Europe finally appears serious about rearming. German legislators have agreed to exempt defense from constitutional limits on debt spending. The European Commission is urging members to raise military budgets to 3 percent of GDP and issue joint debt to fund weapons purchases — moves that could unlock more than 800 billion euros (US$866.16 billion) in additional spending over four years.
If European leaders are to build truly capable militaries that no longer depend on the US, they would need to change how they spend on defense, not just how much.
To be effective, any new funds must be deployed strategically, efficiently and cooperatively — something Europe has historically struggled to manage. Billions in joint EU funding for COVID-19 relief, for instance, were allegedly lost to fraud and waste; accountability has been a problem.
Past defense build-ups have fueled fragmentation rather than cooperation. European militaries field 29 different types of major warships, 27 howitzers, 20 fighter jets and 17 main battle tanks. By comparison, the US operates four, two, six and one respectively. That overlap inflates costs and dilutes effectiveness. Consolidation alone could free up 30 percent more resources, the European Defense Agency estimated.
Despite its plethora of platforms, Europe continues to rely on the US for capabilities that are core to its security, including airlift, missile defense, precision-guided munitions, and intelligence and surveillance systems. Over the past decade, European nations spent US$100 billion on US-made arms. Almost two-thirds of imports by European NATO states from 2020 to last year came from the US.
The immediate task must be to shore up Ukraine’s defenses. Allowing the country to falter would create instability on Europe’s doorstep, weaken deterrence, embolden Russia and ultimately require even greater defense expenditure. Realistically, that means some of the new funds would also have to be spent on US-made artillery, missile-defense systems and other capabilities, while European factories gear up.
Achieving genuine defense autonomy would demand deeper reforms, many outlined in a white paper issued by the commission last week. The top priority is to rationalize procurement. European countries too often invest in platforms unsuited for modern combat or which are not the best use of available resources (the UK’s aircraft carrier fleet is a case in point). Notably, only 18 percent of European procurement was collaborative in 2021, well below even the modest target of 35 percent.
Nations with often very different ideas of what constitutes security would quickly have to agree on a defense concept. Leaders must confront national protectionism head-on, promoting policies that favor integration and interoperability over continued duplication. (The Eurofighter aircraft and MBDA Missile Systems Services SAS, the pan-European joint venture in missile manufacturing, show cooperation at scale is possible.)
Next, European manufacturers would require stable, long-term defense contracts. Companies would only invest in building sustainable industrial capacity and developing a skilled workforce if they can count on a predictable pipeline of orders.
Finally, Europe’s defense sector must attract more private-sector investment. Venture capital flows lag considerably behind those in the US. Clear regulatory frameworks and targeted tax breaks can help spur innovations in emerging technologies such as drone, cyber and electronic warfare.
While the commission can encourage such changes, only national capitals combining forces can see them through. Existing NATO infrastructure offers one ready means of coordination. Having long called on its allies to do more, while paradoxically discouraging a European defense identity that would pull orders from US firms, Washington should welcome and support the process. It, too, would be stronger if Europe spends more on its defense — and spends better.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS