EU repositioning itself on arms and defence
The EU Commission presented a new strategy and legislative proposal for the European defence industry last week. It foresees an initial investment of 1.5 billion euros in the defence sector. In addition, 50 percent of EU spending on weapons and ammunition is to go to manufacturers within Europe by the end of the decade, compared to the current 20 percent. More joint EU purchases are also planned.
A major step towards federalism
The EU will have to work hard to push through such a plan, says Válasz Online:
“For the European armies to be able to jointly purchase high-level weapons systems from European manufacturers, they would have to coordinate their defence policy at a level that would entail a major restructuring of the European alliance system. Because no sovereignty issue is more sensitive than the issue of the military. ... If the member states were to switch to coordinated planning, or even to a strategy controlled by EU institutions, this would be a greater leap towards a federal Europe than any other measure since the introduction of the single currency.”
European standards needed to boost efficiency
Polityka believes that the EU Commission is the right place to set uniform standards:
“For years there has been talk in Brussels of major potential savings if EU industries and EU armies were to focus on the production of fewer different types of weapons (as in the US). Now it turns out that the problem is not only all the different types being produced, but in some cases also the compatibility of projectiles and artillery of the same calibre. It's about uniform standards, which the EU enforces very well in some areas, and about binding the defence industry more closely to the rules of the common market which have helped other industries in the EU to achieve great success through competition, equal access for investors and economies of scale, among other things.”
A defeat for humanitarian ideas
Proto Thema comments with concern:
“The EU is becoming a war economy in the face of the existential threat posed by the global maelstrom caused by the Ukraine war and the US confrontation with China. ... Politically, these developments represent a crushing defeat for humanitarian ideas aimed at promoting peace and sustainable economic development, and also for socialist ideas aiming to reduce inequalities and promote social and cultural prosperity. These ideas are being stifled by the noise and fear of war, while the socialist and centre-left political institutions that are supposed to serve them are looking on speechless as the far-right advances across Europe. ... The analogies with the times before the First and Second World Wars are frightening.”
Europe can no longer rely on the US
The European Nato member states should stop dragging their feet, columnist Arkadijus Vinokuras criticises in LRT:
“Unless a miracle happens, the US will be led for years to come by an unpredictable narcissist for whom the very idea of Nato is a thorn in his side. Yes, I agree with his call for European Nato members to invest at least two percent of their GDP in defence - eleven of them are already doing so. ... But what are the others waiting for? ... Without US leadership, will there be anyone in the EU who can take the lead, when the bloc can't even deal with Orbán's pro-Russian policies? ... Europe will have to say goodbye to US leadership under a new Trump administration. ... We no longer have time to play political games for peace.”
A sensible investment for the future
Only far-sighted policies can avert threats to the EU, Večernji list writes with a nod to Brussels' announcement:
“Russia's aggression in Ukraine shows that wars are won not only by equipping, training and motivating the army, not only by having the right goal to fight for, but also by having good logistics, ample weapons and ammunition supplies - and a strong defence industry. Because once the supplies are used up it comes down to a war between opposing defence industries. That is the logic of this move: to finance the building up of defence industry capacities in Europe, because this is an investment not only in security, but also in jobs.”
Tussle between Germany and France weakens EU
The lack of consensus between Germany and France on the Ukraine strategy is a real obstacle to Brussels' plans, writes NRC:
“Scholz continues to put his faith primarily in the Americans for Europe's security within Nato. This is a risky decision, also in view of the prospect of a second term for Donald Trump. ... The European Commission may have presented promising plans on Tuesday to make the European defence industry battle-ready. However the Franco-German tussle creates the impression that things won't happen that quickly. The turnaround that Scholz once promised requires both Berlin and Paris to take steps to come closer together strategically.”
Key questions not being addressed
The taz is uncomfortable with the current focus on military issues:
“This may make sense in a threatening situation caused by a common opponent - the Russian president - and a war with no end in sight. ... But so far the question of which social or climate policy projects will fall victim to military and defence spending has yet again been omitted. In these times of economic difficulties in almost all EU states, there will undoubtedly have to be cutbacks. But an honest debate about the winners and losers of arms investments has so far been lacking. Not to mention a discussion about the character of the EU as a peace-orientated project.”