Germany set out to vote on the historical increase in defense spending

What happens today, here in Berlin, will affect the entire future of the defense of Europe and its continuous support for Ukraine.

The Parliament of Germany, the Bundestag, votes on whether to eliminate the brakes of defense expenditure. This could pave the way for a massive increase in military investment just like Russia obtains profits in Ukraine and Washington points out that Europe can no longer rely on the protection of the United States.

“This vote in the Bundestag is absolutely crucial,” says Professor Monika Schnitzer, who presides over the German Economic Expert Council.

“After Munich’s security conference, then Trump-Zelensky row, Europe received a call call. For the first time, Europeans may not be able to trust Washington. Many people had insomnia nights after that.”

“The prospects for European defense spending depend on developments in Germany, as head of the largest defense budget in the region,” according to Dr. Fenella McGerty, a senior member of Defense Economics at the International Institute of Strategic Studies based in London.

Defense spending in Germany increased by 23.2% last year, helping to generate a record increase of 11.7% in European defense disbursement.

“The notable initiatives announced in Germany are key to allowing greater growth,” adds Dr. McGerty.

“Without them, any progress made to strengthen the military capacity of Germany may have stagnated.”

The new incoming chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, is in a race against time.

The new Parliament meets on March 25 and not everyone is in favor of all this money that is spent, especially in defense.

Both the AFD party of the extreme right and the Linke of the extreme left have promised to oppose it. The vote needs two thirds in favor, so Merz has a better opportunity for this to happen today, under the existing (old) parliament. Then it must be approved by the Upper House of Germany.

Meanwhile, Europe is still reaching an agreement with the shock of the ads from the Trump administration.

At the Munich Security Conference last month, I saw how delegates sat with their mouths open listening to the attack of US Vice President.

This was preceded by days before by the Secretary of Defense of the United States, Pete Hegseth, telling NATO members that the 80 -year -old defensive umbrella in the United States should no longer be taken for granted.

Defense strategists in Europe are already planning the unthinkable: a semi-victory Russia that obtains profits in Ukraine, then rebuilding their army and threatening the Eastern NATO members, such as the Baltic states, within three years or less.

This, at a time when the United States commitment to the defense of Europe looks extremely unstable. President Trump is being urged by some in his circle to get the US troops from Europe and even retire from NATO completely.

It is said that France extends its national nuclear deterrence to cover other European nations.

Meanwhile, most European governments are under pressure to increase defense expense after years of cuts.

The British army has now been reduced to its smallest size from the Napoleonic wars, more than 200 years ago, and experts predict that it will run out of ammunition within two weeks after the fight against a large -scale conventional war in Europe.

Germany has been cautious about defense spending, not only for historical reasons that date back to 1945, but also due to the 2009 global debt crisis.

Which takes us back to today’s crucial vote in the Bundestag. It is not just defense. A part is about releasing 500 billion euros (£ 420 billion) for German infrastructure, fixing things like bridges and roads, but also to pay climate change measures, something that the Green Party insisted.

The other party is about eliminating the restrictions in the constitution of the loans that could, in theory, release billions of euros for defense expense, both for the German armed forces and for a paneuropea defense fund. On March 4, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced plans for a defense fund of 800 billion euros called the Fund de Rardm Europe.

The proposal that was voted in Berlin is that any defense expense that amounts to more than 1% of the GDP of Germany (national wealth) would no longer be subject to a loan limit. Until now, this debt roof has set at 0.35 pct of GDP.

Other countries will be watching closely to see if this proposal happens. If not, then the ‘Rearm Europe’ project of the EU Commission could have an unstable start.

The challenge today for Europe’s security is marked. If the United States no longer supports, or at least you cannot trust the defense of Europe, what does the continent need to fill the void?

Let’s start with the numbers. According to the Kiel Institute, which meticulously tracks these things, Europe spends only 0.1% of its wealth to help defend Ukraine, while the United States has been spending 0.15%.

“That means,” says Giuseppe Irto from the Kiel Institute, “that if Europe must compensate for the deficit, then you need to double its contribution to 0.21%.”

But regardless of what happens today in Berlin, it is not just money.

Many of the most sought after weapons in the Ukraine armory come from the United States, such as patriotic air defense and long -range artillery systems such as Himars. The Kiel Institute places the proportion of the artillery of rockets of Ukraine to 86% from the USA., With 82% of its ammunition also of origin in the United States.

Then there is the whole issue of American intelligence for kyiv, much of it derived from satellites and geospatial images. If Washington extends it permanently, then the Ukrainian forces run the risk of being partially blinded.

If the United States Nuclear Arsenal is removed from the equation, then there is a massive disparity between the more than 5,000 Ojivas in Russia and the combined total of Great Britain and the nuclear weapons of France that are equivalent to less than a tenth part of that. But that still goes enough to act as a nuclear deterrent.

When it comes to “conventional”, that is. Non -Nuclear Defense Heads, Western Defense Chiefs, like to say that NATO’s combined forces are superior to those of Russia.

Perhaps, but if there is an obvious lesson that leaves the war in Ukraine, it is that “mass” is important. The Army of Russia can be of low quality, but President Putin has been able to launch a large number of men, drones, shells and missiles in the Ukraine lines in which the Russians advance inexorably, although slowly and in great cost.

This should not be a surprise. Moscow put its economy in a basis of war some time ago. He appointed an economist as his Minister of Defense and reorganized many of his factories to produce large amounts of ammunition, especially drones with explosive tip.

While many European nations have dragged their feet on the increase in defense spending much above 2% of NATO GDP, Russia’s is closer to 7%. About 40% of Russia’s national budget is spent in defense.

Therefore, Europe has a bit of catching up if you even be close to underpinning your defense and security.

“If the vote passes, it will be significant for Germany and Europe,” says Ed Arnold, a senior researcher for European security in the group of experts from Royal United Services Institute.

“It will establish a precedent and allow others to continue … However, three years after the invasion of Ukraine, the case of Germany is a reminder that more money for defense is necessary but not sufficient.

“Europe needs defense and security leaders who can navigate a Euro-Atlantic security environment in fast. Cultural reform, instead of financial, would be very valuable for Europe at this time.”