Under the new von der Leyen Commission, the likelihood that the EU will abandon the model of market capitalism and move towards a state capitalism based on defense and security will increase. This is the recipe prescribed by the former president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, if the EU wants to choose survival in the great power competition with China, Russia, but also with the USA. 800 billion euros annually, in the long term (as a percentage of GDP, it means more than the Marshall Plan after the Second World War), is the price that European taxpayers have to pay (directly or through the joint indebtedness of the states EU) to save the European project, the Draghi report suggests. And a good part of these funds should go the way of the defense industry.
The European Commission will have a new portfolio from this year – that of the European Commissioner for Defence. The former Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kublius is nominated, but the European press noted that the real defense commissioner is not the one appointed by Ursula von der Leyen, but the CEO of the German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall, a much more influential figure in the profile industry as well, and at the political level, with connections throughout Europe and the so-called collective West.
Defense will be the biggest business in Europe for many years to come, heavily financed by states, by the European Commission, by massive loans. After the help offered to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion, European armies, high-ranking officers, civilian advisers, contractors, consultants and NGOs have a huge hunger for weapons, the current arsenal being much reduced compared to 20 years ago years.
And report of the Institute for the World Economy in Kiel dedicated to the rearmament of Europe points out that, at the current rate of armament, it would take a hundred years for Germany to reach the level of howitzer stocks of 2004, for example. It would take 40 years to reach the number of tanks in 2004; of 20 years to match the number of infantry vehicles of 20 years ago; for about 15 years in the case of fighter planes. “This contrasts with the massive increase in the capability of Russia’s defense industry, including modern weapons systems. Russia can now produce in just six months the entire volume of weapons possessed by Germany,” the report states. “The capacity of the Russian military industry has grown strongly in the last two years, far above the level of losses suffered in Ukraine”. The same report shows that the German military industry has not only not expanded its capacity to increase its arsenals, but cannot keep pace with the losses incurred in a proxy war in which the main effort is not Berlin’s but Washington’s.
The situation does not look good in the United States either. In the spring of this year, starting with NATO information, CNN reported that the U.S. goal of reaching production of 100,000 155mm shells per month by the end of 2025 would make production half that of Russia’s current production. CNN also showed that, in 2024, the capacity of all NATO allies is 1.2 million shells, while that of Russia is almost double.
The report by the Kiel-based IfW, one of the oldest think tanks (founded in 1914) and considered among the world’s 50 most influential such organizations in the economic field, does not seek to convince Western governments to reach peace with Russia as quickly as possible, but on the contrary – to launch as soon as possible policies for an economic growth based on the military industry. Here, the IfW report meets the aforementioned Draghi report, which suggests the creation of large European conglomerates formed by the current “national champions” in the field of defense industry, which would supply the EU armies in the long term.
But no, it cannot be so, cried the allies across the Ocean. Washington is “concerned” that the European allies want to prioritize the purchase of weapons “made in Europe”. The US ambassador to NATO, Julianne Smith, adopted a relatively aggressive tone in several statements for Politico.eu. “It is fascinating and encouraging that the EU is preparing to take on a greater share of the burden when it comes to defense and security. The US has some concerns about how these initiatives will be implemented. Of course,” says the American official.
What are the concerns? “When Europeans say they should buy military equipment only from Europe, we ask: Given the needs, given the determination of countries to get the best capabilities at the best price, wouldn’t you want to let countries buy and from other parts this equipment, also taking into account the emergency. And that means looking at producers other than those in the EU,” said Julianne Smith. The US ambassador to NATO considers the concerns of those allied states who believe that Russia’s attack will not stop in Ukraine, and shows that the most effective and fastest way to respond to these concerns is for Europe to arm itself with the weapon from outside Europe. “For 75 years, US presidents and political parties have supported this alliance and pledged to provide leadership in the alliance. I am convinced that the USA will continue to play this role in the future, regardless of what happens in the elections on November 5”.
In other words, the transformation of a European social project based on market capitalism into a rather military project led by an illegitimate government from Brussels and powered by energy twice as expensive as in America and China is not enough. It is necessary for the military project to be implemented through the massive funding of the US military industry. The US ambassador to NATO accused, veiledly, that the EU pursues protectionist policies, while the Biden administration carried forward the protectionism that the Trump administration was accused of.
The difference in the cost of production of weapons and ammunition in the West versus Russia is large – about $4,000 a 155mm shell in NATO countries (with significant variations) and only $1000 a 152mm shell in Russia. The war in Ukraine, held up as an example of what the wars of the future will look like, shows that quantity beats quality, that rapid innovation on the front lines can beat years of research in laboratories. Military historian Edward Luttwak has repeatedly pointed out that the Western Allies have focused in recent decades on the production of parade weapons, designed to satisfy engineers and politicians and less to bring victory in a war of attrition with an enemy with similar force, not against flip-flop pirates in Somalia or machine gun-wielding jihadists in the Iraqi desert. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a group of American students won a competition with Boeing for an anti-drone weapon, producing a device much simpler and cheaper but just as effective as the one produced by the military giant that donates substantial amounts to campaigns US elections.
The US position on armaments and arms trade is consistent. American industry has pursued and continues to pursue profit. What has changed is the European approach: power politics and zero-sum geopolitical rivalry were until recently anathema in Brussels; but now, almost all EU policies have started to be “militarized” and “securitized”. Just as debates about negotiations and peace in Ukraine have been removed from the official and media sphere, so has an older debate related to the fact that the EU is always sinning by looking for the best ways to react to the latest crisis, instead of looking for ways to prevent the future crisis. It is true that Europe has neglected the defense sector in recent decades, and the crisis in Ukraine has made it necessary to reconsider some priorities, but the EU risks falling into the other extreme, relying on the defense industry to get out of a prolonged economic crisis and pass with seeing trends that will redefine the new world order, trends that have less to do with the arsenals of armies.
Source: www.cotidianul.ro
