Europe’s rearmament is being financed out of the welfare state, not economic growth, and different governments are settling that bill in different currencies: Germany is paying openly in domestic political capital, through legislated pension and health-insurance cuts that have helped push the AfD nine points clear of the governing party; Italy is paying in fiscal credibility, through accounting fictions like reclassifying a bridge as military infrastructure; and Spain is paying in alliance cohesion, by simply refusing the target. Germany, the government that chose honesty over accounting tricks, is the one where public support is cracking first.
In the week before its summer recess, Germany’s Bundestag passed a package that will raise health-insurance co-payments by 50 percent, strip free coverage from hundreds of thousands of stay-at-home spouses, and hold state pensions to a bare “basic cover” that Chancellor Friedrich Merz himself admits will no longer maintain living standards. The same government had already exempted military spending above 1 percent of GDP from Germany’s constitutional debt brake. Weeks later, a poll put the far-right AfD at 29 percent nationally, nine points clear of Merz’s own CDU/CSU — the widest gap either party has recorded. Germany did not hide the trade-off between guns and pensions. It legislated it in public, on camera, and its governing coalition is now paying for that honesty at the ballot box.
THE CONTEXT
At NATO’s June 2025 summit in The Hague, allies agreed to raise defense-related spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035: 3.5 percent on core military capability, 1.5 percent on broader security-related investment such as infrastructure and cyber defense. Unlike the EU’s joint SAFE loan instrument — a €150 billion facility, adopted in May 2025, that lets member states borrow collectively for joint procurement — most of the 5 percent target has to be found in national budgets, one government at a time. Some allies were already close: Poland’s core spending hits 4.68 percent of GDP in 2026, and the Baltic states sit above 5 percent on core alone. Others are not, and Europe-wide public support for higher defense spending has already slipped from 74 percent in April 2024 to 67 percent in September 2025 — a decline pollsters attribute largely to Italy, where support sits at just 48 percent against Poland’s 86. How each government closes the gap between commitment and budget reality is now a genuinely different political story in every capital.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
THE ARGUMENT
Three governments, three different strategies for the same arithmetic problem, and the differences are the story.
Germany chose to pay the bill honestly and visibly. Berlin carved out an exemption from its constitutional debt brake for defense spending above 1 percent of GDP — but left the brake fully in force for everything else, which is precisely why the offsetting cuts landed on pensions and health insurance rather than being smoothed across the whole budget. The health-insurance package alone is projected to save €19.3 billion in 2026, rising toward €38 billion by 2030, largely through higher co-payments and reduced dependent coverage. The pension changes prompted a rebellion by eighteen Union lawmakers under 35, who argued the reform still saddled young workers with the bill; polling since shows 69 percent of Germans now fear old-age poverty. Merz has said openly that the new pension “basic cover” will not maintain living standards. That candor is the point: Germany did not disguise the trade-off, and the AfD’s climb to 29 percent, against a CDU/CSU now polling at 20, has tracked the same months in which the welfare cuts moved from proposal to law.
Italy chose the opposite strategy: avoid the trade-off by redefining what counts as defense spending. Giorgia Meloni has promised that Rome will “not divert even a single euro” from existing government priorities to hit the 5 percent target — a pledge her own fiscal position, with public debt already alarmingly high, makes almost impossible to keep honestly. So Italy has reached for NATO’s own ambiguity: the Messina Strait Bridge, a €13.6 billion infrastructure project two-thirds of Italians already oppose, has been reclassified as military infrastructure because it could, in principle, carry tanks. Officials have floated counting coastguard anti-migration patrols and even the Guardia di Finanza, Italy’s tax police, toward the defense total. This is not fiscal honesty so much as fiscal choreography: Rome gets to report 5 percent to NATO without cutting a single pension, at the cost of allies quietly discounting how much real capability that number represents.
Spain chose neither cut nor accounting trick — it simply declined. Madrid has capped its own defense spending near 2.1 percent of GDP and explicitly protected healthcare and education, betting that the political cost of defying NATO’s target is lower than the cost of a German-style welfare confrontation at home. That bet looks rational against Spain’s own polling, where support for higher defense spending trails the European average, but it spends a different currency entirely: not domestic political capital, and not fiscal credibility, but alliance cohesion, since Spain’s refusal gives every other reluctant government cover to slow-walk its own commitment.
The objection worth taking seriously is that welfare states across Europe were already under strain from aging populations before anyone mentioned tanks, so it is unfair to blame defense spending alone for benefit cuts that were coming regardless. That is true as a long-run trend, but it describes a different problem than the one actually driving this year’s political fights. The German debt brake was not exempted for pensions or hospitals — only for defense. That is a specific, discretionary sequencing choice, made this cycle, that determined which budget line absorbed the adjustment first. The aging-population pressure is real and slow-moving; the decision to let rearmament jump the queue ahead of it, funded by an exemption available to no other spending category, is what turned a structural problem into this year’s ballot-box story.
THE SCENARIOS
Base case (~55%): all three strategies persist through 2027 without a rupture. Germany’s welfare cuts phase in as legislated, the AfD holds in the high-20s without yet forcing a snap election, and Merz’s coalition absorbs the damage rather than collapsing outright. Italy keeps expanding its accounting categories toward 5 percent on paper while adding little real capability. Spain stays capped near 2.1 percent, drawing periodic NATO criticism that never escalates into real consequences.
Downside case: Germany’s coalition fractures before the 2029 election cycle, either through a formal SPD walkout over further welfare cuts or a CDU leadership challenge from Group 25-aligned MPs, handing the AfD a stronger claim to lead coalition talks at the next vote — precisely the outcome the debt-brake exemption was designed to prevent by keeping Germany a reliable, centrist anchor for European defense. Simultaneously, a NATO capability review exposes Italy’s Messina Bridge-style accounting as insufficient to meet actual readiness benchmarks, right as a real security contingency tests the alliance’s collective capacity.
Upside or alternative case: the EU’s SAFE loan instrument, still in its first wave of disbursements to eight member states, scales up sharply enough to substitute for a meaningful share of national budget contributions, letting governments finance joint procurement through EU-backed borrowing rather than domestic offsets. That would not eliminate the political trade-off, but it would shrink it — giving Rome less need for accounting tricks, Madrid less reason to hold out, and Berlin room to soften the welfare cuts still working their way through the legislative pipeline toward 2030.
THE TAKEAWAY
The headline number — a NATO-wide march toward 5 percent — describes a target, not a policy. The policy is being written separately in Berlin, Rome and Madrid, in three currencies: domestic political capital, fiscal credibility, and alliance cohesion. Germany chose to spend the first currency openly, and the AfD’s nine-point lead over the governing party is the exchange rate.
Watch Germany’s state elections through early 2027, and specifically whether the CDU/CSU’s own polling stabilizes or keeps sliding as the pension and health-insurance cuts take fuller effect: if it keeps sliding, the country that told its voters the truth about the guns-versus-pensions trade-off will have been punished for the honesty that Rome and Madrid have so far avoided.
