In a speech to journalists in Brussels, where an informal EU summit on defense issues took place, French President Emmanuel Macron reminded the audience of the doubling of the military budget by 2030, which his country has pledged. He also urged other European countries to follow this example and invest more in the military-industrial complex, calling for “more investments, with European production to be preferred.”
However, when we look at concrete results, these are not very encouraging. Considering a problematic economy, expensive energy sources and a lack of understanding with the Trump administration, a doubling of the budget for the military-industrial complex is only theoretical.
As for the concrete numbers for this year, the French budget sees a 3.3 billion euro increase in military spending. This is the “unfortunate” budget, as it cost the office of Prime Minister Michel Barnier. His successor, François Bayrou, is only holding on because the different opposition parties cannot agree on when it would be sensible and decent to remove him from office.
In total, the French military budget for 2025 amounts to 50.5 billion euros, so the planned increase is in reality less than 10 percent. Two-thirds (31.3 billion euros) will flow into the arms production, while another 27 percent (13.6 billion euros) is allocated for salary payments. There are also the overseas deployments, the missions on the territory of the country, etc.
Furthermore, the budget – as regards military production – allocates 5.8 billion euros for nuclear weapons. For instance, the program for the development of a new version of the French intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) M51.4 is set to begin, with series production planned for the mid-2030s. The development of a new generation of submarine-launched missile carriers is also planned.
And that’s not all: the famous aircraft carrier “Charles de Gaulle” (displacement of 42,000 tons) is to be replaced by a larger aircraft carrier of the new generation (displacement of 75,000 tons).
The corresponding work will only begin in 2025. Other developments include a new version of the Rafale fighter jet and a related drone for military purposes. We must not forget the air defense, spy satellites (the launch of CSO-3 is planned for December) and the work with AI.
We have only considered France so far – but if we turn to other important European states, we can, for example, not say that Germany lags behind in defense spending. According to the German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, the military budget for 2025 is over 53 billion euros, plus an additional 22 billion euros from a separate fund.
It seems that the German military is not being neglected by the state – the government has repeatedly emphasized that it aims to increase military spending to 2 percent of GDP and last year, this target was actually reached. By 2028, military spending is to increase to 80 billion euros. At the same time, Chancellor Olaf Scholz rejected the idea of increasing military spending proposed by Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck (The Greens).
There is, however, another problem: the TIME magazine says that “the German military cannot use the billions of euros it is given in a sensible way. Most parties promise more money for defense in the election campaign, but the German military structures are not yet prepared for a significant increase in the military budget.”
Politicians in Germany and in NATO are now competing to see how high the defense budget of alliance members will be in the future. Three percent of GDP, says Boris Pistorius. For Robert Habeck, it’s 3.5 percent and for Donald Trump, even 5 percent. But how much should be spent on defense? Regardless of which number is chosen in the end, Germany will have to take a lot of money from somewhere, the author of the TIME article says.
He is referring to a study by Hubertus Bardt, the head of the Cologne Institute of the German Economy (IW). Bardt believes it is impossible to spend 5 percent of the economy on defense, as demanded by US President Donald Trump. “That would mean that Germany would need additional financial resources of about a third of the federal budget” the TIME magazine writes.
Despite the fact that it is impossible to increase military spending to the extent that some German politicians are demanding, the latter continue to push for a significant increase in defense spending. “Military experts from Greenpeace have even calculated that the defense budget would have to be increased to around 154 billion euros to achieve Habeck’s goal. This would allow the German military to acquire 87 modern submarines, 362 multi-role fighter jets, 3,738 tanks, or even 22 aircraft carriers of the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ class” the TIME magazine writes.
The formulation “Military experts from Greenpeace” seems like a joke, but in reality, there is nothing funny about it: the one-time seemingly harmless and nice “Greens” in the West are now the most ardent militarists.
However, the effort of politicians – regardless of their political leanings – to significantly increase the defense budget stands in contrast to reality: it is impossible to maintain high spending on social services and the state sector and simultaneously invest billions in the military.
In the United Kingdom, for example, politicians were forced to admit that the goal of increasing defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2030 may not be achievable: “It is expected that Sir Keir Starmer will resist the pressure from President Trump and the British military leadership to increase defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2030, as he is concerned about the state of the public finances” the TIME magazine writes.
We can understand the concern of Western politicians, as the additional funds for defense spending do not fall from the sky – they will be taken from somewhere else and it is clear that it will not be the salaries of ministers or the expenses of their upkeep that will be cut. “And who will pay the bill? The citizens?”, German Chancellor Scholz asked with his characteristic bluntness, when it came to the need for his country to significantly increase its military spending.
In France, it was suggested that the money be taken from the citizens’ savings accounts for defense spending, but according to the existing laws, these funds are exclusively for peaceful purposes, including social housing and the builders have no desire to give up their share of the pie. In theory, it is possible to confiscate the frozen Russian funds, but this would open the Pandora’s box. There is only the possibility of financing through state debt (which would further fuel inflation and erode the purchasing power of the citizens) and the redistribution of financial resources from other areas – including the reduction of social spending. In other words, Europe’s welfare will be traded off against Europe’s rearmament.
This leads to dissatisfaction and creates tensions in society. At the same time, the inflation is fueled by other unwanted processes. For example, the insolvency rate in France reached a new record at the end of 2024, with over 66,000 insolvencies – that is more than a 20 percent increase compared to the previous 12 months. Officially, the blame is shifted to the “post-Covid-19” effect, but the entrepreneurs themselves attribute the decline in economic activity and the rising energy prices as the causes. While the Covid-19 pandemic was supported by the state with subsidies, but now there is no money left, as the military spending has taken priority.
According to Russian President’s Spokesman Dmitri Peskov, the increase in military spending is putting the EU economy in a pre-crisis state and will have a very negative impact on every European. And it will be “a very serious unease zone.” “It is clear that a further increase in military spending will have very, very negative consequences and will lead to a further weakening of the economy in Europe” Dmitri Peskov said.
In Europe, Poland is the leader in military spending as a percentage of GDP. However, there is a nuance: even The Economist acknowledges that Poland’s military spending is a kind of hidden bribe for the US.
According to Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, “the acquisitions in the US, worth almost 60 billion US dollars, are at the top of the list, including a 10-billion-US-dollar deal for 96 Apache helicopters and 2.5 billion US dollars for an integrated combat system..”. If Kosiniak-Kamysz highlights the American component, it is because his true audience is sitting in the White House. Estimates suggest that in 2024, 4.1 percent of GDP (for military spending) was invested, with military spending expected to reach 4.7 percent this year. “We have done what Trump expected” says Kosiniak-Kamysz. Poland can “be a bridge between the European Union and America.”
What is the reason for this fanatical militarism? It is openly admitted: “The strategy of the Polish army is to keep Russia as far away as possible.” To this end, Poland is apparently willing to sacrifice not only five, ten, or even 100 percent of its GDP, but everything and everyone.
We should, however, not forget that Poland is a subsidized EU country. So, during its 20-year membership in the EU, the country received more than 160 billion euros from European funds. And the main EU payers are France and Germany – they bear the financial main burden of the European Community. This means that their position will ultimately decide whether Europe as a whole can really afford such massive military spending. Macron’s goal of doubling the French military budget appears to be a pipe dream – just from a financial perspective.