I would have a couple of things to add.

One surely can adapt the same requirements made towards budget also towards military, but that does not mean that it is a good comparison.

With budget you have rules based on simple mathatics. Earnings - spendings gives your liquidity. You either have money to invest or need to fill a lack if liquidity.

With military that is certainly not as easy. You can plan it, you can execute it and compare your plan to reality. With armed forces thats not as easy.



Therefore the 2% goal of gdp goal is taken. But, it is a proxy measurement. I could never find even a bad explanation of why 2%. Sure, its a NATO guideline, but shouldnt be there at least be a basis.

The problem with the 2% goal is that it doesnt matter what the money is spend on. And that is something that is something that the authors could have easily found out with a bit of research. The problem of the german military is not too little money, but of organization. The budget that the military has at its disposal is not fully used, year after year. Which means, there is money left that could have been used. The money that is spend is used badly (like drones that dont meet the necessary requirements, helicopters for the navy that arent fit to fly over salt water).

So the important question seems to be, if the money is not used fully and only badly, what kind of solution is throwing more money at it?



And the most astonish thing is the narrative of germany taking a free ride. On what?



Another detail that the authors maybe missed is that france is using their army for security measures inside the country, something that is strictly prohibited in germany. The army is only used for unarmed tasks, like in the event of floads (and i dont know a second example). Which is an important distinction. France has a different priority on a military with a different task.