“Think Big and Do Big Things”
Debate intensifies on the new Bundeswehr “Special Funds” or an increase of the military budget up to 3.5 percent of the GDP. New Greenpeace study: NATO countries already invest in the military ten-times more money than Russia.
BERLIN (own report) – In light of the looming new elections, the debate on increasing the German military budget is intensifying. German Economyics Minister Robert Habeck, is insisting on a new “Special Fund” being adopted before elections, reasoning that if the AfD and BSW win together a third of the seats in the next Bundestag, the necessary two-thirds majority can no longer be achieved. According to the Federal Audit Office, the “Special Funds,” which were first accorded in late February 2022, are in fact special debts. On the other hand, Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, proposes the alternative of increasing the Bundeswehr’s budget up to 3.5 percent of Germany’s GDP. Currently, that would amount to more than €140 billion. In light of the fact that the demand for a massive arms buildup is usually justified by the need to gain ground on Russia’s military superiority, a new study published by Greenpeace points to the fact that NATO countries are already spending ten-times more on their military than Russia. According to Greenpeace NATO should use its conventional weaponry superiority to insist on disarmament.
Under Time Pressure
Since Berlin’s coalition government’s collapse, the debate is escalating over making new special debts to pursue the Bundeswehr’s arms buildup. This is due to considerations that a required two-thirds majority in the Bundestag could be in jeopardy following the upcoming elections – if the AfD and the BSW together win more than a third of the seats in parliament. It is suspected that they will consistently vote against a new “Special Fund.” “This problem” will not disappear” after the elections. explained Economy Minister Robert Habeck.[1] This is why the Green Party politician is pushing for new special debts to be passed by the current Bundestag’s secure majority before the elections. After all, the current “Special Funds” from 2022, will already be largely “exhausted” by 2027. Habeck argues that the federal budget does not allow for such an increase in military spending. With this in mind, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius had already insisted, back in May, that the defense budget be exempted from the “debt ceiling.”[2] However, the needed two-thirds majority in the Bundestag is currently not guaranteed.
“Functionalality without Expiration Date”
However, within the German establishment there are strong objections to new special debts. For example, Moritz Schularick, President of the Institute for the World Economy (ifw) in Kiel declared that in light of the limited duration of a new “Special Fund,” “functionality without an expiration date” is what is needed.[3] Carlo Masala, professor for International Policy at the Bundeswehr University in Munich also argues in favor of “a significant increase in the regular defense budget – not least of all because “planning can be better” – i.e., above all, also more flexible. Masala speaks in terms of an annual increase of around “€10 billion.”[4] Others are calling for more. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock recently declared that “in today’s situation,” NATO’s two percent target, “is no longer sufficient,” today, in terms of the military budget, one has “to think big and do big things.”[5] Pistorius, on the other hand, recently also declared that a Bundeswehr budget at two percent of Germany’s GDP would merely be “the baseline, not the ceiling.” At the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in February, he mentioned as a possible target an amount in the range of “three or even 3.5 percent” of the GNP.[6]
Contradictory Opinions
Surveys on this issue paint a contradictory picture. For example, in a survey taken by the Hamburg-based Körber Foundation, 50 percent of the Germans responded in favor of implementing Pistorius’ plan of spending up to 3.5 percent of the GDP on the Bundeswehr.[7] Fifteen percent even find the percentage too low. At the same time, 56 percent are opposed to the necessary budget cuts in social affairs, ecology, culture and development. It is unclear where else the funds should be taken. Less than half – forty-six percent – favor Germany’s stronger engagement in international crises. Of these, however, 71 percent favor diplomatic activities, 15 percent, financial measures and a mere 10 percent, military engagement. Sixty-five percent rather reject Germany assuming a military leadership role within the EU. Finally, only 35 percent believe that Germany should replace the USA, should the United States under future President Donald Trump,fall short in its function as the leading Western power. Fifty-seven percent are still in favor of continuing military support for Ukraine, down from 66 percent in 2023.
Clear Military Superiority
Greenpeace has now provided a detailed analysis of the military potential of NATO and Russia to counter the calls for further rapid armament in the face of contradictory public sentiment. It is based on the fact that the rapid armament is usually justified with the claim that it is necessary to be prepared for a possible Russian attack. As the Greenpeace analysis demonstrates, NATO countries’ military spending is already approximately ten times that of Russia –1.19 trillion vs. $127 billion.[8] Even when excluding the USA and taking account of differences in purchasing power, European NATO countries plus Canada are in the lead with 430 billion compared to Russia’s $300 billion. NATO has more than 3 million soldiers in their armed forces, Russia, only 1.33 million; the number of major weapons systems at NATO’s disposal is at least three-times the amount available to Russia. Western weapons manufacturers account for 70 percent of the world’s 100 largest weapons companies; Russian companies for merely 3.5 percent. Greenpeace explicitly states that “the analysis leaves no doubt about NATO’s overall military superiority.”
“Another Zeitenwende”
Greenpeace concludes that “in Germany the need for more and permanent hikes in military spending,” and to achieve this, cuts in “essential sectors, such as social affairs, educaiton or ecological transformation,” cannot be “deduced” from Russian armaments.[9] On the contrary, “NATO’s current conventional superiority “should be used as an opportunity for promoting arms control and disarmament measures: “Another ‘Zeitenwende’” is desperately needed.
“Capable of Global Politics”
However, this stands in contrast to statements by leading German politicians that are clearly aimed at enabling Germany and the EU to become a global power – including via military means. “We must beocme capable of global policy-making,” proclaimed Economics Minister Habeck, last week.[10] “Europe must become capable of global policy-making, based on its own strength,” proclaimed the CDU/CSU candidate for Chancellor, Friedrich Merz.[11] This highlights the common denominator of a possible future government coalition.
[1] Georg Ismar: Armdrücken statt Schulterschluss. Süddeutsche Zeitung 12.11.2024.
[2] Boris Pistorius: „Wir brauchen mehr Geld für unsere Sicherheit“. handelsblatt.com 09.05.2024.
[3], [4] Georg Ismar: Armdrücken statt Schulterschluss. Süddeutsche Zeitung 12.11.2024.
[5] Daniel Brössler, Paul-Anton Krüger, Sina-Maria Schweikle: Zwischen den Welten. Süddeutsche Zeitung 12.11.2024.
[6] Tim Aßmann, Kilian Neuwert: „Nicht die Zeit, um sich die Realität schönzureden“. tagesschau.de 18.02.2024.
[7] Körber Stiftung: The Berlin Pulse. Reliably Unreliable? Germany’s Struggle for Standing. Berlin, November 2024.
[8], [9] Christopher Steinmetz, Herbert Wulf: Wann ist genug genug? Ein Vergleich der militärischen Potenziale der Nato und Russlands. Herausgegeben von Greenpeace. Hamburg, November 2024.
[10] Cem-Odos Gueler, Anna Lehmann, Tobias Schulze, Stella Lueneberg: Plötzlich einig bei Verteidigung. taz.de 06.11.2024.
[11] Merz wirbt für stärkere Rolle Europas. faz.net 06.11.2024.
