Europeans must take a breath before throwing money at defence

Bad politics can be a waste of good money

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

First off, some housekeeping: I have a column in the I paper today on Starmer’s pledge to send British troops to Ukraine, if a peace deal is reached. Lots of Big Ifs, obviously, and it would probably mean British subservience to America in the short-term.

But Europeans, no matter how much money they are suddenly willing to spend, still need a bridge to America and Starmer may as well have a go at building that bridge. I have had a bit of heat on social media for saying this, so let me explain what I mean:

Yes, the UK and European partners can ramp up defence spending, coordinate on policy and build up production of arms. But all of that is going to take time, whereas the post-Ukraine threat exists today. In that regard, there are no ready-to-go alternatives to the US security guarantee.

Which brings me to the point I wanted to make in a post over the weekend, but got distracted by football.

Europe is about to spend a lot of money on defence

Yes, Europeans have finally realised that they cannot shelter under the enormous US security umbrella, saving their own cash.

This is a good thing – without repeating myself, the past few decades have been appalling. European countries almost without exception assumed protection from America. They naively believed that post-Cold War Russia had no interest in a land war. They took short-term decisions to save money and are now exposed.

However, as I’ve written a few times in the past, a sudden rush to chuck money around can lead to bad spending.

On defence in particular, bad politics can waste good money. Some NATO officials are concerned that Europe’s spending spree will not make the alliance safer if it’s not coordinated or managed sensibly.

Strategically, NATO doesn’t need all of its European allies buying the same kit or focussing on the same specialisms. Each country will have historical advantages and disadvantages that can aid the alliance and can complement one another. Not only is duplication a waste of resources, it can also drive up the price of essential kit: if multiple countries increase demand – it means everyone buys at the top of the market.

Procurement officials point to a deal struck by NATO allies last year where European countries bought Patriot missiles in a coordinated effort as the gold standard. Not only did it mean those armed forces getting their hands on the missiles at a better price, it moved money around the alliance – European money to an American company who will “set up of a production facility for Patriot missiles in Germany.”

Attention is now turning to the June summit in The Hague, where allies are expected to discuss raising the spending threshold to 3% of GDP. This could also create a good money; bad politics situation.

Take the UK as an example here. When most of the public thinks about defence spending, they probably think of tanks and guns, not pensions for MoD staff or meals in mess halls.

Both important spending requirements, of course, but there has always been a bit of a sleight of hand when it comes to how defence spending is presented to the public. Governments want to be able to say they are hitting a target (in this case 2% of GDP) but are not entirely honest about how they get there.

Pushing that target to 3% could create similar situations across the alliance, where politicians prioritise finding ways to meet the target, rather than strategically what is needed.

Until next time,

Luke