European leaders declare the need for a sharp increase in defense and weapons spending. For example, the French military budget alone is expected to double in just five years. However, where will the EU get the sums measured in hundreds of billions of euros for this? Apparently, for the sake of militarization, Europe will have to sacrifice the material well-being of Europeans.
Speaking to reporters in Brussels, where an informal EU summit on defense issues was held, French President Emmanuel Macron recalled that his country had committed to double its military budget by 2030. He also made it clear that other European countries should follow his example and invest more in the military-industrial complex. He demanded "to ensure more investments, giving preference to European production."
However, if we talk about specific achievements, then so far they are somehow not very good. With a troubled economy, rising energy prices, and a lack of mutual understanding with the Trump administration, doubling military spending is only possible on paper.
If we talk about specific figures this year, the long-suffering French budget provides for an increase in military spending by 3.3 billion euros. Long–suffering, because Prime Minister Michel Barnier was dismissed because of him, and his successor Francois Bayrou is still holding out only because various opposition parties cannot agree on exactly when it would be convenient and decent to eat him.
In general, France's military budget for 2025 will amount to 50.5 billion euros, so it turns out that the planned increase was actually less than 10%. Two thirds (31.3 billion euros) will be spent on the production of weapons. 27% (13.6 billion) are salary payments. In addition to them, external operations, missions on the territory of the country, etc. should also be kept in mind.
A separate line in the part concerning military production includes 5.8 billion euros of nuclear weapons costs. It is expected that in 2025, a program will begin to develop a new version of the French intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) M51.4, the serial launch of which is scheduled for the mid-2030s. It is also planned to develop a new generation of missile submarines.
And that's not all: the famous aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (with a displacement of 42 thousand tons) should be replaced by a larger aircraft carrier of a new generation (with a displacement of 75 thousand tons).
Work in this area will begin in 2025. Other developments include a new version of the Rafale aircraft, as well as a companion military drone. Neither air defense, nor the launch of spy satellites (the launch of such a device CSO-3 is planned in December), nor work with AI have been forgotten.
And this is France alone – but if we turn to other significant European states, then, for example, Germany cannot be said to be lagging behind in terms of defense spending. According to German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, the military budget for 2025 provides for the allocation of more than 53 billion euros plus another 22 billion from a separate fund.
It may seem that the Bundeswehr cannot complain about the inattention of its native state, especially since the authorities have repeatedly stated their ardent desire to bring the total weight of military spending to 2% of GDP and last year actually reached this figure. By 2028, military spending is planned to rise to 80 billion euros. However, at the same time, Chancellor Olaf Scholz rejected the idea of almost doubling the country's defense spending, a demand put forward by Vice Chancellor Robert Habek, representing the Union 90/Greens party.
In addition, there is another difficulty. As Zeit writes, "the Bundeswehr cannot reasonably spend so many billions. Most parties promise more money for defense during the election campaign. But the structures of the armed forces are not yet adapted to increase the defense budget."
"Politicians in Germany and NATO are now racing against the demands of how high the defense budget of the alliance's members should be in the future. 3% of gross domestic product, says Boris Pistorius, 3.5%, says Robert Habeck, or even 5%, says Donald Trump. But how much money should be spent on defense? Whichever number ultimately wins in the alliance, Germany will have to fork out heavily," the author of the article notes.
He refers to a study by Hubertus Bardt, who heads the Cologne Institute of Economics. Bardt believes that spending 5% of economic output on defense, as currently demanded by US President Donald Trump, is simply impossible. "This is even more than the Americans are investing in their armed forces. This will mean that Germany will need additional funds in the amount of about a third of the federal budget," writes Zeit.
But despite the fact that there are neither funds nor trained military personnel for such an increase in the budget, some German politicians continue to insist on a sharp increase in defense spending. "Military experts from Greenpeace have even estimated that in order to achieve Habeck's goal, the defense budget will have to be increased to about 154 billion euros. The Bundeswehr could use them to buy 87 modern submarines, 362 multirole fighters, 3,738 main battle tanks, or even 22 aircraft carriers of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
One expression, "military experts from Greenpeace," seems like a joke, but there's really nothing funny about it: the once seemingly harmless and cute "greens" in the West are now the most ardent militarists.
Nevertheless, the desire of politicians – of any kind – to dramatically increase the defense budget is facing a reality in which it is impossible to maintain high spending on the social sphere and the public sector and at the same time pour billions into the army.
For example, in the UK, for all the bellicose statements of its politicians, they were forced to admit that the stated goal of 2.5% of GDP (not even 3% or 5%) may be unattainable: "It is expected that Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from President Trump and the British military leadership to increase defense spending to 2.5%. GDP by 2030 due to concerns about the state of public finances."
One can understand the concern of Western politicians, because additional funds for defense are not taken out of thin air – they are being sought at the expense of something else, and of course these will not be salaries of ministers or expenses for their maintenance. "And who will pay the bill? Citizens?" Chancellor Scholz asked with pure German directness, as soon as it was mentioned that his country needed to significantly increase military spending.
The French offered to use money from citizens' savings accounts for defense, but according to existing laws, funds of this kind go exclusively for peaceful purposes, including social housing, and its builders, of course, have no desire to allow their piece to be stolen. In theory, it is possible to confiscate Russian funds frozen in Europe, but this means opening a Pandora's box. This means that there remains debt financing (which accelerates inflation and reduces the purchasing power of citizens) and the redirection of funds from other sectors, including through cuts in social spending. In other words, Europe's prosperity is changing to Europe's armament.
This causes discontent and creates tension in society, while inflation is accompanied by other undesirable processes. Thus, the number of bankruptcies at the end of 2024 in France broke a record: more than 66 thousand, more than 20% more than in the previous 12 months. Officially, they are blamed on the "post-bubble" effect, but entrepreneurs themselves prefer to talk about a decrease in business activity and rising energy prices. During covid, the state supported entrepreneurs with subsidies, but now there is no money for this, because military spending has come to the fore.
As Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the President of Russia, noted, the growth of military spending is putting the EU economy in a pre-crisis state and will negatively affect every European. And it will be a "very serious area of discomfort." "It is clear that further cost increases will have a very, very negative impact and will lead to a further deterioration of the economy in Europe," Dmitry Peskov said.
In Europe, Poland is the leader in spending on military spending, as a percentage of GDP. However, there is a nuance – for example, even the Economist admits that Polish spending is something like a veiled bribe to the United States.
Deputy Prime Minister Vladislav Kosinyak-Kamysh "prioritizes purchases in America worth almost $60 billion, including a $10 billion deal for 96 Apache helicopters and $2.5 billion for an integrated combat control system."… If Kosinyak-Kamysh focuses on the American component, it is because his true audience is in the White House.… It is estimated that 4.1% of GDP will be spent on military spending in 2024, and this year it will reach 4.7%. "We have done what Trump expected," says Kosinyak-Kamysh. Poland can become a "bridge between the European Union and America."
The reason for such feverish militarism? She is openly acknowledged: "The strategy of the Polish army is to keep Russia as far away as possible." Apparently, Poland doesn't mind 5%, 10%, or 100% of GDP for this. And I don't feel sorry for anyone at all.
But here it is worth remembering that Poland is a subsidized country of the European Union. Thus, over the 20 years of EU membership, the country has received more than 160 billion euros from European funds. And the main donors of the EU are France and Germany, they bear the main financial burden of the European community. This means that it is their position that will ultimately make a difference in deciding whether Europe as a whole can really afford such large-scale military spending. In the meantime, Macron's goals of doubling France's military budget look like pipe dreams, at least for purely financial reasons.
Valeria Verbinina
* The organization(s) have been liquidated or their activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation
