By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Airbus Defense and Space CEO Michael Schollhorn urges Germany to lessen its reliance on U.S. defense contractors, advocating for increased collaboration among European defense firms instead. This recommendation comes amid rising concerns over shifting U.S. foreign policy, including President Trump’s questioning of NATO commitments and potential pressure on European allies. Schollhorn highlights the upcoming German defense budget increase as a critical opportunity to prioritize European manufacturers and avoid further dependence on the U.S. He uses the example of Denmark’s F-35 purchase to illustrate the potential pitfalls of solely relying on American-made equipment. Ultimately, Schollhorn emphasizes a need for coordinated European defense spending and industry cooperation.
Read the original article here
Germany should reduce its reliance on US arms, particularly given the current geopolitical landscape. This shift is necessary not only for strategic diversification but also to foster greater European autonomy in defense matters. The argument isn’t merely about substituting one arms supplier for another; it’s about building a more resilient and self-sufficient European defense industry. It’s a move that promotes long-term security and reduces dependence on a single, potentially unreliable source.
The current reliance on US arms manufacturers presents risks. This over-dependence makes Germany vulnerable to external political pressures and potential supply chain disruptions. A more balanced approach, incorporating European-made equipment and technology, would enhance Germany’s strategic independence and strengthen its position within the European Union. This isn’t simply about choosing one company over another; it’s about a broader strategic shift.
This isn’t to suggest that the US is necessarily an untrustworthy supplier, however, a degree of diversification is prudent in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment. A reliance on a single major arms provider, regardless of its reliability, creates a point of vulnerability. A more diversified approach would mitigate these risks, enhancing Germany’s resilience.
The call for reduced reliance on US arms isn’t solely driven by geopolitical considerations. Concerns about the quality and safety of some US-produced military equipment also play a role. These concerns extend beyond individual incidents and raise broader questions about standards and oversight within the US defense industry. Choosing European alternatives could lead to improved quality and reliability.
Furthermore, the shift towards a more European-centric defense industry offers economic benefits. Increased investment in European defense companies, like Airbus, would boost innovation, create jobs, and strengthen the overall European economy. This also fosters a stronger sense of self-reliance and enhances Europe’s overall strategic position in the global arena.
The argument for diversification necessitates a commitment to investing in and developing indigenous defense capabilities within Europe. This requires significant financial investment, but the long-term benefits of self-sufficiency outweigh the initial costs. This investment isn’t just about catching up with existing US technology; it’s about developing innovative defense solutions that meet Europe’s specific needs.
Centralizing European defense procurement could also play a crucial role in streamlining the process and driving down costs. The current piecemeal approach is inefficient and hinders the development of a truly integrated European defense industry. A unified approach would allow for greater economies of scale and foster greater collaboration.
Ultimately, the call to reduce reliance on US arms is a call for a more strategically independent and economically robust Europe. While this transition will take time and require significant investment, the long-term benefits – improved security, greater economic self-reliance, and enhanced European integration – are significant. The need to foster a stronger European defense industry, capable of supplying its own needs, has never been greater. The benefits of strategic diversification, coupled with concerns over the quality and political influence associated with relying on a single source for critical defense equipment, strongly support the move toward a less US-centric approach to armament.