By Matt Underwood Denmark’s prime minister has declared a significant shift in the nation’s defense strategy: a commitment to “buy, buy, buy” military equipment. This bold statement reflects a growing sentiment across Europe questioning the reliability of traditional allies and emphasizing self-reliance in matters of national security.
The underlying reason for this decisive move is a profound loss of trust in the United States’ commitment to European security. Concerns are voiced about past instances of US foreign policy perceived as erratic and harmful to European interests, leaving many to question the long-term viability of their reliance on American military support.
This new approach prioritizes purchasing military gear from European sources, acknowledging that, while there might be some differences in quality compared to American products, the reliability of the supply chain and the avoidance of geopolitical risks significantly outweigh these potential drawbacks.
Europe’s capacity for military production is surprisingly robust. A wide range of equipment, including mortars, air defense systems, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, mines, shells, rockets, helicopters, jets, and various missiles and torpedoes, is already produced within Europe.
The identified gaps in European military production are primarily in heavy helicopters, heavy-lift aircraft, heavy attack helicopters, and long-range rocket artillery. These areas need to be addressed strategically to ensure complete self-sufficiency.
The argument presented strongly suggests that Europe’s reliance on the US for security is both risky and unnecessary. It highlights Europe’s impressive technological capabilities, ranging from space exploration to advanced particle physics, as evidence of its potential to develop and sustain its own robust defense industry.
The complete lack of confidence in the US’s ability to be a reliable security partner is the driving force behind this new approach. Past US actions, such as the abandonment of Kurdish allies in Syria, are cited as examples of strategic blunders with devastating consequences that undermine the trust and confidence in US leadership. The argument suggests that in the event of a future conflict, the US may not stand by its European allies, or worse, might even actively oppose their interests.
This shift signals a potential reshaping of the European security landscape, moving away from the traditional reliance on NATO and towards a more independent and self-sufficient approach. The call for the development of a European nuclear deterrent is a significant escalation in the discussion, reflecting the growing belief that only a powerful, independent military capability can guarantee the security and sovereignty of Europe.
The call to avoid purchasing American military equipment is not just a matter of political disagreement; it’s a matter of strategic self-preservation. This concern stems from a fear that the US could potentially use control over weapon systems as a tool for political leverage or even actively disable European equipment in times of crisis.
The need to build up European defense industrial capabilities is directly linked to the stated goal of self-reliance. This involves not just procurement, but establishing robust, resilient, and easily maintained production lines for crucial military hardware, encompassing munitions, missiles, and advanced technologies.
The overall message is clear: Denmark is leading a movement towards increased European military independence, spurred by concerns about the reliability of the United States as a security partner. This involves a major investment in European-made weaponry and a significant reduction in reliance on US arms, which is seen as a crucial step towards securing Europe’s future. This approach challenges existing alliances and points towards a new era of self-reliance in European defense, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the continent.