It sounds silly but it fits. NATO's new 5% spending target is somewhat fluff. It's 3.5% for actual defence spending and 1.5% for "critical infrastructure" expenses. It makes sense when you consider most of the infrastructure initally created by NATO countries to counter Russia ends in Germany and envisions a different sort of battleplan, but you could also see it as a way of inflating NATO's apparent military investments.

There is probably a secondary reason. I would assume military expenditures probably have better oversight.

> It would not be the first time that the bridge's building has been held up. Since the first plans for it were drawn up more than 50 years ago, various ideas for it have had to be shelved for various reasons and it has long faced stern opposition.

> This has included concerns that huge amounts of taxpayers' money would be siphoned off by the Sicilian and Calabrian mafias, which have a broad influence over politics and society in southern Italy.

Eh, sounds about right to me, for example the US interstate highway system is more or less a military program.

“amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.”