Though NATO defense ministers appeared to agree to pursue a significant increase in member states' military spending to 5 percent of GDP, that should not be considered the sole voice of Europe, experts said, raising doubt on the goal's achievability.

Upon concluding a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday, Secretary-General Mark Rutte said in a news conference that they "agreed on an ambitious new set of capability targets", based on which he will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5 percent of GDP in defense investment, of which 3.5 percent is for core defense spending and 1.5 percent for broader security-related investment like infrastructure and industry.

"This is based on what it will cost to meet the new capability targets that ministers have just agreed," Rutte said. "These targets describe exactly what capabilities allies need to invest in over the coming years."

With the NATO Summit scheduled to be held in The Hague on June 24-25, Rutte is expected to propose the 5-percent goal there.

For Duan Demin, a professor of European studies at Peking University, it is not surprising that NATO is pushing European countries to increase their defense spending because that has long been a demand of the United States. "Against the backdrop of the US administration pushing for Russia-Ukraine peace talks and significantly reducing the urgency of military aid, calls for Europe to independently boost its defense spending and for rearming Europe have grown notably stronger," he told China Daily. "NATO welcomes this trend and is actively promoting it."

But he said NATO and the EU are not entirely the same, and that the NATO ministerial meeting should not be considered the sole voice of Europe.

"Within the EU, there are voices advocating for greater autonomy from the United States, which have grown louder in recent times," he said. "NATO, on the other hand, has consistently called for Europe to strengthen its defense spending under US leadership. The multiple voices of European nations besides those included in the US-led mechanisms should be heard more."

Different standpoints

Marie-Sybille de Vienne, emeritus professor at the National Institute for Oriental Languages and Civilizations, as well as a member of the French National Academy for Overseas Sciences, stressed more about the different standpoints between the US and Europe.

It's worth noting that "Europe is not NATO", she told China Daily. "There is a point that within NATO Europe too much needs the US cooperation and protection up to today, but if Europe manages to build an effective European defense, then the balance within NATO itself will be different."

Herman Van Rompuy, former prime minister of Belgium and later the first permanent president of the European Council, said at the Sino-European Higher Education Forum on Technologies & Arts on Thursday: "The EU must be more strategically autonomous in many sectors, such as defense, energy, batteries and rare earth, climate, migration and others. Other global actors also have a strategy of more self-reliance."

"It remains in doubt whether the 5 percent target can actually be achieved and sustained," said Zhang Xuefeng, an independent military observer. "Currently, aside from Russia and Ukraine in the crisis, other major powers, including the United States, have defense budgets far below 5 percent of GDP. Setting such a high target will be a heavy burden that's hard for them to reach, which is simply unrealistic in the long term."

Vienne said NATO's move does not target China and expressed confidence that the Europe-China relationship will continue to flourish.

"You do not choose your neighbors, but you choose your friends," she said. "I think that positive relations between China and the EU worked for the last 50 years and let's hope that mutual respect will continue to work for the next half a century."