Europe's Defense Spending Surge

Europe's NATO countries are promising to boost their military budgets to 5% of their total economy (measured by GDP) by 2035. They're doing this mainly for better security, not to jumpstart economic growth—and that's a smart call, since history shows that pouring government money into defense doesn't usually lead to big economic wins.

We like that Europe’s Nato countries are being honest about increasing security without direct economic incentive, because when governments decide where to spend, it often messes with free markets and pushes aside private businesses and ideas. Still, while stronger defenses are crucial in today's shaky world, this big spending push could bring waste, unfair trade practices, and long-term harm to the economy.

Spending on military means shifting money away from everyday choices people and companies make on their own, and instead forcing it into things like weapons and soldiers. For every euro that goes to tanks or training, there's less left for families to spend, businesses to invest, or new inventions to take off. People might save more out of worry, loans could get pricier, and fresh ideas slow down. Look at the U.S. after World War II: When they cut back on military spending, the private economy exploded with growth that was way bigger than during the war. In Europe, this planned increase might add just a tiny bump—about 0.3% more to the economy each year at most. It's not a real fix for slow growth; it's more like a quick patch that skips over deeper problems, like energy rules that hold back progress.

Paying for security with borrowed money might feel better in the short run than raising taxes right away. Borrowing can act like a temporary boost, keeping things moving without immediately taking money from people's pockets. But here's the catch: Even if borrowing hasn't caused huge price jumps in the past (like U.S. spending after the 2008 financial crisis), it builds up debt over time. Countries like France and Britain already owe more than their entire yearly economy, which could mean tough cuts or more risky money-printing later. On the global stage, threats like Russia's actions make security spending urgent, but emergencies often give governments more control, chipping away at freedoms without always delivering matching safety.

Another sneaky problem is protectionism—basically, favoring homegrown products over imports. There's talk of buying more weapons from European companies instead of the U.S. (which supplies about 80% now), but this can turn into favoritism for insiders. “Support your own” sounds good politically, but it breaks up global trade, drives up prices, and starts fights—like the U.S.-China trade battles that made everyday stuff cost more without making anyone stronger. Data shows Europe's defense industry spends only about 4.5% on research and development (R&D), compared to America's 16%, because Europe’s defense industry is split up among countries. Teaming up could help, but forcing it often wastes money on weak companies and blocks real breakthroughs that could help everyday tech, like artificial intelligence.

In the end, there are hidden dangers: Money gets thrown at overpriced equipment just to spend it, which encourages lobbying and bad decisions, all while ignoring what the market really needs for troops or technology. So, what's a better way? Skip random spending goals based on GDP percentages and aim for real results instead. Hand off non-essential tasks to private companies, build partnerships that people join willingly, and allow free trade in defense gear so everyone can play to their strengths. By keeping government interference low, Europe can build stronger defenses without tanking the economy—showing that freedom beats big bureaucracy every time.