- The first major challenge is personnel numbers, followed by limitations within the German defense industry itself and escalating costs driven by high demand for military products globally, says Dembinski
- NATO’s Hague summit was a success, but would likely provide only temporary relief as doubts still persist about the alliance’s future, warns German expert
BERLIN
Germany’s ambitious plan to emerge as Europe’s strongest military power faces substantial hurdles due to personnel shortages, procurement inefficiencies, and escalating costs, according to a senior security policy expert.
In an interview with Anadolu, Matthias Dembinski said that while Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government has committed to significantly raising Germany’s core defense spending to 3.5% of GDP – up from the current 2% – simply allocating more funds will not be enough to realize this goal.
“The first challenge we have is the manpower. Even before Merz announced his goal, the German armed forces were short of around 20,000 personnel,” Dembinski said, emphasizing that transforming into Europe’s leading military requires more soldiers and more personnel willing to serve in the army.
“This is a challenge. A return to conscription might help, but that is heavily contested in Germany,” he added, referring to the widespread public skepticism regarding the conservative-led coalition government’s proposal to reinstate compulsory military service.
Dembinski, a leading security expert at the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), highlighted other significant hurdles for Germany, including limitations within the defense industry itself and escalating costs driven by high demand for military products globally.
“There is right now a huge demand for armament products – for everything that the industry can deliver – which means that the prices are going up. There’s a tremendous inflationary dynamic in the market. If we just spend money on buying products for a much higher price, we won’t gain a lot,” he explained.
“So, spending smarter would be the challenge of the future, and that also would imply spending much more in Europe, doing more things together as Europeans,” Dembinski said.
“We have been talking about the European defense market for years and years, but nothing has happened, and that’s another challenge. So, there are no easy solutions.”
Germany’s new defense strategy
Under Chancellor Merz, who took office in early May, Germany announced ambitious plans to bolster defense capabilities amid growing global uncertainty and perceived threats from Russia.
Merz has underscored the need for Germany to take greater responsibility in Europe’s defense, citing concerns over US President Donald Trump’s controversial foreign policy stance and uncertain commitment to European security.
The German government subsequently committed billions of euros to modernize the Bundeswehr, including acquiring new fighter jets, armed drones, and missile defense systems.
It is also pushing for closer cooperation among European countries to incentivize joint procurement, enhance industrial capacity, and improve interoperability between allies and partners.
Dembinski argued that Trump’s unpredictable policies and the geopolitical shifts resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war have necessitated a fundamental reevaluation of Germany’s defense strategy and its role in Europe’s security architecture.
He added that recent developments have intensified uncertainty about NATO’s future, prompting think tanks to explore several potential scenarios.
Three scenarios for NATO’s future
In a recent study conducted by Dembinski and colleagues for the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, they identified three possible scenarios, each reflecting the current tensions within NATO due to divergent policies between Trump and European allies.
“We know by now that the old talk of NATO as a kind of a community of values – this talk is empty. This alliance today is based basically on interests and not on values anymore, or at least not as it has been in the past,” he stressed.
According to Dembinski, the first option for Germany and its European partners would be to acknowledge the new realities and try to work with Trump to the extent possible, finding compromises to sustain NATO’s alliance framework.
“The European NATO leaders and NATO states can try to live with Trump, find compromises, try to pull him into NATO,” he explained.
“Knowing that Trump is not really predictable, knowing that there are major differences concerning the perception of the war in Ukraine and concerning the future of Ukraine – there are major disagreements.”
Supporters of this approach argue that the US’ dominant role in NATO remains indispensable for European security, particularly given Europe’s current inability to independently deter Russia in the near term.
The second scenario suggests the EU could accelerate independent defense integration. However, Dembinski cautioned that this approach faces criticism, as it could result in resource duplication, undermining NATO’s effectiveness and unity.
“The third option would basically imply that the European states would try to replace the American leadership role, that is the European states would have to play a much more prominent role within NATO,” Dembinski said.
This scenario, he emphasized, would require Europe, especially Germany, to significantly enhance their financial and operational commitments within NATO.
Hague Summit: Temporary relief, lingering uncertainty
Dembinski said NATO’s recent summit in The Hague brought temporary relief by reaffirming European commitments and preventing a deeper crisis between the Trump administration and European allies.
Prior to the summit, concerns arose that Trump might question NATO’s collective defense principle or openly criticize allies. However, the summit concluded with an agreement to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, plus an additional 1.5% for military infrastructure, effectively addressing Trump’s key demands.
“Given what could have been expected from the summit, I would say it was a success. Of course, it was not historic. The leaders agreed on very few things, and they also left some ambiguities. So, it was everything but a historic meeting,” he noted.
Despite the summit’s outcomes, Dembinski said skepticism persists across European capitals about the continuity of US commitments under Trump.
“With Trump, you can never be sure, first of all. He likes to play with uncertainties, and we should be prepared for that,” he said, identifying the upcoming American Global Posture Review this fall as critical in clarifying US troop commitments in Europe.
“This will be a very, very decisive moment. Everybody expects that the US might reduce its troop levels in Europe, maybe by 20,000 soldiers. That is the reinforcement that they brought to Europe after the beginning of the (Ukraine) war,” Dembinski said.
“And the NATO alliance could basically live with this kind of reduction. But if it goes much further, then of course, the American leadership role is once again in doubt.”
