EU defence package: the right strategy?
The EU wants to massively increase its defence capacity: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday presented the 'ReArm Europe' plan, which aims to mobilise up to 800 billion euros for defence spending across the bloc. The package includes eased debt rules and loans for investments in defence. Commentators look at the pros and cons.
Not feasible without common EU debt
Von der Leyen's announcement is a sham, criticises the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
“She expects the vast majority - 650 billion euros over four years - to come from the member states. This is based on the assumption that they will spend an average of 1.5 percent more of their economic output on defence each year than they have done to date and be exempt from the EU budget rules. This is a bold assumption. Some member states don't want to increase their defence spending that much, others are not in a position to. ... New joint debts are therefore certainly not off the table.”
A very optimistic calculation
Rzeczpospolita is sceptical as to the impact additional funds accumulated through the easing of debt rules will have over the next four years:
“Von der Leyen puts the proposed initiative at 800 billion euros. That sounds impressive, but how realistic is it? The lion's share will come from the announcement that deducting military spending from the calculation of the permissible budget deficit could allow countries to increase their defence spending by an average of 1.5 percent of GDP over four years. That amounts to 600 billion. But will Russia give the Europeans those four years? And will the member states actually take advantage of this opportunity and mobilise the funds?”
Boost efficiency as well as spending
Political scientist Ramūnas Vilpišauskas counsels in 15min:
“European countries will have to borrow more - and if a coalition of the willing comes about, possibly even jointly. Of course, pooling more money for defence is only the first step. At the same time it will be necessary to reduce the fragmentation of the European defence industry, increase its capacities, and rationalise public procurement. This is now the main way for Europe not only to strengthen its security, but also to convince the US that it must pay more attention to its allies' interests and opinions.”
Tax hikes would be counterproductive
L'Opinion warns against putting too much strain on public finances - and trying to balance them through higher taxes:
“Government and security policies will devour our public finances and require difficult choices. As usual, politicians' first reflex will be to raise taxes - with the risk of discouraging those who create wealth and slowing down the very thing the 'war economy' needs most: growth. A new era - and a new challenge: adapting the budget and social welfare spending to military requirements.”
Putin as bogeyman very effective
The Russian threat is being used to justify a suspiciously large number of measures, columnist Isaac Rosa muses in eldiario.es:
“One would think that after three years of an extremely costly war against Ukraine which it still hasn't been able to win, Russia would have little desire for new adventures. ... Nevertheless, we have revived the old 'Russia is to blame' argument and from now on the spectre of Putin will be used to justify all sorts of things: Increased military spending? Putin! Cuts to public spending to invest more in defence? Putin! Re-introduction of compulsory military service? Putin! Anything they propose using the Putin argument will be implemented. Including the purchase of a large proportion of the weapons from the US, of all places.”