Belgien warnt die Verteidigungsausgaben Boost wird den Wohlfahrtsstaat verletzen

And if Europe’s collective defense doesn’t become credible enough, for which we need everyone to do their part, then a crisis/war with EU’s eastern members will for sure shock the economy in ways that the financial damage will be greater on the western EU members who aren’t under direct military threat than the cost of chipping in is.

So even from purely pragmatic, self-interested way, being cheap about collective defense is not a good move. Way to do this correctly would be that the nations that aren’t under direct military threat try their best to find dual purpose ways to contribute. Military logistics that have a peacetime purpose as well. Of course the entire military can’t be structured like that, but finding little niches like that is a good way to bring down the overall costs.

Finnish Defense Force is considered by most to be quite credible, yet it for the longest time hovered under the 2% benchmark before being in NATO. Credibility of the Finnish military is not due to excessive spending, but because of wise spending. It also helped that in late 00s/early 10s when everyone was getting rid of their military equipment, Finland was there to buy it for pittance.

For an example, Finland bough 100x Leopard 2 A6 with full maintenance kits for 200 million back in 2014. Unit price for those new is at around 10million each, so Finland got them with a 80% discount. Then investing on relatively cheap things, but the things you are going to need anyway, like artillery in volumes to matter. Then spend some money on „bling“ in places where it’s worth it, like with fighter jets and their missiles.

It also helps a ton (and is probably the primary reason tbh) that the procurement process is quite streamlined and the military basically tests out the competitors, names a winner and then if the request stays within the allocated budget, it is rubber stamped as is by the government that traditionally has always had very „Let the military be in charge of military things“ approach, regardless which party is in power. There is no party that is significantly more „pro military“ than the rest. So the process is apolitical and there isn’t much red tape like in Germany where any procurement sits a decade in courts as all the contract competitors sue each other and then appeal, then appeal the appeal.

What’s the point of having a welfare state if you can’t defend yourself and risking an overtake from a foreign invasion?

Better be poor, than dead.