The EU’s Military-Industrial Plans Could Accelerate The US’ Disengagement From NATO
Interoperability issues could make the US think twice about intervening in the EU’s support against Russia.
“Trump Is Unlikely To Pull All US Troops Out Of Central Europe Or Abandon NATO’s Article 5”, but he’s definitely “Pivoting (back) to Asia” in order to more muscularly contain China, which will have consequences for European security. Although Russia has no intent to attack NATO countries, many of these same countries sincerely fear that it does, which leads to them formulating policy appropriately. This (false) threat perception heightens their concerns about the US’ gradual disengagement from NATO.
To make matters worse, Reuters cited five unnamed sources to report that the US chided the EU for its military-industrial plans, particularly those which relate to production and procurement within the bloc. They’re presumably connected to European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen’s “ReArm Europe Plan” that calls for members to boost defense spending by 1.5% on average for a collective €650 billion more in the next four years and provide €150 billion worth of loans for defense investments.
This bold program will strengthen the EU’s strategic autonomy but will likely come at the cost of accelerating the US’ disengagement from NATO. EU-produced equipment might not be interoperable with American equipment, which could complicate contingency planning. The bloc wants the US to intervene in the event of a military crisis with Russia, yet the US might think twice if its commanders can’t easily take control of European forces in that event.
The US might also be less likely to do so if the EU reduces its reliance on American equipment like the F-35s that are rumored to have “kill-switches”. These could hypothetically be activated if the EU tried provoking a conflict with Russia that the US didn’t approve of for whatever reason. If the EU becomes emboldened to do precisely that and thus becomes a major strategic liability for the US, then the odds of the US intervening in its support would dwindle, thus leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
At the same time, some countries like the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania – which occupy NATO’s strategic eastern flank with Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine and are much more pro-American than their Western European counterparts – will likely remain within the US’ military-industrial ecosystem. This could therefore serve to retain American influence along the EU’s periphery, keep those countries out of the bloc’s military-industrial ecosystem, and thus hamstring plans for a “European Army”.
Nevertheless, the US would also do well to share some defense technology with Poland and agree to at least partial domestic production of its large-scale purchases, which could transplant a portion of the American military-industrial ecosystem to Europe for easier export to other countries. That could in turn keep Poland from pivoting to France or at least relying more on it to balance the US like the ruling liberal-globalist coalition might do if its candidate wins the presidency during the next elections in May.
The US could therefore leverage its military-industrial cooperation with Poland by offering preferential terms (i.e. technology-sharing and at least partial domestic production) as a means for retaining American influence along the EU’s periphery amidst the bloc’s own military-industrial plans. That could greatly impede the EU’s strategic autonomy, make any “European Army” more difficult to form due to interoperability issues, and thus pressure Western Europe to relent by purchasing more US equipment.
Ah, Trump is not happy because he wanted the Europeans to spend all that money to buy American weapons, not to revive European heavy industries. From the European point of view, they should have done so a long time ago, and they should have kept defense industries running even if it means great "inefficiencies".
I read a story that explains why Russians ramped up weapons and ammo production far faster than the Western planners expected. The Russians kept some of their weapon plants in operation at a minimal capacity to modernize obsolete equipment. This keeps some experienced technicians and trained new ones. The rest of the plants are carefully mothballed. When Russia got a little bit richer and the government ordered more weapons, or when a foreign sale was signed, these old plants were able to modernize and revitalize slowly. Furthermore, Russian basic education has more attention to vocational education. When a situation shows up, they gear up the older production lines. Since Russians also pay attention to backward compatibility, called-up reservists have fewer problems adapting to newer equipment. Had Russians dismantled these plants and sold/trashed the machinery, the Ukraine War may still have the same outcome, but the path to conclusion would be a whole lot more circuitous.
Thank you for this analysis.
Currently the EU government is a death cult. Their foreign policy appears to be based upon the needs and desires of the weapons manufacturers and central bankers who bet on both sides of any conflict and always win. These agents of death will continue to profit from the deaths of millions of young men. If a country such as Russia or the US expresses goals of peace, those goals will be ignored or memory-holed, and replaced with aggressive warlike goals. This justifies the EU's insatiable appetite for spending on weapons systems as well as their threatening, hostile behavior towards countries that do not even want war.
I am 72. I never would have thought that in my lifetime I would see a return to totalitarianism in Europe. Yet the EU was supposedly formed so that another WWII WOULDN'T HAPPEN.
It appears that the UK, the EU, and NATO, as well as all their various associated NGOs like the Atlantic Council, etc., are one giant war making machine grinding up a generation of men leading to depopulation, the ultimate globalist goal.
The only bright side to this is Trump's commitment to end the War in Ukraine. He does have the full array of globalist predators against him, but we shall see who finally comes out on top.