Three arguments against increasing the defense budget in the EU

Under the strong influence of the Ukraine war, a positive answer to the question seems instant. This has already been realized by some governments of EU member states, including Spain, accelerating the pace of fulfillment of commitments that many of them have (we must remember that the 21 EU members are also members of NATO). At the Atlantic Alliance Summit in 2014. Commitment set out in the decision to achieve 2% of GDP by 2024 dedicated to defense.

And now that Vladimir Putin has chosen to violate international law by invading an independent state, using the most basic rules of war using prohibited weapons and tactics, and international humanitarian law by slaughtering unarmed civilians, this will increase costs. The defense already seems unstoppable.

However, trying to insert a bit of rationality into this instinctive race, to which others will soon be added, has at least three strong reasons that point us in a different direction.

Russian question

First and foremost, consider the level of threat posed by Russia, properly defined by Josep Borrell as a “gas station and barracks.” It is true that Russia is the first nuclear power on the planet and only the US can overshadow it in this area. But it is also true that even in the boom years – under threat from the international price of hydrocarbons – it did not allocate more than $ 60,000 million to the Department of Defense, given that it is the largest country in the world and has to cross many other borders.

Added to this is the deplorable performance that his troops are currently displaying in Ukraine, much lower than assumed by the fake almighty military machine that Putin sought to modernize in this century. Twenty-seven, meanwhile, so that the majority did not reach the net percentage that is not explained – why 2% and not 4% or 1% – the reality already shows that its defense budget totals about $ 200,000 million. , Which would directly make the EU the second largest military power on the planet if this effort were at the service of a common agenda.

Military spending during a crisis

Secondly, it is impossible to ignore the fact that since 2008 we have experienced several economic crises, due to the pandemic in 2020 and now due to the first consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The combination of these factors already has a serious impact on our well-being, accelerating the processes of social instability and economic deterioration, which ultimately calls into question both the democratic framework that defines us and the social peace on our streets.

In these circumstances, it is clear that the priority of the various national governments, beyond their initial ideology, should be to stop the deterioration mentioned and to avoid social unrest by those who seek to seize power from a clearly anti-democratic populist. Achievements. Every government faces the difficult task of meeting infinite needs with finite resources and, consequently, the urgent need to set priorities, at a time when the return of the state as the main actor in the delivery of universal public services is required. Caring for the most vulnerable. And all of this, more than military defense, must be translated into promoting social policy, education, health, the welfare state, or R&D.

Do not spend more, but spend better

Added to the above factors is the belief that the basic approach seen from the EU is summed up in the idea that it is not spending more on defense than spending better. None of the twenty-seven can stand alone in the face of the challenges and dangers that the world faces today. It also means, in the military aspect, that the idea of ​​national defense is only within the framework of society if we assume that there are no threats among its members and that everyone shares the threats that come from abroad. In this regard, it is appropriate and necessary to jointly assess what these threats are and also to jointly decide how to deal with their human, physical and budgetary resources, which can be equally shared.

The United States may not be a credible partner (as Merkel said in 2017, a few months after Donald Trump’s inauguration), and NATO always means, whether we like it or not, that Washington’s subordination, whatever it’s left. The ultimate guarantor of the safety of many Europeans. Europe of Defense is established as a necessity for a group of middle forces who aspire to have their own voice in the international arena and to maintain an extremely high level of prosperity and security. But achieving this goal does not necessarily mean becoming a military giant, let alone insisting on a nationalist path that only leads to the past.

Jesús A. Nuñez Villaverde is co-director of the Institute for Conflict and Humanitarian Action Research (IECAH).