Where to get more money for military spending?
Governments across Europe are looking for ways to boost their defence and security spending. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed relaxing the EU's debt rules, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to increase his country's defence budget to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027. Europe's media question whether Europe's leaders are setting the right priorities for the long term.
Future generations will pay the price
Corriere della Sera grants that relaxing the EU debt rules is the only way for countries like Italy to finance additional armaments, but bemoans the lack of a clear discussion on the subject:
“Suppressing reality is a habit that is becoming increasingly popular. ... We talk about defence spending as little as possible. Almost no one, for example, recognises the following fact: while our exorbitant public debt has reached 138.4 percent of GDP, our country will be allowed to further increase it if von der Leyen's proposal is not rejected. For more defence, this is perhaps the only possible solution. But it is also a licence to saddle future generations with more debt.”
Rearmament alone won't be enough
Without economic reforms, strategic autonomy will forever remain an illusion, political scientist Yascha Mounk argues in Le Point:
“An increase in military spending, even one that is decisive, won’t suffice to return genuine agency to the continent. For in the long-run, military strength is deeply dependent on economic prosperity. So for Europe to sustain strategic autonomy, policymakers will also need to undertake the radical reforms that are necessary to reverse the continent’s seemingly inexorable economic decline.”
Self-inflicted dilemma
The EU should get its own act together rather than complaining about the US, writes political scientist Kęstutis Girnius in Delfi:
“In some respects the Europeans' outrage and surprise are understandable, but they also reflect a dishonest refusal to recognise that their policies helped trigger Trump's reaction. The EU benefited from US protection but failed to adequately fund its armed forces. Instead of the agreed two percent of GDP, many states only spent around one percent on defence. ... Yet the EU is no dwarf. ... Despite slower growth it remains the second largest economy in the world in nominal terms and the third largest in relation to purchasing power. The lack of funding for defence was a sovereign decision by the EU states - they alone bear responsibility for their weak military capacities. ... If Europe is in danger, it is because of its own negligence.”
Self-defeating logic
The Guardian does not consider it a good idea to finance higher defence spending by cutting development aid, as British Prime Minister Starmer has announced:
“It is also wrong - forcing the world's poor to pay for Britain's safety. This is a false economy. Cutting aid will make the world more unstable, not less. The very crises that fuel conflict - poverty, failed states, climate disasters and mass displacement - will only worsen with less development funding. Labour's logic is self‑defeating: diverting money from aid to defence does not buy security; it undermines it.”
By no means a game-changer
The additional funds Starmer has pledged for the defence budget are entirely insufficient, The Spectator huffs:
“In effect, Starmer has applied a tourniquet to stop a wound bleeding. ... More money is always better than less. But this modest increase, which will only take effect in two years' time, is not a game-changer: it does not allow huge new procurement programmes or technological innovations. At best it keeps the UK at the table. If Starmer thinks he is taking a fattened calf to Washington, he may find President Trump's assessment disappointing.”