By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite increased defense spending across the EU, significant gaps remain in European weapons production, requiring substantial investment and time to address. While some manufacturers have ramped up production of certain munitions and vehicles, the continent lags behind in areas like stealth aircraft and long-range missiles. Fragmentation within the EU, with varying degrees of dependence on external suppliers, hinders unified procurement and large-scale projects. Achieving true military independence from the United States necessitates a decade of investment and a shift towards greater unity, as underscored by the need to develop indigenous long-range weapons systems.
Read the original article here
Europe accelerates push for military independence from US, and it’s a development that seems to be gaining momentum. Honestly, it’s almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and in a way, it’s what some in the US, particularly those who have been vocal about it, may have unknowingly paved the way for. The idea of Europe taking greater control of its own defense is being embraced, and it’s less about animosity, and more about a strategic shift.
Europe’s move towards greater military independence isn’t just about the EU wanting to flex its muscles, it’s rooted in a more complex set of motivations. A key aspect seems to be the desire to reduce reliance on the US, both in terms of strategic control and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the procurement of military hardware. The US, with its own defense industry, has long been a major supplier, and it has become apparent that this arrangement is no longer meeting all of Europe’s needs. This shift aligns with a growing sense that Europe should be responsible for its own security.
This also means that the US may find itself in a different position. The expectation was that Europe should contribute more, but it seems there was little planning for the possibility of Europe choosing to procure from European manufacturers, instead of US ones. The consequence is that the US may find its military industrial complex facing a different reality, one where a major customer is buying elsewhere. This will impact the US’s ability to offset development costs with export revenues and will ultimately have an impact on the US’s own procurement.
The response from some quarters in the US has been a bit like a surprise. Instead of embracing the change, there’s been, how can I put it, a sense of disappointment. It is an interesting contrast of expecting allies to step up and then being unhappy when they do so, albeit in a way that doesn’t completely align with US interests. However, there’s a wider recognition that Europe’s strategic shift could have benefits, especially when it comes to containing any expansionist ambitions of Russia.
It’s not just about the political machinations either. The current strategic environment plays a role. The US, according to its own plans, is now prioritizing the Western hemisphere and domestic issues, and some of that has already taken place. This refocusing, combined with a sense of being taken for granted, has created an opening for Europe. The EU and Canada already have a security and defense partnership. The idea is that the EU could concentrate on managing Russia and then allowing the US to pivot to Asia.
This is where the idea of long-term strategies, and the way the US has treated some of its allies, becomes really apparent. The way the US has acted has made the situation worse. The message received by many across Europe, even those who have historically been strong allies of the US, hasn’t been one of partnership. The EU’s drive for autonomy isn’t a sudden whim; it’s a response to evolving global dynamics and a reevaluation of the value of the US-led order.
The US has made itself less appealing, and that is allowing European manufacturers to get stronger. It’s a bit like an open relationship where one partner starts behaving badly and then is surprised when the other finds a better option. It sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The EU has seen the behavior and decided they would rather find another option.
For some, it goes beyond the political and economic implications. Some believe the current US foreign policy focuses on short-term gains, potentially at the expense of long-term global influence and soft power. This shift towards asserting European interests is not just about military hardware or strategic positioning; it also represents a fundamental reimagining of Europe’s role in the world.
This development is not about acrimony. It’s about a continent coming to terms with its responsibilities and its own place in the world. It’s an exercise in self-reliance, with Europe clearly signaling its intention to define its own destiny.