As if to underline this point, the EU has unveiled its first-ever blueprint for renewing the continent’s declining defense industrial base, allowing countries to overhaul their production lines, buy weapons from their neighbors and jointly Outlined ways to strengthen defense planning. McKinsey reported last year that nearly two-thirds of European weapons are purchased solely in the country of manufacture, a predictable but costly inefficiency. At the same time, EU countries moved ahead with plans to use interest on some $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to pay for other weapons to Ukraine. The U.S. government has been urging EU countries to consider this approach since last fall, and some countries appear ready to do so, spending about $3 billion a year.
But even if all these efforts are successful, the road to strengthening Europe’s security will be long and difficult. NATO reported in February that 18 of its 32 member states would spend 2% of their GDP on defense in 2024 (a significant improvement from five years ago), but the wealthiest countries such as France, Germany and Canada Some struggle with this goal. And their military had been underfunded for years.
Since the end of the Cold War, most Europeans have remained vehemently opposed to paying for further security. As a result, NATO infantry forces are oversized, combat ships are understaffed, and the Ministry of Defense often cannibalizes one unit’s equipment in preparation for deploying another. The UK has committed to providing a heavy armored division to NATO in the event of an emergency, but a recent House of Commons report suggests it cannot deploy at full strength unless other countries provide a third of the force. Suggests. Germany promised to station a military brigade in Lithuania. There are also some Bundeswehr soldiers, but the unit will not be fully combat-ready until 2027.
Recruiting and maintaining a largely volunteer force is a formidable challenge (as it is in the United States), and shortages of ammunition and spare parts are common. Some of NATO’s largest nations purchase weapons annually rather than on more economical long-term contracts, making both front-end research and back-end maintenance difficult. And starting in 2022, available weapons stockpiles have been shipped to Ukraine, exacerbating NATO’s readiness problems.
The United States has guaranteed Europe’s security for the past 75 years. Partly as a result, other Western countries cannot afford to conduct continuous and complex military operations far from home. However, NATO does not require all members to become active, multi-mission superpowers. NATO — newly strengthened by the powerful armies of Sweden and Finland — collective defense. Each country has its own areas of expertise. The Netherlands excels at special operations. Norwegians are the best in the world at underwater operations. U.S. officials have praised the Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifle made by Sweden’s Saab Bofors, which one said is “cheaper and better than what we have.” The NLAW close support weapon, a British-Swedish system, is credited with helping Ukraine destroy a third of Russia’s armor. Poland plans to spend 4% of its GDP on the military this year. Its navy is believed to have helped Ukraine destroy numerous Russian tanks.
The U.S. government is making its own adjustments to how it purchases weapons, including investing more in unmanned ships and aircraft, modernizing shipyards, and purchasing cheaper drones and counter-drone countermeasures like those operating over Ukraine. There is a need to do. The good news is that after years of ignoring the issue, Europe is now starting to tackle its military to-do list. Alliances work best when all parties act together to make the most of their respective strengths and address common weaknesses.
