A festival of hypocrisy on military spending

Weapons or no weapons? Safe or not safe? Ukraine or not Ukraine? European defence or Italian defence? NATO parameters yes or NATO parameters no? The debate surrounding military spending is the best possible litmus test for revealing the minor, major and downright laughable hypocrisies of Italy’s political parties. The context is the one you’re familiar with, and it’s like a mosaic made up of countless pieces: Putin’s aggression, Russia’s rearmament, Europe’s need to defend itself, America’s disengagement, NATO’s new balance of power, the limits of pacifism, alignment with Trumpism, loyalty to Europeanism, the demagoguery about military spending supposedly replacing funding for other, more urgent investments – and there is always a more urgent investment than an unwelcome one which, since it cannot be challenged by hard facts, can only be challenged by the force of emotion. Surrounding the debate on military spending, the menu of hypocrisies offers endless nuances. The greatest and most glaring hypocrisy concerns the reactions to the obvious point made two days ago by Antonio Tajani. On 27 July, Italy did not, through Tajani, request access to European loans from SAFE – the instrument of the ReArm Europe plan financed through European Union bond issues and intended to grant loans for defence, with a borrowing cost lower than that of Italian debt and a maximum term of 45 years. 

Italy applied for access to Safe a year ago, on 29 July 2025, when the government sent a letter to the European Commission, endorsed by Giorgia Meloni, Antonio Tajani and Matteo Salvini, to join the fund with the aim of financing defence programmes already planned for the five-year period 2026–2030, thereby easing the strain on the state budget and incorporating a large part of defence expenditure into the SAFE programme. Anyone who complains about Tajani’s words either does not know what they have signed or is pretending not to know. On the menu of intertwined hypocrisies regarding military spending, however, there are other delicacies to be found. Take, for example, the right-wingers who love Trump (Salvini and Vannacci), who say that Trump is always right but who do not agree with Trump on the one thing he is actually right about: to strengthen NATO, all member states must play their part and must spend more. Take, for example, the right-wingers who want to distance themselves from Trump (Meloni), who do not claim that Trump is always right, who are in favour of spending more with Europe’s help (Safe) but who have no intention of making Italy truly more independent from America, as they refuse to set out a credible path towards meeting the 5 per cent NATO commitment by 2035.

Take, for example, the theoretically pro-European left (AVS and M5S), which criticises the government’s lack of pro-European stance, calls on the government to campaign in Europe for more shared debt and, faced with a government that chooses – or appears to choose – to rely on Europe to bolster its security through a mechanism funded by shared European bond issues, says: no, hold on, this won’t do. Take, for example, the left that calls for following Sánchez’s example in every respect, and which then, when it comes to military spending, either fails to understand the Sánchez line or pretends not to: making use of SAFE without hesitation, significantly increasing military spending – Spain recorded a real increase of around 44.5 per cent between 2024 and 2025 – and doing everything possible to strengthen Europe’s military defence.

Take those political parties, on both the right and the left, such as the M5S, which, when in government, spent heavily on defence and had committed to increasing military spending as demanded by NATO, but which now regard any compliance with NATO’s demands as a capitulation to warmongering. Then take those political forces who know that more will have to be spent on defence in the future – they know this even if they cannot admit it – and who, by rejecting SAFE, which offers a more cost-effective option for borrowing to fund military expenditure than national borrowing, will not make military spending disappear, but will risk funding it less effectively and at greater cost: a curious case of notorious ‘austerity advocates’ who prefer the more expensive form of debt.

Take, for instance, those political forces on the far right and far left who are clamouring for an end to military spending that merely serves to enrich America, yet fail to realise that the Safe plan stipulates that no more than 35 per cent of the cost of components may come from countries outside the European Union and its authorised partner countries. The menu is right there in front of us; it is revealing and it points to a specific context in which one comical scene follows another. The ‘sovereignty’ right has no intention of equipping itself with the tools to defend sovereignty. The left, which wants a stronger Europe, does not want to help Europe defend its potential strength. The government, which wants to make commitments, does so without having the courage to put its ideas forward. The opposition, which calls on the government to be more pro-European, proves to be less pro-European than the government itself. The anti-Trumpers, who call for a Europe that is more independent of Trump, do everything they can to make it increasingly tied to America. If there were not a war underway, a Europe to defend, the frontiers of democracy to safeguard, an army to strengthen, and a European defence strategy to devise, it would be laughable. In the meantime, we can observe the spectacle. And take another look at the letter sent by Minister Giorgetti to the European Commission exactly a year ago. “Italy is ready to make use of SAFE and, based on our current assessment, plans to request a maximum amount of 15 billion euros, comprising both the investments already planned in the 2026–2030 budget and the additional expenditure required to strengthen our defence capabilities.” That’s all from the festival of hypocrisy; over to you, the studio.