We have a problem and it's called 3%

This headline ofThe World: "Rutte increases the pressure on Sánchez and already aims for 3% investment in defence." Political and media pressure to create a powerful European army grows day by day. Perhaps there is no alternative, given Putin's threats and expansionist desires, once Trump's United States abdicates its traditional role as leaders of the free world. But the press must be vigilant to avoid the infiltration of militaristic temptations that have more to do with the enrichment of some than with legitimate protection. The most flagrant case is the demand for 3% of GDP expenditure for defence, which some voices raise to 5%. Many percentages have been published, but I have yet to read a report that reasons why this specific figure is necessary. Who has decided? How has it been calculated? Why not 7% or 2.536%? Before allocating so much money to the war machine, perhaps it should be better justified in what specific investments would be made and what geostrategic advantages it would entail. Otherwise, the discourse of those who support a larger army without scrutinizing their aspirations is uncritically accepted.

I read, for example, that the military expenditure of EU member countries in 2024 was 326 billion euros. That is 726 euros per European, about 60 euros per month. And this represents 1.9%. Well, citizens have the right to know why this amount should be increased by more than 50%. Especially considering that if we add the expenditure of the United Kingdom we would already be at 457 billion, which is practically the same as the 462 billion spent by Russia. Given the concern that it may lead to remilitarisation – apparently widely accepted in the EU – the press must not only inform: it must demand transparency and, above all, detail. Lots of detail.