As European countries, finally, crank up defence spending, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (or “ITAR”) are likely to come up in conversations.
Reflecting on topics such as this got me thinking that so much of the Western supply chain in military kit is controlled by the US. On the positive side, you get economies of scale and all that comes with these kind of forces. For years, Americans have been keen on selling all this funky kit to the likes of Germany, Britain, etc.
The problem is that to follow an independent foreign and military policy in this new era means that chain is breaking. There is talk that the US can operate a “kill switch” so that countries using certain US-made weapons cannot use them in ways that an administration does not like. It reminds me a bit of worries about Chinese electric vehicles being vulnerable to such a “switch”.
This seems in some ways to be a risk management issue. There is a broader Nassim Taleb-style point about making defence and security in the free world less fragile. Think how much of our defence and communications run off a handful of networks and suppliers. There are US satellites, cloud computing services from the likes of AWS, Microsoft, etc; military hardware suppliers in the US such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Pratt & Whitney. And many more. These systems generate great efficiencies and rich export earnings, particularly for the United States.
There’s a problem – a fragility. Europe has become dependent, complacent and comfortable.
As we found out because of the 2008 financial crisis and covid, overconfidence in certain institutions (US government, central banks, medical experts) can lead to dangerous outcomes. There is a sort of moral hazard problem. Just as “too-big-to-fail” bank bailouts create foolish attitudes about risk, a sense that the US military or whoever would ride to the rescue of a country meant too many nations got complacent. In fact, it is possible to see some of what is going on right now in behavioural terms. Incentives matter. Shield people against certain costs, and they become spendthrifts, borrow too much, or assume they can strike attitudes on things and there won’t be bad outcomes.
(See my related post on what countries such as in Europe, parts of Asia etc, do now.)
Does it matter, Poland apart, which countries in Europe (the EU) have the will to defend themselves?
Yes.
Incentives.
Given the recent actions of some European Union and NATO countries such as Romania, in overturning elections and (now) banning candidates, what are these nations defending?
It does not appear to be “freedom and democracy” as they claim – as they all have “Hate Speech” laws (so much for freedom) and they seem to despise democracy – see above.
Vice President Vance now seems vindicated – which will NOT please him, as he sincerely wanted the “allies” to hold to the principles, freedom and democracy, they claimed to believe in.
Of course, it is still possible that the “international community”, as the establishment calls itself, will now clearly CONDEMN what has happened in Romania – first the overturning of an election, and now the banning of the leading candidate (whether this candidate is any good or utterly useless, a waste of space, should be for the VOTERS to decide – I should not have to write that, but it seems I do have to write that), in which case there is still some hope that this alliance is based on principles that are worth defending.
As I have asked before – how can the United States have an alliance with powers that would, if they could, put the President of the United States and the Vice President and-the-people-who-voted-for-them in prison for their opinions?
This is not some small “cultural difference” – this is a divide of fundamental principles.
For all their talk of hating Mr Putin – the international establishment seem to share his version of “Freedom of Speech” – “you are free to agree with me – but NOT to disagree with me”, and his version of “democracy” – “there can be elections – as long as I win”.
Again – this is an empirical matter, it is still possible that the international establishment will condemn, clearly and without reservation condemn, what has happened in Romania.
Mr Ed raised the example of Poland.
Under the Law and Justice Party – the European Union (and the rest of the “international community” – including the American branch of it, the Obama, so called “Biden”, Administration) raised endless complaints about, mythical, “undermining of the rule of law” in Poland – with money being withheld from the government, and money (from both international corporate and government sources) being sent to opposition groups.
But when Mr Tusk (European Union Commissioner) became Prime Minister of Poland and really did start persecuting political opposition – all the “rule of law” concerns suddenly went away – and the money was turned back on again.
The former government of Poland was not “pro Putin”, quite the contrary, the “international community” (government and corporate) just did not like them.
So, again, what is being defended?
Paul, how do you know that JD Vance is sincere? A few years ago he denounced Trump. Nowadays he seems fine with a policy that prefers to be mean to democratic countries and play nice with autocrats (“Vladimir”). That rather undermined the impact of his scolding speech in Munich.
As for the conduct of certain European countries, I wonder which of them could reasonably be relied on the remain NATO members. Right now, Poland has very obvious reasons. As do the Baltics, and countries such as the U.K. in keeping Russians out of our territorial waters and near undersea cables.
I’m aware that Tusk has been a prick. He’s from a political class that, among other factors, explained why I voted for the U.K. to leave the European Union.
Now, let’s get back to the topic of my post. What’s your view on that Paul? Anything?
🥺
Or rather As European countries, finally, talk about cranking up defence spending…
Words are easy, actions delivering over months and years are hard and often diverted by later ‘events’.
They’re defending against Russian subversion, how’s that not obvious? If you think these are normal times, you aren’t paying attention.
DJ,
Have no doubt that it will happen. All the talk is of an increase in spending. Note that is an increase in spending not capability. It warms the cockles of every Keynesian so of course it will happen. Does that mean more troops, actually having aircraft on our aircraft carriers or any form of ABM capability? Of course not!
I’d take it seriously (as would Putin) if we were committing to actually fielding 100-150 Battle Penguins for just one example.