background
The German government is celebrating having achieved NATO’s two percent target this year. But a look at the bill shows that some questionable items were included.
The German government will spend more than two percent of its gross domestic product on defense and security this year, and NATO has already congratulated it on this. This is a success, as it is seen in Berlin. But it is a success with limitations – and one that was achieved with mathematical tricks.
This year, the Defense Minister is adding a large portion of the expenditure from the 100 billion special fund to the regular individual plan 14, the defense budget, which would remain well below the magic limit. However, since the special fund was almost completely invested at the end of last year, this means that it will be difficult to get above the two percent again next year, as promised. From 2028 onwards, it will be almost impossible.
And even with the expenditure of the special fund, the federal government used some mathematical tricks this year to reach the desired NATO sum.
There remains a big gap
The important figure of around 86 billion euros – or around two percent of Germany’s economic output – had to be arrived at. The regular defense budget is just under 52 billion euros, and around 20 billion was spent this year from the special fund. That leaves a large gap. The federal government apparently filled it with larger items that would not have been easily found otherwise.
A paper from the Federal Ministry of Finance, which ARD Capital Studio shows what has been reported to Brussels – not only from the Defense Minister’s area of expertise – in order to increase the expenditure on national security. The proportion of items that do not come from the Defense Ministry itself is strikingly high.
Other ministries contribute to the sum
The Ministry of Finance shows interest payments for past purchases for the Bundeswehr, i.e. for tanks, aircraft and ships that were purchased before the current federal government began work. This may surprise the layperson, because some of the actual investments were made more than ten years ago. But this, the ministry says in response to a written query, “corresponds to the usual procedure”.
The fact that the five billion euros estimated by the Ministry of Finance apparently also includes interest on pension payments or development aid expenditure, which cannot be considered directly relevant to defense, makes the item even more questionable.
As can be seen from the paper, child benefit payments to members of the Bundeswehr from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs are also included in the total. The pension payments for former members of the National People’s Army (NVA) of the GDR, who are also on the list, seem absurd. How the ex-NVA soldiers are currently increasing Germany’s defense capability remains a secret of the Ministry of Finance, which records these expenses for reporting to NATO.
Dubious calculation methods also in other countries
So-called capacity-building measures for Ukraine are also included in the NATO quota from various ministries: Development Minister Svenja Schulze, for example, contributes around one billion euros to the bill, because her ministry includes the funds for reconstruction in crisis and war zones, among other things. The German government also considers crisis prevention expenditure from the Foreign Office and the Federal Republic’s membership contributions to the UN to be relevant to defense.
It is well known that other NATO member states have been using dubious calculation methods for years. Spain once included the costs of the Madrid fire service, and years ago Greece included pension costs for military personnel from the time of the dictatorship.
CDU politician Ingo Gädechens, who has been working on the defense budget for years, believes that the current federal government is not far removed from such practices: “The federal government is currently trying to gloss over its defense policy deficits, and it has managed to bend NATO’s two percent target to its will. Now it is being praised, but there is not much substance to it.”