Modern military weapons are significantly more complex than those produced at scale in WWII. Some time ago, someone produced an analysis of the number of Chinese manufacturers who make components and sub-components for US missiles -- there were hundreds of them! Of course, the required exotic metals (like titanium) are also imported ... from Russia. It is a good guess that Europe would face the same problem of requiring the assistance of their proposed enemies to build their weapons.
It seems the real European "defense" strategy would be to build good non-antagonistic relations of mutual respect with Russia & China.
Europe is suffering a number of shocks at present: The coming of Trump and his distain for NATO, the Ukraine War failing to go to the NATO narrative, the subsequent loss of market/resources due to the sanctions imposed on Russia, the likely tariff war over the next four years with the US, military impotence and weakness within Europe, becoming a technological backwater and the growing economic recessions showing up across Europe. The answer according to Europe appears to be Militarized Keynsianism. But is this the answer?
The problem is that since the end of the Cold War, the West - in its unipolar moment, has lost the ability to think strategically. The Liberal establishment that supplanted the Realists in carrying out the Washington Concensus believed that they had unlimited advantage over all other competitors over the last 30 years. Ukraine has exposed all this as a fallacy and this has frightened Europe - but so far we hear just words. We see no plans nor structured thinking how this will be achieved.
The other issue not covered in this article is: is there the political will among the European populace for a Militarized Keynsianism which will traditionally involves sacrifice - ie less spent on the civilian sector in order to produce more guns. There are, afterall large sections of the European electorate that votes for anti-establishment parties that reject the premises of the ruling elites. Has the European Union and the UK made the case to their publics? If increased military production is implimented how will the various electorates react?
Sacrifice? That’s out of the question. The plan is to unload the entire burden on the next generation through debt. Serfs that haven’t yet been born can’t revolt against you no matter the level of abuse, you see.
I agree the borrowing will affect future generations, but at the same time, if you start producing guns rather than butter now (and remember that the crisis is now and not necessarily in the future), then there will be less consumer goods being produced. This will drive up prices on said consumer good which will cause inflation. Look at Nazi Germany in the 1930s as an example of how this worked in practice. This may trigger a reaction during national and EU elections if the politicians cannot get the public support behind them.
"The Chairman of Stellantis, John Elkann, rejected the government's demand to convert some factories to defense production, saying that his company did not believe "that the future of the car is the defense industry."
John Elkann is correct about the car industry. However, the United States has no defense industry; it has an offense industry. Only a tiny amount of the military budget is spent on defense materiel. The vast majority of military production is for offensive use and is used effectively to slaughter innocents and control foreign lands.
But we do not have a defense industry; we have an offense industry. We merely call it a defense industry and pretend we have enemies to gain acceptance from our know-nothing populace.
The Kremlin is well-aware of the need to balance the military-economy with a peace-time economy. Look into the bio of their Defence Minister - he's an economist, not a Grunt.
I get Trump's ambivalence about backing Europe militarily. But I also worry about a Europe that regains its military footing. Napoleon, the birth of the German Empire and the World Wars come to mind.
Most European wars before the creation of the EU were internal wars between competing powers (if fought also from the C18th in their colonies elsewhere - the first 'world wars'). That was the primary nominal reason for creating the EU.
But for Russians - also of course largely European, though also in a deep sense Eurasian from Alexander Nevsky onward - Napoleon and Hitler certainly come to mind, along with the fact it was Russia that blocked their earlier attempts to 'unite Europe'.
Slavs have long memories. Russians also remember Anglo-French attacks in Crimea in the C19th, and in Ukraine after the Great War, so the idea of nuclear-armed France and Britain, dreaming of a colonial past, returning to support rightwing Ukrainian nationalists, having evacuated their failed White Russian protégés from Crimea in 1920, does not play well... Though ex-EU Starmer pathetically posturing in camouflage over his suit and tie, and a new Napoléon le Petit (to use Victor Hugo's term for a wannabe French emperor) don't seem to get that.
Great article, Stephen. While I think Europe is on the right track in supporting themselves militarily, they're not understanding that defense spending isn't just a one-time commitment/payment. Proper defenses require constant investment of R&D, dedicated production and maintenance. As you allude to in the article, defense production at the expense of non-military production will more than likely diminish one's economy over time.
"While I think Europe is on the right track in supporting themselves militarily, they're not understanding that defense spending isn't just a one-time commitment/payment."
Who is Europe defending itself from, and who are its enemies?
That remains to be seen. Are they going for Reagan's "peace through strength" or are they wanting to retake Ukraine's territories? As I think Stephen suggests, they need a more definitive plan.
Use military expenditures instead. Personally, I don't think they even know themselves as I believe they're going off half-cocked without thinking about what strategy they're actually trying to achieve with their spending. Again, if it's peace through strength that's a deterrent by no one wanting to attack them. If it's the Russians, then that's another matter entirely. What they should be defending themselves from is a culture shift from immigration.
It is abundantly obvious that the various european poodles expect either that Russia will not respond or that, if Russia does respond, that the United States will ride to their rescue.
"If the Ukraine war ends, then where will the additional projected production go, if anywhere?" This is an issue that every economy with an advance armaments industry has to deal with. It is likely one reason the US is in the arms export business in a big way--all those arms sales can return a profit that makes it all seem like a worthwhile investment.
Talk of converting auto factories to weapons factories reminds me of all the talk about converting dying commercial real estate into residential housing. Sounds attractive to the layman, but people in the industry know it is far from simple, maybe even not logical at all. As they say, the devil is in the details.
All because of Russia the new bogeyman. Sad to see how Europe wastes their future. Instead of investing in key technologies and the future, they just throw it away. In Germany schools and infrastructure need major repairs. In fact the Debt ceiling is totally insane. Once you understand that debt one side is an asset on the other. It robs the state of investing for the future. Germany is a failed state and it shows.
European populations are not very focused on the imaginary threat bigged up daily by 'their leaders'. They care more about their failing economies.
So why do Macron, Starmer, failed former German Defence Minister UvdL, her deputy hawk Kallas of Estonia (O.2% of EU GDP!!!) and a couple of other usual suspects, themselves constantly bigged up by a complicit mainstream European media, get together each week to tear their hair out about diverting even more scarce resources to counter the Red Peril?
I guess the only possible explanation is that, as Goering said at Nuremberg, to restore domestic support, you need to try and frighten people about foreigners.
Maybe, but I think it is more about salvaging their economies which are a huge mess. If they wanted to directly subsidize industry they would run afoul of strong EU regulations. So they are trying to do it by repurposing billions or trillions and "converting" big factories to defense production, which is nonsensical. It is a dumb idea and will surely fail. Even a first year economist would laugh at this absurdity.
Yes, they talk about 'defense' investment being good for jobs and growth, as they fail economically and politically - but your piece carefully trashes any supposed economic argument.
Maybe, as poor economists they actually believe their threadbare rationale - but it isn't an alternative explanation for their desperate political sabre-rattling about the Red Peril - the two delusional 'arguments' go together.
If only there were things that governments could spend money on that didn't generate a negative ROI!
But, alas, governments can only do a few things with money. They can give that money to nazi Ukraine, rhey can use that money to give weapons to nazi Ukraine, or they can go to war on behalf of nazi Ukraine.
Otherwise, all that money just disappears! /s
Anyway, money is only one of europe's problems here. Take a look at their demographics.
A common EU defense policy that requires a unanimous consent is unachievable . The stupidity to enact such a requirement is a very poor attempt to implement "unity" in the EU. The European Union is a misnomer. There is no union other than the euro. Building out a European defense without NATO is a sign of ignorance. EU country's efforts should be developing a stronger NATO with meeting financial obligations. There is nothing wrong with trying to support Ukraine, but your own country's economic and sovereignty conditions are paramount.
Don't worry because it will not happen. It is all BS to cover up spending money supporting industry. Has nothing real to do with security, if it did there would be a strategic plan and there isn't one. No one will ever wear an EU uniform.
That figure you quoted for annual fighter jet manufacturing is for the entire West (Europe and the US) not just the US. In contrast Russia is producing a max of 50 fighters annually while China makes about 200. India and Korea are producing under 20 units / year currently.
My number only included US not Europe. It includes F-35(all models), F-18 Super Hornet, F-16, F-15EX. It also includes other fighter production for special ops.
Modern military weapons are significantly more complex than those produced at scale in WWII. Some time ago, someone produced an analysis of the number of Chinese manufacturers who make components and sub-components for US missiles -- there were hundreds of them! Of course, the required exotic metals (like titanium) are also imported ... from Russia. It is a good guess that Europe would face the same problem of requiring the assistance of their proposed enemies to build their weapons.
It seems the real European "defense" strategy would be to build good non-antagonistic relations of mutual respect with Russia & China.
Europe is suffering a number of shocks at present: The coming of Trump and his distain for NATO, the Ukraine War failing to go to the NATO narrative, the subsequent loss of market/resources due to the sanctions imposed on Russia, the likely tariff war over the next four years with the US, military impotence and weakness within Europe, becoming a technological backwater and the growing economic recessions showing up across Europe. The answer according to Europe appears to be Militarized Keynsianism. But is this the answer?
The problem is that since the end of the Cold War, the West - in its unipolar moment, has lost the ability to think strategically. The Liberal establishment that supplanted the Realists in carrying out the Washington Concensus believed that they had unlimited advantage over all other competitors over the last 30 years. Ukraine has exposed all this as a fallacy and this has frightened Europe - but so far we hear just words. We see no plans nor structured thinking how this will be achieved.
The other issue not covered in this article is: is there the political will among the European populace for a Militarized Keynsianism which will traditionally involves sacrifice - ie less spent on the civilian sector in order to produce more guns. There are, afterall large sections of the European electorate that votes for anti-establishment parties that reject the premises of the ruling elites. Has the European Union and the UK made the case to their publics? If increased military production is implimented how will the various electorates react?
"Has the European Union and the UK made the case to their publics?"
Nobody is goign to do that, lest the publics not respond as intended.
The UK is not a member of the EU.
Don't think I said it was, nor is EU member status necessary to my point.
Sacrifice? That’s out of the question. The plan is to unload the entire burden on the next generation through debt. Serfs that haven’t yet been born can’t revolt against you no matter the level of abuse, you see.
I agree the borrowing will affect future generations, but at the same time, if you start producing guns rather than butter now (and remember that the crisis is now and not necessarily in the future), then there will be less consumer goods being produced. This will drive up prices on said consumer good which will cause inflation. Look at Nazi Germany in the 1930s as an example of how this worked in practice. This may trigger a reaction during national and EU elections if the politicians cannot get the public support behind them.
"The Chairman of Stellantis, John Elkann, rejected the government's demand to convert some factories to defense production, saying that his company did not believe "that the future of the car is the defense industry."
John Elkann is correct about the car industry. However, the United States has no defense industry; it has an offense industry. Only a tiny amount of the military budget is spent on defense materiel. The vast majority of military production is for offensive use and is used effectively to slaughter innocents and control foreign lands.
Hence the difficulty they are facing in Ukraine. The U.S/NATO is all about offense now. Russia is and always has been about defense.
"Russia is and always has been about defense."
Well, at least most of the time.
A solid defense industry needs an enemy. What happens if peace breaks out in Ukraine and Putin refuses to attack the EU?
"A solid defense industry needs an enemy."
But we do not have a defense industry; we have an offense industry. We merely call it a defense industry and pretend we have enemies to gain acceptance from our know-nothing populace.
Hey, they should rename the Dept. of War to be the Dept. of Defence! Clever, eh?
"Hey, they should rename the Dept. of War to be the Dept. of Defence! Clever, eh?"
It was accurately called the War Department for 158 years until 1947, when, for propaganda purposes, it was changed to the Department of Defense.
Oh, nevermind!
The Kremlin is well-aware of the need to balance the military-economy with a peace-time economy. Look into the bio of their Defence Minister - he's an economist, not a Grunt.
Basic economics says that government spending does not increase GPD. Defense spending takes money out of the economy and wastes it
Intriguing and insightful article. Thanks 👍
I'm from Bangladesh
I get Trump's ambivalence about backing Europe militarily. But I also worry about a Europe that regains its military footing. Napoleon, the birth of the German Empire and the World Wars come to mind.
after two world wars it is not a random thought
Most European wars before the creation of the EU were internal wars between competing powers (if fought also from the C18th in their colonies elsewhere - the first 'world wars'). That was the primary nominal reason for creating the EU.
But for Russians - also of course largely European, though also in a deep sense Eurasian from Alexander Nevsky onward - Napoleon and Hitler certainly come to mind, along with the fact it was Russia that blocked their earlier attempts to 'unite Europe'.
Slavs have long memories. Russians also remember Anglo-French attacks in Crimea in the C19th, and in Ukraine after the Great War, so the idea of nuclear-armed France and Britain, dreaming of a colonial past, returning to support rightwing Ukrainian nationalists, having evacuated their failed White Russian protégés from Crimea in 1920, does not play well... Though ex-EU Starmer pathetically posturing in camouflage over his suit and tie, and a new Napoléon le Petit (to use Victor Hugo's term for a wannabe French emperor) don't seem to get that.
Great article, Stephen. While I think Europe is on the right track in supporting themselves militarily, they're not understanding that defense spending isn't just a one-time commitment/payment. Proper defenses require constant investment of R&D, dedicated production and maintenance. As you allude to in the article, defense production at the expense of non-military production will more than likely diminish one's economy over time.
"While I think Europe is on the right track in supporting themselves militarily, they're not understanding that defense spending isn't just a one-time commitment/payment."
Who is Europe defending itself from, and who are its enemies?
That remains to be seen. Are they going for Reagan's "peace through strength" or are they wanting to retake Ukraine's territories? As I think Stephen suggests, they need a more definitive plan.
You didn't answer my question.
Use military expenditures instead. Personally, I don't think they even know themselves as I believe they're going off half-cocked without thinking about what strategy they're actually trying to achieve with their spending. Again, if it's peace through strength that's a deterrent by no one wanting to attack them. If it's the Russians, then that's another matter entirely. What they should be defending themselves from is a culture shift from immigration.
"If it's the Russians, then that's another matter entirely."
Russia has shown no unprovoked aggression toward Europe.
It is abundantly obvious that the various european poodles expect either that Russia will not respond or that, if Russia does respond, that the United States will ride to their rescue.
Our esteemed Cat Man is correct - their big spending spree would be nothing more than an expensive costume...
"If the Ukraine war ends, then where will the additional projected production go, if anywhere?" This is an issue that every economy with an advance armaments industry has to deal with. It is likely one reason the US is in the arms export business in a big way--all those arms sales can return a profit that makes it all seem like a worthwhile investment.
Talk of converting auto factories to weapons factories reminds me of all the talk about converting dying commercial real estate into residential housing. Sounds attractive to the layman, but people in the industry know it is far from simple, maybe even not logical at all. As they say, the devil is in the details.
All because of Russia the new bogeyman. Sad to see how Europe wastes their future. Instead of investing in key technologies and the future, they just throw it away. In Germany schools and infrastructure need major repairs. In fact the Debt ceiling is totally insane. Once you understand that debt one side is an asset on the other. It robs the state of investing for the future. Germany is a failed state and it shows.
Thanks for your great work Stephen!
We've shared the link on our daily report.
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
European populations are not very focused on the imaginary threat bigged up daily by 'their leaders'. They care more about their failing economies.
So why do Macron, Starmer, failed former German Defence Minister UvdL, her deputy hawk Kallas of Estonia (O.2% of EU GDP!!!) and a couple of other usual suspects, themselves constantly bigged up by a complicit mainstream European media, get together each week to tear their hair out about diverting even more scarce resources to counter the Red Peril?
I guess the only possible explanation is that, as Goering said at Nuremberg, to restore domestic support, you need to try and frighten people about foreigners.
Maybe, but I think it is more about salvaging their economies which are a huge mess. If they wanted to directly subsidize industry they would run afoul of strong EU regulations. So they are trying to do it by repurposing billions or trillions and "converting" big factories to defense production, which is nonsensical. It is a dumb idea and will surely fail. Even a first year economist would laugh at this absurdity.
Yes, they talk about 'defense' investment being good for jobs and growth, as they fail economically and politically - but your piece carefully trashes any supposed economic argument.
Maybe, as poor economists they actually believe their threadbare rationale - but it isn't an alternative explanation for their desperate political sabre-rattling about the Red Peril - the two delusional 'arguments' go together.
If only there were things that governments could spend money on that didn't generate a negative ROI!
But, alas, governments can only do a few things with money. They can give that money to nazi Ukraine, rhey can use that money to give weapons to nazi Ukraine, or they can go to war on behalf of nazi Ukraine.
Otherwise, all that money just disappears! /s
Anyway, money is only one of europe's problems here. Take a look at their demographics.
A common EU defense policy that requires a unanimous consent is unachievable . The stupidity to enact such a requirement is a very poor attempt to implement "unity" in the EU. The European Union is a misnomer. There is no union other than the euro. Building out a European defense without NATO is a sign of ignorance. EU country's efforts should be developing a stronger NATO with meeting financial obligations. There is nothing wrong with trying to support Ukraine, but your own country's economic and sovereignty conditions are paramount.
It seems weird to ask young men to die defending an undemocratic trade federation.
Don't worry because it will not happen. It is all BS to cover up spending money supporting industry. Has nothing real to do with security, if it did there would be a strategic plan and there isn't one. No one will ever wear an EU uniform.
An attempt, highly likely to be lowly lame as detailed, at Military-Keynesianism.
That figure you quoted for annual fighter jet manufacturing is for the entire West (Europe and the US) not just the US. In contrast Russia is producing a max of 50 fighters annually while China makes about 200. India and Korea are producing under 20 units / year currently.
My number only included US not Europe. It includes F-35(all models), F-18 Super Hornet, F-16, F-15EX. It also includes other fighter production for special ops.
Got it - you must have better intel than I do. My count for 2024 was 110 F35's, 21 F16's, 14 F15's, 11 F18's and 2 T7's.