With the blood the northern fiscal hawks made us sweat during the financial crisis and the effort it took to mobilize resources to confront the COVID pandemic, now in four days the EU Commission has decided to unleash €800 billion to address the security problems caused by Donald Trump's madness. The difference with the first crisis is that this time the dictates come not only from the European troika that imposed austerity after the 2008 financial crisis, but also from NATO and the US, which combine the fears of some countries bordering Putin's Russia with the classic American demands for greater austerity. The difference with the effort made during the pandemic crisis is that now there isn't a single euro of free subsidies; the loans are reduced to €150 billion, and each government must contribute the remainder. The only advantage, which is saying something, is that the champions of Lutheran frugality are now willing to modify the budget stability targets so that all defensive "investment" does not count toward the deficit and debt ceilings.
What is relevant, however, is that we now know that, when an emergency of any kind affecting northern European partners is deemed to exist, money is used wherever it can be, and the narrative of lavish management of the southerners or the need to relieve future generations of burdens disappears. And yet it is doubtful that Russia poses an imminent threat to the Baltic countries, Poland, or Finland, because it has been unable to subdue Ukraine despite the differences in population and GDP. No matter how authoritarian Putin is, Russian aggression against member countries of a defensive alliance like NATO seems unimaginable. Among us, defense spending is also not very well regarded, especially when there are pressing needs such as housing or rail infrastructure.
And that's important because, no matter how much Pedro Sánchez wants to hide his commitment to dedicate 2% of Spain's GDP to defense tasks, some €6 billion, if he wants to continue paying the interest on the public debt—more than 100% of GDP and an increase of up to €472,372 during social measures such as redoubling efforts in housing. Sánchez's rejection of "rearmament" and his commitment to the traditional "soft power" of the EU must be openly distrusted. What the astute Spanish president has done is agree with European leaders on a euphemistic statement to mask the unequivocal terms present in already adopted plans such as Readiness 2030 (the rearmament strategy contained in the White Paper for European Defense).
That's why NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said in recent hours that the definition of defense is clear and that it will not be "watered down." Border control, cybersecurity, and terrorism, as this newspaper claimed, or the purchase and production of critical medicines, cannot be included in a dual civil-military strategy, as some sources have suggested. Defense has nothing to do with maintaining peace through trade relations and diplomacy, nor with any concepts other than the manufacture and purchase of tanks, aircraft, frigates, and missiles. It remains to be seen, then, what Sánchez's resistance manual says in these cases, with no budget and the obligation to extend previous budgets instead of calling elections. If he fulfills his commitments to his partners, and everything indicates that he will, we will have to pay close attention to the juggling act, now in the form of accounting.
But imagination has its limits, especially when there's no water in the budgetary pool. If, as expected, the PSOE doesn't have the votes to pass a decree-law expanding current budget appropriations, it will have to resort to shifting some items or resorting to the opaque contingency fund, a kind of slush fund for dealing with extraordinary situations, which is already the usual refuge for defense spending due to its unpopularity. Not surprisingly, all governments are aware of the militarist legacy of Franco's regime, the pacifist tradition opposed to NATO (1986), and the movements for conscientious objection and refusal to submit to military service. Furthermore, in the absence of immediate threats, social spending is perceived as a priority to address more pressing needs in housing, healthcare, education, or infrastructure. What in other countries is a strongly ideological issue on the left-right axis, here generates widespread rejection.
