From Restraint To Readiness: Germany’s Defence Pivot – OpEd

Since the end of the Second World War, Germany has adopted a stance of military restraint, which has become a defining feature of its national identity and external relations. The historical trauma of Nazism and the physical devastation experienced during the war led lawmakers to embed strict fiscal and defense constraints within the Basic Law, limiting the size and procurement capacity of the Bundeswehr.

In 2025, Chancellor Friedrich Merz initiated a significant shift by pursuing an ambitious expansion of the Bundeswehr, driven by concerns about emerging Russian aggression and China’s influence on global security. The thesis of this essay is that Merz’s militarization reflects an agenda aimed at transforming Germany’s strategic posture. This transformation is driven by data imperatives but faces challenges from organizational, political, and societal obstacles.

The constitutional amendment passed by the Bundestag in March 2025 serves as the legal foundation for Merz’s defense ambitions. It permits defense expenditures exceeding one percent of GDP to bypass the constitutional debt brake, thereby unlocking approximately one billion euros in annual spending power. This financial breakthrough facilitates the establishment of a special fund worth five hundred billion dollars aimed at modernizing main battle tanks, procuring next-generation Eurofighter Typhoon jets equipped with AESA radars, securing communication satellites, and overhauling command digital systems. Additionally, the procurement contracts include systems for reconnaissance and electronic warfare, highlighting a strategic focus on maintaining a technological edge. Data from the Federal Ministry of Defence indicate that equipment readiness rates are expected to increase from fifty-five percent in 2024 to seventy percent by 2027, contingent upon sustained funding and improved procurement processes.

The rapid acceleration of militarization presents significant logistical and human-resource challenges. Federal projections aim to recruit one hundred thousand soldiers by 2030; however, Bundeswehr human-resource forecasts published in May 2025 anticipate a shortfall of fifteen thousand active personnel by the end of 2026. This shortfall persists despite efforts to enhance veterans’ transition to apprenticeships and targeted recruitment of specialists in cyber and aeronautical engineering. 

Compounding these challenges are infrastructure deficits: a 2024 readiness report revealed that over sixty percent of rotating helicopters were temporarily grounded due to maintenance backlogs, and nearly forty percent of barracks require renovation or replacement. Additionally, expanding the maintenance workforce and modernizing training academies necessitate significant coordination among the Ministry of Defence, state authorities, and private contractors, all of whom face scheduling conflicts and labor shortages.

Germany’s revised commitment to NATO highlights its evolving role within the Atlantic Alliance and sparks strategic discussions among allies. Berlin has set an aspirational defense spending target of five percent of GDP, allocating three and a half percent to direct military costs, such as personnel, equipment, and operations, and one and a half percent to complementary investments in logistics, cybersecurity, and energy resilience. Analysts at the U.S. Department of Defense have praised this rebalancing as a crucial step toward equitable burden-sharing, but they have also warned about the challenges of rapidly scaling up these efforts. Eastern European members, including Poland and the Baltic states, are closely monitoring Germany’s implementation. They express support for enhanced deterrence while calling for transparency regarding timelines and milestones to ensure seamless interoperability in joint NATO exercises.

In June 2025, Germany formalized a joint defense and security council under the European Union’s Permanent Structured Cooperation framework. This bilateral structure coordinates projects, research, joint field exercises, and logistical support for Ukraine, reflecting a shared aspiration to establish an integrated European defense identity. The council has prioritized the development of a next-generation main battle tank that combines German armor and propulsion with French systems, while synchronizing defense air deployments and electronic warfare training. However, divergent strategic cultures create challenges: France’s focus on expeditionary operations and global power projection starkly contrasts with Germany’s historical emphasis on territorial defense, which tends to lead to risk-averse operational planning. Reconciling these differing approaches necessitates compromise on rules of engagement and joint procurement. EU think tanks, such as the Wissenschaft Stiftung und Politik, view these issues as critical tests of Europe’s military cohesion.

The Russian government responded strongly to Berlin’s push for militarization, framing it as a direct threat to regional stability. In April, the Foreign Ministry of Moscow 2025 issued a statement condemning these reforms as “provocative and destabilizing,” while accusing Germany of reviving a zero-sum approach to European security. Ambassador Sergei Ivanov warned that the enhancement of Bundeswehr capabilities would force Russia to reinforce its Western Military District with additional mechanized brigades and modern armored vehicles. Recent data indicate that Russia has deployed an extra brigade headquarters and upgraded four battalions with T-90 tanks, BMPs, and infantry vehicles along its western frontier. These developments highlight the security dilemma at the core of Europe’s strategic landscape, where defensive measures taken by one side can prompt countermeasures from the other.

Germany is facing significant domestic debates regarding the ethics and goals of its military expansion. A nationwide poll conducted in May 2025 shows that only forty-two percent of citizens support increasing defense spending by two percent. In contrast, fifty percent are worried that military investments might detract from social welfare, public education, and climate adaptation programs. Civil society organizations and trade unions have called for the creation of parliamentary committees to provide oversight, introduce sunset clauses, and conduct periodic white-paper reviews to ensure that military spending aligns with democratic accountability. Policy institutes recommend assessing the impact of procurement packages on regional development, economy, environment, and ecological footprints before approval. This emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to national security that goes beyond simple force metrics.

In conclusion, Chancellor Merz’s militarization agenda marks a pivotal shift in German defense policy, fundamentally transforming the Bundeswehr into a modern, capability-driven force designed to address contemporary security challenges. Empirical data on budget allocations, recruitment, projections, readiness metrics, and burden-sharing illustrate both the potential and complexity of this rapid transformation. Strategic cooperation with NATO and bilateral initiatives with France demonstrate Germany’s readiness to take on greater responsibility for European defense, even as logistical shortcomings, doctrinal differences, and domestic skepticism highlight the multifaceted challenges that lie ahead. A critical example underscores the need to address the inherent tensions in dynamic security, reminding policymakers that enhancements to defense must consider their broader geopolitical implications.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

References

• Fulda, Andreas. China and Germany: How Entanglement Undermines Freedom, Prosperity, and Security. Bloomsbury, 2024. 
• Kühn, Ulrich, ed. Germany and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century: Atomic Zeitenwende? Routledge, March 12, 2024. 
• Verbovszky, Joseph. German Structural Pacifism: Cultural Trauma and German Security Policy since Reunification. Springer VS Wiesbaden, April 2024