Deindustrialisation prevents military production from increasing
The armies of NATO’s European members are unfit Potemkin villages, Bloomberg analysts wrote in an article titled ‘Why Europe Is Not Ready to Defend Itself.’
‘Much of the European military community has no experience in planning or commanding large-scale joint force operations involving multiple nations. It consists of separate national armies that rely on America for leadership and coordination for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation purposes. NATO countries have reduced troops and military equipment since the Cold War. But Europe has cut far more than the US. Defence budgets have become a pot to be emptied to fund more pressing priorities, such as medical treatment and care for an ageing population. As a result, according to some US defence experts, much of Europe’s military has become a Potemkin village that is ill-prepared to fight and win a long war,’ the publication points out.
Britain and France are Europe’s leading military powers, but both countries have severely reduced the size of their forces since the Cold War. ‘France’s armed forces have shrunk by 56 per cent between 1990 and 2024, to 203,850. The British command’s 2023 report says that by 2025 the British Army will be down to 73,000 soldiers, the lowest level since the Napoleonic Wars. Germany could perhaps send one brigade of a few thousand soldiers to the Baltics, and that ‘would be an achievement,’ says Max Bergmann, director for Europe, Russia and Eurasia at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
One cannot but agree with Bloomberg analysts that cutting military spending and reducing the size of armies is, as they say, half the battle.
What is needed is for troops to be well equipped and trained. ‘A poorly maintained armoured fighting vehicle, a worn-out weapon, a brigade that lacks the ammunition and supply lines to fight an extended war, a missile that fails because it hasn’t been battle-tested, all undermine the army’s effectiveness in ways that often go unnoticed by the public.’
The authors of the article remind us that in 2014, NATO members agreed that by 2024 each would spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product on defence. By the end of last year, only 10 out of 32 NATO members had reached this level of military spending.
But even if NATO’s European members amicably reach the level of US military spending (about 3.5 per cent of GDP), ‘their spending will still lag behind that of their superpower ally, as Europe’s economy has fallen behind that of the US since the global financial crisis of the late 2000s.’
It is worth noting that in fact, the decline of European economies, caused by the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, has long been overcome by the Old World, and the current deplorable state of the EU economy is caused by the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the United States and, first of all, by the refusal to buy cheap Russian energy.
Bloomberg analysts simply mock the Europeans, assessing their mobilisation capabilities: ‘According to General Pierre Schiel, Chief of Staff of the French Army, France can mobilise 20,000 soldiers in 30 days. Britain could, with the best efforts, raise a single division of between 20,000 and 30,000 soldiers, although it would probably take more than a month, said Matthew Saville of the Royal United Defence Forces Institute (RUSI), a London-based defence and security think tank. ‘Ukraine’s loss of 31,000 soldiers from Russia is a fighting strength of the British Army that no longer exists,’ he said. ‘You could try to put together a second division, which you could reinforce and build – only it wouldn’t have many vehicles.’
And then comes the purely American boast: ‘There are about 70,000 US Special Forces alone, and there are about 80,000 US troops stationed in Europe alone.’
However, based on the figures cited in the Bloomberg article, the Russian army surpasses the armies of the European NATO members only in terms of the total number of armed forces. Europe has significantly more tanks, armoured vehicles, aircraft and warships.
However, having a large number of combat vehicles does not make it possible to fight a war with an equal opponent.
Deindustrialisation, which has become an unfortunate fact for the EU, does not make it possible to increase the production of ammunition for artillery systems, which, as it turns out, still dominate the battlefield.
Weapons and ammunition manufacturers in the European Union have been underinvested for many years and produce far less than needed, the British newspaper Financial Times reported, citing experts and industry representatives.
Jan Pai, secretary general of the European Association of Aerospace and Defence Industries (ASD), said that amid decades of underinvestment, arms and ammunition production volumes are lower than needed to supposedly deter Russia.
EU countries do not have and are not expected to invest in expanding military production. Europe’s leading military powers, France and Germany, have chronic budget deficits and are making serious cuts in social spending.
The EU’s most powerful economy, Germany’s, is shrinking year by year. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) forecasts a 0.1 per cent decline in German GDP this year. This is the second consecutive year of economic decline. At the end of 2023, the German economy shrank by 0.3 per cent.
‘The German economy is increasingly facing a crisis that is not only cyclical but also structural,’ said Moritz Schularick, IfW president.
For the third year in a row, the French government is urging citizens to adopt ‘energy sobriety’, i.e. austerity.
High gas prices are forcing European companies to move production to the United States, The Wall Street Journal reported.
‘Faced with exorbitant natural gas prices, European companies that produce steel, fertilisers and other goods that serve as the main economic activity are gradually moving their factories to the United States, where they are attracted by more stable energy prices and strong government support,’ the WSJ writes.
One of the hardest hit has been the European steel industry. By the end of last year, dozens of steel mills in Europe had suspended or were planning to suspend production.
Metallurgy is the backbone of the defence industry. When European metallurgists are fleeing to the US, it is ridiculous to talk about the revival of the European military-industrial complex.
Still, Euro-NATO’s weakest point is that ‘the decline of Europe’s armed forces is somewhat self-replicating, as their declining profile in civilian society means many young men are not even considering a military career,’ Bloomberg writes.
‘Some European generals are calling for a restoration of mass conscription, although the resulting wave of recruits will not replace the professional, highly trained soldiers needed in modern warfare,’ Bloomberg recognises.
But if NATO’s leading European military powers have neither the industrial nor the financial capacity to increase military production, and their young people do not want to serve in the army, what do the Americans want from them?
The answer lies on the surface: complete dependence on the overseas hegemon. The US intends to turn the European Union into its industrial colony and is systematically subjugating the European defence industry.
At the forefront of this colonisation is the giant defence concern Rheinmetall, formally German, but in reality long since American.
The Berliner Zeitung newspaper emphasises that Rheinmetall tries not to disclose information about who the company’s shareholders are. However, according to the US Securities and Exchange Commission data, more than 280 shareholders of the concern are registered in the United States. ‘The largest of these are the investment funds and companies BlackRock, Wellington, Fidelity, Harris Associates, John Hancock, Capital Group, Vanguard, EuroPacific Growth Fund… Like most of the smaller shareholders, they are registered in the United States. Thus, Rheinmetall is far from being a German company,’ the publication states.
Rheinmetall’s special connection with the USA is also evidenced by the fact that the largest number of foreign companies and branches of the concern, namely 10 structures of the corporation, are located in the USA. It is noteworthy that the trend towards more active relocation of the arms manufacturer’s facilities overseas began in 2005 against the backdrop of Washington’s military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. ‘As a long-standing NATO partner, Rheinmetall supports the US national defence strategy,’ the company’s management ostentatiously stresses.
As Berliner Zeitung notes, the defence concern is not just placing part of its production in the US, but is developing ‘on the basis of American subsidiaries’ the most advanced military technologies. ‘For example, the new generation of infantry fighting vehicles equipped with artificial intelligence is being developed together with American defence companies such as Textron, Raytheon and Allison,’ the newspaper stresses. The German defence concern is also tasked with creating the central section of the F-35 fighter produced by Lockheed, a major military equipment manufacturer.
At the same time, the desire of American investors to extract dividends from military initiatives puts an end to Europe’s desire to gain ‘more tangible autonomy’ from Washington, including in the military-industrial complex, Berliner Zeitung notes. ‘Meanwhile, the record revenue generated by German defence concern Rheinmetall amid the conflict in Ukraine is flowing to US investors and shareholders,’ the publication reports. ‘With the change of eras and the war in Europe, a new era has dawned for the Rheinmetall Group: record profits, record orders,’ the group’s head Armin Papperger reported a month ago.
Returning to the Bloomberg article, we note that the main purpose of this publication is to instil in the US allies in Europe that despite their financial problems, industrial decline and deindustrialisation, it will be necessary to increase military expenditures as demanded by the US.
This is stated openly: ‘Whoever wins the US presidential election in November: European governments must build their own powerful armies instead of maintaining meagre defence budgets’.
In this way, American allies in Europe will ‘soap or slash’ to increase their military spending and buy American arms and military equipment, enriching the US military-industrial complex.
This is the way of any sympathiser of America: from ally to partner, from partner to vassal, from vassal to slave of the overseas lamp.