NATO Spending, Spanish Resistance, and Using Militarism to Enrich the Investor Class and Destroy Social Services

https://www.democracynow.org/2025/6/26/president_donald_trump_nato_iran

I was pleased to find this story touching on some larger questions that the mainstream media tends to downplay or ignore. The question of increased military budgets and militarism go hand in hand with the cutting of social services and tax cuts - some of the key economic planks of Trumpism.

Increased military spending boosts Wall Street as weapons manufacturers and companies connected to the military make up a significant part of the US investment-based economy. And it's also noteworthy that these 'defense' contractors tend to outperform the market. This boost in NATO spending will undoubtedly benefit these companies - most of them in the US.

But Washington and Wall Street are also content with European manufacturers seeing some benefit as the investor class tends to transcend national boundaries.

Further, Right-wing elements in both Europe and the United States want to see tax cuts. This lines the pockets of the rich but it also does something else. It means the belt is tightened on budgets. We 'have' to spend more money on military goods (it is argued) and the additional required money for social programmes isn't there - and thus their budgets are cut. The money would be there if military spending wasn't increased and if taxes weren't cut, but that's the whole point. Curtailing and ultimately eliminating these programmes is a major goal but it's one that is pursued incrementally and often tangentially. These moves will set up the next round of tax cuts and the further reduction of social services.

The European elite (with a better grasp of history) is not quite as zealous about pursuing this agenda as some in the United States, but generally speaking the wealthier classes don't like paying taxes that are used to help the poor. Rather than attack the programmes directly, the preferred tactic is to sabotage them and then argue that they don't work or need an overhaul - opening up the possibility of elimination or privatization.

NATO has always been dominated by and dependent on the United States. The Secretary-Generals of the alliance are always European - it would be bad optics for an American to hold the post. And yet, these secretary-generals are creatures completely beholden to Washington and Rutte made that abundantly clear at the recent summit meeting as he all but genuflected to Trump and kissed his feet. Of course, not only does Rutte want to keep his job, he also indirectly represents vast financial interests in Europe who will do very well by this new 5% (of GDP) spending target. Even with the new GDP targets, NATO is still on shaky ground. The damage has already been done and Trump's word is meaningless. At this point there are undoubtedly some who are thinking in terms of a post-US NATO - which may or may not hold. Regardless the new spending will be transformative.

As a means of interpretation and example, Achcar rightly points to the recent F-35A order coming from Starmer's government in the UK. The nuclear-capable status of these jets is repeatedly emphasized in connection with the NATO mission and there are plans to buy dozens more. There are also discussions over aerial refueling as the UK doesn't currently have any tankers compatible with the F-35A. The UK already has 38 F-35B models which refuel differently and are designed for different missions. This current one billion pound-plus deal (with more to come) will certainly place further stress on the NHS budget shortfall and other social services. The result will be a programme that 'doesn't work and needs reform' - which will open the doors to privatisation and another windfall for both Canary Wharf and Wall Street.

Britain in particular is keen to stay in Trump's good graces. Having left the EU, the United Kingdom has been knocked down a couple of pegs and more than ever is dependent on the Anglo-American framework. NATO is an expression of Atlanticism which places America at the core of European security - which is why a NATO sans Washington is hard to conceive of.

As long as London is hitched to Washington, the UK will remain relevant and to some degree influential in the context of the European continent. The implied reintroduction of B61 nuclear bombs (in the purchase of F-35A's) also solidifies the US-UK relationship.

The military-industrial complex is vast almost beyond reckoning. Extensive familial contacts with the trucking sector in recent years has opened my eyes even wider. There's scarcely a foundry or forge in the region that doesn't depend on military contracts. An astonishing number of factories that produce electric components and things like valves and other gauges also heavily rely on defense industry business. It's really hard to escape it. I even know of regional sawmills that produce wood for pallets - some of them Amish-owned. The wood is trucked to a facility where the pallets are assembled. And from there... a good number of these pallets will end up at facilities where they will be loaded with ammunition or other military equipment.

The military-industrial complex is at the core of the US economy - it's virtually unquantifiable and inescapable.

And in keeping with these same patterns, we see Trump's plan in terms of domestic policy is connected with the sweeping cuts and restrictions being placed on Medicaid and other services. Even the tax cuts serve a double purpose in reducing available revenue. And the dirty secret is that while the American Democrats and most in Europe publicly support the welfare state - many of them (under the guise of reform) want to see it severely curtailed. Street-level anti-immigration sentiment also opens the doors of possibility when it comes to these issues. Defense spending also curtails the Green Economy which in turn weakens regulation. As such the industrial sector and much of the investment class have every reason to support military spending.

The American Right has long argued that the US can't support social services (such as a national health care system) because it has to pay for its defense responsibilities. Americans who pointed to Europe were rebuked (as was Europe) - they could have their welfare states because they relied on the US for military protection. And since we (the United States) had to pay for this security, we can't afford such things at home.

The European Left (and not a few on the Far Right) categorically rejected this argument suggesting that the heavy US military presence was not for protection but an expression of American Imperialism. But for the American Right, the military argument was convenient - a means to shame European allies, and to deny any requests for more social spending at home. It's a line I frequently hear from Right-wing and Evangelical Right-wing commentators.

But now as Europe is set to increase spending to unprecedented levels - the American Right will no longer be able to make the argument. This doesn't mean it will stop them and the argument was never legitimate to begin with - but it will make it more difficult to emphasize these points as the facts are against them in every respect.

Trump is certainly despised by the European Establishment and with good reason and yet - his tenure also opens up some real possibilities. As such, there are those that are willing to let things ride and take advantage of the moment.

Spain is the lone holdout and this is interesting because as prime minister Pedro Sanchez faces corruption charges, he is now engendering the wrath of Trump on at least two points. He has rejected Washington's call for 5% spending and he has openly accused of Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. It's as if he realizes he now has a target on his back and so he's going on the offensive - hoping to bolster the European Left or so it would seem. The next general election must be held no later than summer 2027. Sanchez is undoubtedly making his calculations in terms of timing and the viability of his coalition.

The American Right alongside the Vox Party and other allies are working to take him down and given these recent events, the media campaign is sure to intensify. Vox itself is noteworthy as its platform represents a shift in European Right-wing politics - looking more and more American in its approach and more or less in line with Trumpism. The rise of Vox startled many within the European Establishment as did the emergence of the AfD in Germany. These parties represent a return to a type of politics connected with fascism which was thought dead and buried. It never entirely went away and is now experiencing a period of renaissance. Germany has not seen such Right-wing expressions since 1945, and yet for Spain the memory is fresh as Franco continued his dictatorial rule until 1975 and the last gasp of his movement was on full display in the attempted coup of 1981. Memories are still raw and so its surprising to see this re-emerge after only a generation, when plenty of older people remember what it was like under Franco.

Vox openly advocates for sweeping tax cuts, anti-immigration, and increased military spending. Spanish politics are set to intensify as these issues (along with the environment) are becoming the battlegrounds set to determine the course of Western politics and society.

Until recently, most European Evangelicals tended to avoid these extremes but American influence and money are traversing the Atlantic at an unprecedented level. A great shift is taking place and given the Evangelical approach to cultural engagement, the doors are wide open to such influences. We're already seeing this with CPAC conferences in Europe. American Evangelical celebrities endorse and collaborate with right-wing political and media figures and when they're on the stage in Spain, Hungary, Italy, and elsewhere, they are able to connect with European Evangelical audiences in a way that a previous generation could not. These American 'pastors' and 'ministry' leaders may not necessarily give an open endorsement to the policies of Vox or AfD but they do so indirectly, and given the dearth of solid international media coverage in the United States, the only source most rely is social media. As such they are easily manipulated and ensnared. At one time I would have said the average European was better informed and less likely to be swayed by the types of a-historical arguments that so easily steer Americans. That doesn't seem to be the case any more. The youth have become polarized with so many either falling into the camp of extreme secularism and all its identity-driven ideologies or they're turning to the Right and embracing ideologies that were just twenty or thirty years ago thought dead.

Needless to say, militarism in connection with battles over taxes, budgets, and issues like immigration are only going to pour fuel on the fire. Will the churches in Europe teach discernment and help their congregations to think through these issues as pilgrims and exiles? I wish it was the case but it seems very unlikely.