By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of Denmark’s parliamentary defense committee, regrets Denmark’s 2016 purchase of 27 F-35 fighter jets, citing concerns about potential US control via a hypothetical “kill switch” or parts supply restrictions. He believes this reliance on US weaponry presents a security risk, particularly given past US actions and statements regarding Greenland. Jarlov’s concerns are shared by other nations, including Canada and Portugal, who are also reviewing their F-35 purchases due to growing geopolitical tensions with the United States. He urges allies to consider alternative defense procurement strategies to mitigate this risk.
Read the original article here
The head of Denmark’s defense committee recently expressed regret over the country’s purchase of F-35 fighter jets, stating that avoiding American weapons should be a top priority. This statement highlights a growing concern among some European nations regarding the reliability of the United States as a weapons supplier. The unpredictability of US foreign policy under certain administrations creates a significant security risk, potentially jeopardizing a nation’s defense capabilities if it becomes reliant on American-made weaponry.
This concern stems from the perceived potential for the US to weaponize its military exports, using them as leverage in diplomatic disputes or trade negotiations. The fear is that access to vital parts, maintenance, or even software updates could be withheld, leaving a nation vulnerable. The recent tensions between the US and Denmark over Greenland serve as a stark example of how such political disagreements can impact international relations and potentially affect military cooperation.
The ramifications of this shift in perspective are significant. European manufacturers of military equipment, such as SAAB, are likely to benefit from this growing reluctance to depend on American-made weaponry. This renewed interest in domestic and European-made alternatives could lead to a substantial shift in the global arms market, potentially fostering greater military independence among European nations.
A significant aspect of this debate revolves around the long-term implications of relying on a single supplier for crucial military hardware. The lifespan of a fighter jet like the F-35 spans decades, meaning that a nation’s air defense could be severely compromised if political relations with the US sour during that time. The potential for unforeseen software updates or parts restrictions adds another layer of uncertainty to this dependence.
Many argue that it’s not simply about the political landscape; the economic aspects are crucial as well. The US’s military-industrial complex is vast and powerful, and the potential cost of switching to another supplier is significant. However, the argument for increased independence suggests that the potential costs of maintaining dependence on the US outweigh the price of transitioning to alternative systems. This involves significant investments in research and development, production, and training.
The debate also touches on the wider implications for NATO and transatlantic relations. While the US remains a crucial partner for many European nations, the potential for unilateral actions by the US government creates concerns about the alliance’s long-term stability. A significant part of this distrust is caused by the volatile nature of US politics, with the possibility of a sudden shift in policy depending on who is elected.
While there is no perfect alternative to the F-35 currently available, exploring European-made options, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon or Saab Gripen, could mitigate some of the risks associated with American dependence. This would require increased cooperation and joint investment among European nations to develop and produce competitive military equipment. The transition wouldn’t be without challenges, but the potential benefits, in terms of increased autonomy and reduced political vulnerability, are significant.
The shift away from American weapons is not just a reaction to specific events; it’s a reflection of a deeper desire for greater self-reliance and independence in defense matters. It represents a reconsideration of the balance of power within NATO and a reassessment of the risks associated with relying on a single, powerful supplier of military technology. The long-term consequences of this change remain to be seen, but it is clear that the landscape of global defense procurement is undergoing a significant transformation.
It is crucial to acknowledge that this shift is not universally embraced. There are considerable arguments in favor of maintaining close military ties with the US, particularly given the vast technological advantages currently held by the American military-industrial complex. The debate is complex, with significant financial, political, and strategic implications, and will likely continue to evolve as nations grapple with the balance between security, independence, and international cooperation.
Ultimately, the choice facing many European nations is difficult. The decision lies in balancing the advantages of established partnerships and technological prowess against the growing need for greater autonomy in national security. This dilemma underscores the far-reaching impact of geopolitical uncertainty on defense strategies and international relations.