
As NATO revises defence-spending goals, Germany arms up to position itself as the backbone of European security
While some countries, including Spain and Slovakia, have voiced hesitation about this rapid escalation, Germany has taken a leading role by announcing an unprecedented increase in military spending. Berlin has pledged to raise its defence expenditure to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2029 — up from 2.4 per cent in 2025, marking its most significant rearmament drive since reunification.
The announcement preceded the summit, where US President Donald Trump renewed pressure on allies to increase contributions, underlining that sustained American commitment to NATO would hinge on equitable resource sharing. The allies agreed to a phased strategy to achieve the 5 per cent target, underscoring a consensus that the security environment demands urgent action. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who hosted the summit, emphasised alliance unity: 'NATO does not have opt-outs. Every member must do their part.'
For years, Germany and others had fallen short of NATO's previous 2 per cent target. Berlin only crossed that threshold in 2024, thanks in part to temporary funding measures. With rising geopolitical volatility, spurred by Russia's war in Ukraine, growing Chinese assertiveness, and Middle Eastern instability, NATO's leaders have called for a structural reassessment though these areas are not mentioned in the five-paragraph communique.
Germany's new defence framework lays out a transformative vision. Starting from €86 billion in 2025 (2.4 per cent of GDP), defence spending is set to rise to around €153 billion by 2029 (3.5 per cent). These are the largest military allocations Germany has undertaken in peacetime. The scale and scope represent a strategic turning point that builds on former Chancellor Olaf Scholz's 'Zeitenwende' speech in 2022.
To finance this transformation, Germany has taken several bold fiscal steps. It has suspended its constitutional 'debt brake', which previously limited deficit spending, and is seeking an EU exemption under the Stability and Growth Pact to classify defence spending as exceptional investment. This allows Berlin to borrow beyond the 1 per cent GDP limit usually imposed for such purposes.
A €100 billion fund, established in 2022 in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, will be exhausted by 2027. After that, defence spending will be drawn entirely from Germany's core federal budget — a signal that the shift is not temporary but systemic.
Germany's strategy also aligns with NATO's broader definition of security. In line with the 1.5 per cent category under NATO's new 5 per cent framework, Berlin will invest significantly in military-relevant infrastructure — digital systems, transport corridors, logistics hubs, and dual-use facilities. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has openly backed such dual-purpose infrastructure, describing it as vital to national and alliance resilience.
Germany is committed to substantially increasing military aid to Ukraine. For 2025, €8.3 billion has been earmarked, with a further €8.5 billion annually for the following years. Although not part of NATO's official summit declaration, these pledges reflect Germany's bilateral and EU-level commitment to Ukraine's defence.
In comparison, Germany's defence budget in 2024 stood at €74.5 billion. The 2029 projection of over €153 billion is more than double that figure. To fund the leap, the German government enacted fiscal reforms earlier this year, establishing a €500 billion infrastructure fund. Between 2025 and 2029, Berlin plans to borrow €378 billion for defence-related purposes.
Public borrowing is projected to rise from €33.3 billion in 2024 to €126 billion by 2029. Finance minister Lars Klingbeil has acknowledged the scale of the challenge, estimating that annual budget forecasts will need to be revised upwards by at least €47 billion to accommodate these commitments.
The government frames these outlays as long-term investments in national and continental security. Defence is now being treated not merely as a cost but as a pillar of Germany's strategic infrastructure. Merz's approach builds on 'Zeitenwende' but moves the goalposts further. The 3.5 per cent GDP pledge significantly exceeds the original 2 per cent target. If realised, Germany will become one of Europe's leading defence spenders, with outlays exceeding €649 billion over five years. This would position Berlin as the backbone of European security.
Yet, this is not without political friction. Within the ruling coalition, there are concerns about the long-term fiscal sustainability of such a debt-driven strategy. Critics also question whether the Bundeswehr has the capacity to absorb such a rapid expansion in resources without bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies.
Beyond the budget, Berlin plans to significantly enhance its military capabilities. Defence minister Boris Pistorius has proposed the creation of five to seven new heavy brigades, each of 5,000 troops and full armoured equipment. This could increase Bundeswehr personnel by 50,000 from the current strength of 182,000.
This troop surge will require major investments in recruitment, training, logistics, and procurement. Persistent bottlenecks in the delivery of aircraft, tanks, and digital systems must be addressed. Procurement reform and faster decision-making will be essential. Merz has stressed the importance of upgrading civilian infrastructure — from highways to ports — for military use, a clear nod to NATO's emphasis on resilience and mobility. Plans are also in place to streamline procurement and redefine certain civil assets as defence-relevant.
Germany's pledge sends a powerful signal to both allies and adversaries. It answers NATO's call for greater burden-sharing and signals a more assertive German posture in Europe and beyond. Yet, implementation remains key. Parliamentary approval is still required, and turning budget numbers into real capabilities will test the government's resolve.
As NATO reorients itself amid evolving threats from Russia to the Indo-Pacific, Berlin's message is unmistakable: The era of under-commitment is over. Germany is ready to lead with clarity, scale, and purpose.
The writer is former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia ASEAN and the African Union
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
12 minutes ago
- First Post
USAID didn't fund voter turnout in India: US embassy's data contradicts Trump
The data released by the US embassy has shown that no funds were granted for voter turnout-related activity in India. Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump had claimed that the USAID had spent $21 million to increase voter turnout in India. Donald Trump speaks to members of the media at Manhattan Supreme Court amid his hush money trial, in New York, US, May 7, 2024. (Photo: Curtis Means/Pool via Reuters) The US Embassy in India has contradicted President Donald Trump's claim about election-related funding in India. The data provided by the US embassy, and shared by the Union government in the parliament, shows that USAID did not provide any funds for any election-related activity in India. There was no entry of $21 million in the list of India-related grants. Earlier in February, Trump had claimed that USAID had given $21 million to increase voter turnout in Indian elections. The basis of the claim was a post on X by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) that said it had cancelled '$21M for voter turnout in India' among a host of other grants. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US taxpayer dollars were going to be spent on the following items, all which have been cancelled: - $10M for "Mozambique voluntary medical male circumcision" - $9.7M for UC Berkeley to develop "a cohort of Cambodian youth with enterprise driven skills" - $2.3M for "strengthening… — Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) February 15, 2025 Trump had alleged that the previous Democratic Party's administration had interfered in Indian elections. He also questioned the basis of providing funds to a foreign country's elections and used it as a talking point in his campaign to dismantle government grants, departments, and programmes, including the USAID. '$21 million going to my friend Prime Minister Modi in India for voter turnout. We are giving $21 million for voter turnout in India. What about us? I want voter turnout too," said Trump on one occasion. US embassy contradicts Trump's claim After Doge on February 16 claimed that it had revoked grants for Indian elections, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reached out to the US embassy and requested to urgently furnish details of expenditure incurred on all USAID-assisted or funded projects in India over the last 10 years other than those being implemented under the seven run in partnership with the government, the government told the parliament in response to the question of CPI-M MP John Brittas. The answer, signed by Kirti Vardhan Singh, the Minister of State for External Affairs, said that the US embassy replied with the information on July 2. In its response, the US embassy provided the list of all funds provided by the USAID, Singh told the parliament. The list —see below— did not have any election-related grants. The US embassy further said that USAID would cease operations in India on August 15, as per Singh's answer. What did Trump say about Indian elections? Based on the Doge's claim, Trump said that the previous administration were trying to get someone other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi elected with their interventions in Indian elections. On one occasion, Trump said, 'Twenty-one million dollars in voter turnout — why do we need to spend 21 million for voter turnout in India? I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected. We have got to tell the Indian Government because when we hear that Russia spent about $2,000 in our country, it was a big deal. They took some internet ads for $2,000. This is a total breakthrough.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On another occasion, Trump also called it a 'kickback scheme'.


Economic Times
12 minutes ago
- Economic Times
EAM Jaishankar reminds US that India buys oil from America too, left 'perplexed' by Trump's logic
Synopsis External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar defended India's Russian oil imports, highlighting that China and the EU are larger buyers and that India is contributing to global energy stability, as encouraged by the U.S. He questioned the criticism directed at India, noting that its trade with Russia has not surged disproportionately and oil imports from the U.S. have also risen. Reuters External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, addressing criticism over India's Russian oil imports, pointed out that China and the EU are larger buyers of Russian energy. He said India was merely working to stabilise global markets, as even urged by the US and questioned the logic behind the scrutiny New Delhi faces."...We are not the biggest purchasers of Russian oil, that is China. We are not the biggest purchasers of LNG, that is the European Union. We are not the country which has the biggest trade surge with Russia after 2022. I think there are some countries to the South.""We are a country where the Americans have said for the last few years that we should do everything to stabilise the world energy market, including buying oil from Russia." Incidentally, India also buys oil from the US, and that amount has increased, he said. "So honestly, we are very perplexed at the logic of the argument that you had referred to..."

Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
China acts to curb Nvidia chip sales after US Commerce Secretary's ‘insulting' remark: ‘We don't sell them our best…'
Beijing's decision to restrict sales of Nvidia's China-specific artificial intelligence processor came after US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's remarks about chip exports that officials found 'insulting', according to a report by the Financial Times (FT). Chinese regulators have taken action to discourage domestic tech companies from purchasing the H20, a simplified processor commonly used for artificial intelligence in China. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) responded to Lutnick's comments, made last month, the report said, citing people aware of the development. 'We don't sell them our best stuff, not our second-best stuff, not even our third-best,' Lutnick told CNBC on July 15, the day after the Donald Trump administration lifted the export controls on H20 sales, which had been implemented in April. 'You want to sell the Chinese enough that their developers get addicted to the American technology stack, that's the thinking,' he added. A few senior Chinese leaders found the comments "insulting", prompting policymakers to explore options to restrict Chinese tech companies from purchasing the processors, two people told FT. Hence, Chinese tech groups delayed or considerably reduced their H20 orders, it added. The action is considered to be a setback to Nvidia, whose CEO Jensen Huang visited Beijing last month and pledged to remain competitive in China despite increasing geopolitical strains with the US. After Huang's well-received trip, Nvidia garnered enough interest from Chinese clients for TSMC to resume H20 production lines, the report noted. In recent years, Chinese regulators have encouraged greater use of domestic chips. However, major tech companies like Alibaba and ByteDance contended that their AI progress would suffer without Nvidia's chips, jeopardising China's ability to compete in the technology race against the US. 'Lutnick's speech gives the coalition [of regulators] one more reason to intensify its efforts to push tech firms to use China's own chips,' a person close to the policymakers told FT. A week after his remarks, China's internet regulator CAC issued an informal notice called 'window guidance' to major tech firms such as ByteDance and Alibaba, citing security concerns and advising them to halt new orders for Nvidia's H20 chips, the report added. The agency also summoned Nvidia executives on July 31 over alleged 'serious security issues'. The CAC alleged that US AI experts reported Nvidia's chips contain location tracking features and can be disabled remotely, a claim Nvidia strongly denies.