defense
Ampel argues about financing future defense spending
While traveling in the USA and Canada, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius sent a proposal to Berlin not to restrict military spending through the debt brake. photo
© Britta Pedersen/dpa
The 100 billion special fund for the Bundeswehr will soon be used up. And then? It is undisputed that the force will continue to need a lot of money. But where should it come from?
Pistorius had previously called for spending on defense and parts of crisis preparedness to be excluded from the debt brake. The SPD politician referred to the Basic Law, in which both the debt brake and the defense capability of the armed forces are anchored. “The debt brake would remain in place, but spending on defense and civil protection would not be included,” Pistorius told the German Press Agency.
Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) immediately rejected this. “The better way is to reallocate money in our large state budget and get the economy going,” he told the dpa. Lindner told the Bavaria media group: “I regret that my colleague Pistorius is continuing the debate about the debt brake. This is once again shaking up the coalition’s basic consensus.”
The 100 billion special fund to strengthen the Bundeswehr is expected to be spent at the end of 2027. This was launched after Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2022. It remains unclear how the further large investments required to improve Germany’s defense capability will be financed.
Where to save? Prioritize what?
Pistorius received support from his party colleague Svenja Schulze. “Austerity appeals alone do no justice to the international situation we find ourselves in,” said the Federal Development Minister to the “Tagesspiegel”. At the same time, she pointed out the security relevance of her department: “Development cooperation is also central to the comprehensive security of our country – what we save now in the short term will cost us dearly in the medium term.”
FDP parliamentary group leader Dürr emphasized that the debt brake was not an obstacle. “It’s more like life insurance for the stability of our country – and you don’t cancel life insurance in difficult times.” The deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Johann Wadephul, described the Pistorius initiative as the “wrong starting point”. “When it comes to budgetary demands, you have to assert yourself politically. Law doesn’t help. Because you could rightly say, for example, that the funds for basic security have constitutional status,” said the CDU politician to the Editorial Network Germany (RND).
In contrast, SPD deputy parliamentary group leader Achim Post said it was wrong to “quickly take options off the table in this difficult situation in terms of security and budget policy.” This applies to the possibility of suspending the debt brake next year as well as to the debate about its reform. “Of course, it will also have to be about prioritizing the budget. In view of war and crises, it must also be about how urgently needed additional financial leeway can be developed. In the end, it must be possible to guarantee external, internal and social security in equal measure and not to pit one security against another.”
The Green defense politician Agnieszka Brugger called for a “security budget” in view of the war in Europe. “Because without more money we will not be able to effectively protect our peace, security and freedom. In these dangerous times, the debt brake is a security risk,” she told the RND.