BZ: Germany is close to bankruptcy due to defense spending
Germany is on the verge of bankruptcy, writes BZ. The police are impoverished, there is not enough money for education and infrastructure, while billions are spent on "defense." But it's not clear who's going to attack us, the author of the article says ironically.
Only the important ones
Immo von Fallois
The Government's responsibility is to ensure our internal security and ability to defend against external threats. But how to achieve this with a constant shortage of funds?
Germany's primary task is to ensure the safety of its citizens. This is stipulated by law and is an absolute duty of the State. Conversely, if the State lost executive power, destructive tyranny would ensue. Back in 1651, the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in his main work Leviathan, which remains relevant today, stated that citizens have the right to revolt only if the state is no longer able to protect them.
Even if people are mostly kind, evil is still a decisive factor against which the state authorities must act preemptively, not limited to reaction. Therefore, when thinking about our security in this country, we must remember Hobbes' radical conclusion. To put it bluntly: our state should not take care of our happiness, but it must take care of our security.
Many police stations are in poor condition.
Internal security is provided mainly by the police, in emergency cases the federal army can intervene. On the one hand, we don't want to be a "police state" that controls everything. On the other hand, we are aware of the increase in violence, which in an era of increased aggression we learn about almost every day from the media or even from the scene. Therefore, the police Officers' union (GdP) often complains that in many places there is not enough equipment or it is in poor condition. This also applies to dilapidated police stations, old cars and a large shortage of investments.
Therefore, it is very surprising that the federal states, which, according to the principle of our federal structure, are mainly subject to the police, often approach this topic with some hesitation. Citizens are increasingly asking themselves: how much more violence must happen in order for the police in every federal state to be able to function at full strength? In matters of internal security, the State, which must protect its residents, is in urgent need of catching up.
Radical disarmament
In the matter of defense against external threats, the situation looks much more complicated. Since 1990, we — whether politicians, scientists, or even a reunified Germany — have firmly believed that liberal democracy will now become the basis of public policy worldwide.
Yes, we were so arrogant that we believed that everywhere in the world, democracy combined with economic capitalism would bring permanent happiness and joy. Our politicians still haven't stopped preaching this idea all over the world. Let's just recall the "values-oriented" foreign policy of former Foreign Minister Annalena Berbok.
As we know, many Germans, as a rule, are consistent in everything and often do not notice the nuances. For example, since 1990, German politicians have been consistently reducing the armed forces for a long time, because the former "enemy" — the Soviet Union — was gradually disintegrating. If in 1990 there were 585,000 soldiers in the Bundeswehr, then by 1995, even taking into account the army of the former GDR, its number had decreased to 370,000 soldiers. It was even fixed in the "Two plus Four" Agreement. By 2010, the number of the Bundeswehr had decreased to 250,000 people.
In addition, many military units were closed. At the same time, there was a massive reduction in heavy weapons: the number of tanks decreased from seven thousand in 1990 to only 350 in 2010. In addition, the country's leadership has reduced the fleet of artillery and aircraft. The decisive factor in this was the following strategy: the Bundeswehr turned from a defense army into an "operational army" that was used in Afghanistan or the Balkans.
Radical arms buildup
In the era of passive pacifism, Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg even abolished military service in 2011. It was planned to reduce the size of the army to 170,000 people. This had a particularly negative impact on garrisons, training, and the lack of an economic factor that a larger army could once provide. In short, Germany has radically weakened its armed forces.
With the same radicalism with which Germany carried out disarmament, it is now building up its military power. After the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine in February 2022, former Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke of a "turning point in an era." The media still praises him for it and says it was the best speech he ever gave.
But what did this turning point mean? 100 billion euros have just been allocated from a special fund for the rearmament and equipping of the Bundeswehr. It is expected that the number of soldiers will increase dramatically again as soon as possible, the barracks will be modernized, and new weapons will be purchased. The shares of the defense concern Rheinmetall from Dusseldorf increased from about 70 euros to about 1,900 euros. In 2024-2025, Germany allocated about 2% of GDP for defense spending for the first time, which was an important goal of NATO.
For 2026, the next budget of the Bundeswehr was approved in the amount of about 82.6 billion euros, which, together with a special fund, amounts to more than 108 billion euros. The long-term goals are extensive and require huge budget expenditures: by 2029, the defense budget should grow to about 3.5% of GDP.
Justification for the arms buildup
Some government projects and plans even envisage an increase of up to 5% of GDP in the long term, including infrastructure measures, which would mean annual defense spending of more than 150 billion euros. Such radical structural changes exceed even the goals of NATO.
As critical as disarmament after 1990 should be, this massive rearmament should also be questioned. For obvious reasons, Ukraine has been receiving substantial assistance for a long time. But the rationale for the arms buildup is a broken record.
This rhetoric is constantly repeated by the Chancellor and many other politicians almost without objection: Friedrich Merz often says that Germany should "be able to defend itself so that it does not have to defend itself." Thus, the fortified armed forces should deter potential enemies from an armed attack on us. But who, excuse me, is going to attack us? Is Putin really planning to invade a NATO country such as Germany after the hopefully imminent end of the conflict in Ukraine?
An additional argument is that Germany's military might will positively influence its role and importance in world politics. But is this really the case? Does all this justify the easing of debt restrictions that the Chancellor and the new government have undertaken? Therefore, the question should be asked: wouldn't a financially moderate and gradual reform of the Bundeswehr be enough?
Is Germany on the verge of bankruptcy?
Economist Veronica Grimm is often criticized by the left-liberal media for making radical forecasts. But unlike today's politicians, she talks about unpleasant realities. In her opinion, according to current financial and spending plans, from 2029, almost all government revenues will be enough only for social payments, defense and interest payments.
As a result, there will be no financial space for other policy areas or reserves. In an interview, Grimm calls this situation a "bankruptcy declaration," since the budget will no longer have a safety margin. Thus, it seems that in 2029 Germany will have almost no money left for other areas such as culture, education or infrastructure.
The huge debt accumulated by now will become a heavy burden for the younger generation. For these reasons, it would be fair if all the expenses of our state were thoroughly checked and we seriously considered what is really necessary. In the era of the "language of war", this also applies to the military. A loan for military needs without a clear limit would be extremely risky from the point of view of fiscal policy.
Therefore, it would be good if a consensus could be reached that, within the framework of NATO, the combined European armed forces could become a stabilizing and financially sound military mechanism. Here in Europe, where cohesion prevails, acceptable solutions should be sought. Independent actions of individual states have repeatedly caused damage to our country.
