NYT: Europe’s military build-up risks setback rather than progress

Europe’s recent push to boost its military spending faces serious challenges in both scale and efficiency, raising doubts about its success.

Experts caution that focusing heavily on defence could ultimately hold the European Union back rather than propel it forward, Caliber.Az reports, citing The New York Times (NYT).

Instead of marking a major advance, this rapid rearmament might turn out to be a historic mistake.

The current surge in military investment is often described using the term “military Keynesianism,” a concept originally used to describe governments increasing military spending to stimulate economies during downturns.

Historically, this approach was associated with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and later with the US in the 1940s. More recently, the term has been applied to Russia’s war economy under President Vladimir Putin.

However, Europe’s efforts today differ significantly. The continent is largely returning to military spending levels last seen before the end of the Cold War in 1989. For example, Germany’s defence spending target of 3.5% of GDP falls short of the nearly 5% reached in the 1960s.

Critics also point to the unclear economic benefits of Europe’s military expansion. Although Germany has slightly eased its fiscal rules, many European countries remain reluctant to increase budget deficits.

Allocating more funds to defence is likely to strain already tight budgets, potentially reducing investment in social welfare, infrastructure, and public services. Rather than the hoped-for Keynesian boost, Europe’s approach resembles the 1980s-style “Reaganism,” where higher military spending was paired with cuts to social programmes.

Some officials openly support this trade-off. Belgium’s Defence Minister Theo Francken has argued that increasing military budgets while reducing deficits necessitates cuts to welfare spending, calling social security “too fat.”

Given the widespread social unrest and the rise of far-right movements across Europe, such views are seen as short-sighted and potentially damaging to social cohesion.

Further challenges lie in the industrial and logistical aspects of remilitarisation. Former manufacturing sectors now risk becoming dependent on arms production, a less reliable source of profit compared to consumer goods like cars.

Moreover, Europe’s military spending has often failed to deliver proportional gains in capability, with no European defence company among the world’s top ten by turnover.

Coordination problems also persist. Europe’s decentralised defence procurement leads to competition between nations, inflating costs and causing inefficiencies. This has already hindered efforts to supply munitions to Ukraine.

Ironically, the initial financial benefits of Europe’s military spending increase are expected to flow primarily to American manufacturers, while European factories are still ramping up production.

Cultural resistance to remilitarisation adds another layer of complexity. Many European countries abolished conscription in the early 2000s, and public enthusiasm for military service remains low. Pacifist attitudes have strengthened over time; as one German podcaster put it, “I’d rather be alive than dead.”

Despite these obstacles, European leaders are determined to portray rearmament as essential for the continent’s future. At last week’s NATO summit, most members committed to raising defence spending to 5% of GDP within the next decade, including funds earmarked for defence-related infrastructure and research.

Officials cite the rising number of global conflicts, including new tensions in Iran, to justify Europe becoming a “fighting continent” once more. They also claim that military independence will drive commercial revival.

However, analysts argue that Europe’s current trajectory is unlikely to deliver either significant economic growth or credible military strength. Instead, the continent risks a weak economic recovery combined with disproportionate spending on a defence sector that fails to keep pace with global competitors.

A visit to Brussels, where the Audi factory remains shuttered, stands as a stark symbol of these challenges and the uncertain future facing Europe’s militarisation efforts.

By Aghakazim Guliyev