non-Europe" in defense to be between €18 billion and €57 billion per year, due to fragmented procurement and duplicated capability development. This reinforces the idea that a coordinated approach is more efficient, a point often supported by Brussels.

• Comparative case studies: diverse paths to European re-armament

Reactions to the 5% target and the adjustment paths vary among NATO countries, offering interesting insights into how they are approaching cyber and dual-use investments:

• Poland: With a spending commitment set to reach 4.7% of GDP in 2025 (the highest among NATO members), Poland is an example of speed and determination. It has redirected €6 billion in EU funds (originally for green projects) towards dual-use infrastructure (tank roads, civilian-military shelters) and defense technologies (cybersecurity, AI). In 2025, it plans to spend a record €900 million on cybersecurity due to increased attacks, many attributed to Russia and Belarus. Its strategy includes a strong focus on drones and anti-drone systems, electronic warfare, and satellite imaging. A key element is the commitment to allocate 50% of modernization funds to domestic production, incentivizing national R&D.

• Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): These countries, particularly exposed to the Russian threat, emphasize accelerating innovation and rapidly adopting dual-use technologies (autonomous vehicles, drones, smart communication solutions). They promote greater cooperation between defense forces and the private sector. EU-funded support programs exist, such as €32 million for dual-use product and technology development in Latvia. Despite having smaller defense industries, their responsiveness and focus on smart solutions, also with the support of NATO initiatives like the DIANA program and the innovation fund, are exemplary.

• Germany: Germany is increasing its defense spending, aiming for 2% and with a minister suggesting it could reach 3.5%. It established a €100 billion extra-budgetary fund (now exhausted) to boost its capabilities. A recent fiscal agreement includes a €500 billion special fund for infrastructure and a new rule allowing unlimited defense spending beyond 1% of GDP, exempting it from debt brakes. In the cyber domain, Germany, traditionally more defense-oriented, is building offensive capabilities through agencies like the Center for Information Technology in the Security Sector (ZITiS) and a unified Cyber Command (CIR), as well as a cyber innovation agency with a budget of €200 million for research projects. Berlin places strong emphasis on data sharing within NATO.

• France: France, aiming to increase spending from 2% to 3-3.5% of GDP, has announced a €450 million defense fund and plans to raise €5 billion in public and private funding to strengthen its defense companies. A significant portion of these funds is allocated to cyber defense. Its national cybersecurity strategy focuses on sovereignty, crime response, public information, and transforming digital security into a competitive advantage. Paris has also recruited 1,000 new cyber specialists and allocated €1.5 billion to the armed forces for cyber until 2025, with a strong push for European strategic digital autonomy.

• United Kingdom: The UK is increasing defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with the ambition to reach 3.5% by 2035. It announced a £5 billion technology investment, including over £4 billion for autonomous systems (drones) and almost £1 billion for Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs), such as the DragonFire laser. Lessons from Ukraine are driving its innovation, with a focus on drones, data, and digital warfare. The UK Defense Innovation Fund, with £400 million, aims to stimulate the development of dual-use technologies (AI, cyber, semiconductors, quantum), promoting supply chain resilience. The UK Ministry of Defense plans to allocate at least 10% of its equipment budget to acquiring novel technologies.

Conclusions: Italy towards a future of complex and responsible security

Italy stands at a historical crossroads, driven by NATO commitments and the harsh reality of a "two-front" world that compels the United States to rethink its global strategy. The investment of 5% of GDP in defense, with a strong emphasis on cybersecurity and dual-use technologies, is not an option but a necessary step to ensure the country's security and resilience and to finally assume a credible role in the Alliance.

The challenge is not only financial but also cultural and strategic: integrating military and civilian capabilities, training new generations of experts, and maintaining a balance between security and freedom. The success of this transformation will depend on the government's ability to manage such a complex process with transparency, foresight, and a broad systemic vision. It is time for Italy to move from promises and ideological critiques to concrete and sustainable plans for its own security, recognizing that American resources are not infinite and that collective defense requires a real commitment from all.

In this context, while the increase in national spending is fundamental, the vision of truly leveraging European defense capabilities does not necessarily mean creating a separate and distinct European army. Instead, the focus should be on strengthening and optimizing existing capacities within NATO. This implies enhancing interoperability, streamlining procurement processes, and fostering greater coordination among European allies' defense plans. The already established structures of NATO offer a framework for improving efficiency and effectiveness, avoiding costly duplications and long lead times associated with building entirely new, autonomous military structures. Europe can and must enhance its strategic autonomy, but doing so within the existing Alliance framework ensures seamless integration, proven operational readiness, and a unified response to evolving threats.