Kneeling before the percentage of military spending

The defense summit ended as expected: the desire to rearm is inversely proportional to each country's distance from Moscow. Sánchez continues to balance his efforts to avoid being singled out as the black sheep of the Twenty-Seven, but the right-wing press demands that he join the rhetoric of mutually assured destruction. Since journalism is the art of reduction, figures often wield a fascinating power. 2%, 3%, or even 5% of GDP for defense is being demanded. The latter figure is proposed by Trump, aware that much of the arms purchases would be made from American companies:jackpot!

In any case, the cavern is calling for the war drums to be beaten, but I have yet to read any truly detailed explanation of what exactly to do with that money. The latest trend is to accuse Sánchez of cheating or idle gesticulations: "The government's tricks for cheat Brussels: Critical medicines and road improvements" (front page headline ofAbc) or "Historic turn in Defense: Sumar disarms Sánchez with his posturing military" (first page inThe reason). But someone should explain what the specific needs are, beyond the percentage. Because doubling spending is as easy as raising military salaries, for example. However, this does not necessarily guarantee better preparedness for a potential conflict proportionally to the increase in spending. And, furthermore, it is necessary to explain the downside: not everything invested in defense will be invested in education or healthcare. It is necessary to put everything into the balance of risks and opportunities. But the inner circle, in its desire to undermine Sánchez, fuels warmongering solely out of personal anger toward the occupant of the Moncloa Palace. Prostrated by percentages, we run the risk of losing the meaning and measure of everything.