The proposal was clear: to increase defense spending by NATO countries to 5% of GDP. For Spain, this would represent an increase of 50 billion euros.
In economics, every decision has an opportunity cost. Every euro allocated to one area is a euro not allocated to another. Is this justified? It's obvious that the world is less stable today: Ukraine, Gaza, the Indo-Pacific, the volatility of traditional blocs... But it's also true that military conflict isn't the only form of threat. Nor is it the most likely. Artificial intelligence, energy crises, climate change, cyberattacks, and migratory pressure all demand equally urgent strategic resources.
It's also worth remembering a key fact: Spain doesn't have a large arms industry. Of every euro spent on defense, a considerable portion will end up in foreign purchases: aircraft, anti-missile systems, frigates, and heavy weapons. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Dassault, Raytheon, and Rheinmetall will be some of the beneficiaries. In other words, foreign economies will be boosted by local taxes.
Given this, one might ask: What if we invested this money in cooperation instead of confrontation?
With an additional 800 billion euros per year—the sum of the increases for all European countries—another strategy is conceivable: joint development projects with neighboring countries facing tension. For example, building hospitals, shared-management power plants, co-financed logistics infrastructure, trade corridors in conflict zones, and telecommunications networks that unite rather than divide.
800 billion is equivalent to a quarter of Spain's GDP. Can you imagine the economic value this money could create in other countries? It's about creating common interests. Weaving interdependencies. Sowing a productive fabric that, in the medium term, will make conflict more difficult.
I know this may sound naive. But it's not very different from what happens after a war: the victorious countries rebuild, invest, reorganize, and get involved in the reconstruction of the defeated and devastated countries. Let's remember, among many others, the Marshall Plan. So why not start there?
Prevention is often more profitable than containment. The true act of political leadership, at this point in history, is not to escalate tensions, but to find creative ways to reduce them.
Investing in peace may, paradoxically, be the best security strategy.
