Europe Confronts an Enormous Challenge
The declining US assistance to Ukraine, the remarks made by former President Trump regarding the US dedication to defending “those who do not pay,” the prolongation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and Russia’s seamless transition to a war economy have raised concerns about the capacity of European countries to protect themselves and assist Ukraine and Europe’s efforts to advance and boost European military industry outputs and production.
Just one case in point can show the magnitude of the problem: the weekly shell consumption of the Russians amounts to 40,000, which is equivalent to the annual output of the French Nexter Systems. While European countries possess the capacity to produce a wide range of sophisticated weaponry, their industrial and manufacturing facilities are relatively modest in scale in comparison to their US counterparts. In France, for instance, a Senate report estimates that there are over 200,000 highly trained employees employed by approximately 4,000 companies engaged in military manufacturing.
The allocation of tasks among European companies is suboptimal due to the comprehensible adherence of countries to their domestic manufacturing facilities, coupled with the competitive dynamics among them. Furthermore, these factories exhibit a sluggish delivery process for purchases, and the inventory stored in the warehouses of European militaries is often limited and in poor condition due to Europe’s lack of anticipation for the revival of the era of wars.
A Critical Moment
The Russian threat has emerged at a critical moment for Europe. The continent has failed to rebound from consecutive crises, including the 2008 global financial crisis, the Greek debt crisis, the migration crisis in 2015, the Covid-19 crisis, and the problem of terrorist threats and attacks. With Poland serving as a notable exception, five of the six most populous countries in Europe are experiencing serious economic and social crises, albeit with distinct variations in the nature of each crisis.
Berlin’s finances are stable, but the country is far behind other countries in terms of infrastructure modernization and means of production. Germany, a country heavily dependent on exports and imports, has been the most significantly impacted by disruptions in global trade. Furthermore, in 2015 and 2022, it was the country that admitted the greatest number of immigrants from Syria and Ukraine, respectively. Italy and France are engulfed in debt. Furthermore, the performance of the majority of France’s institutions is declining, and the country is experiencing extremely severe internal polarization. Italy is a relatively weak state. The United Kingdom experienced a profound deterioration in the living conditions of its citizens subsequent to its withdrawal from the European Union. According to certain journalists, a decade ago, the British standard of living was juxtaposed with that of the Germans. Presently, it is being juxtaposed with the standard of living of the Slovenians, and the country is plagued by significant issues pertaining to the healthcare system and housing.
All of these countries are confronted with a common predicament characterized by diminishing fertility rates, challenges within the agricultural sector and farmers, the inadequate capacity and effectiveness of political elites, limited comprehension of security, military, and strategic matters, and the increasing appeal of populist parties that exhibit hostility towards immigration, the European Union, and/or globalization-parties opposed to one or more fundamental pillars of the liberal system. Furthermore, over the past twenty years, each of these countries has been subjected to an ongoing, unorthodox Russian assault that seeks to deplete their resources through a succession of cyber assaults that disrupt various infrastructures, escalate internal polarization and tension via deceitful media campaigns, and, with an astounding degree of achievement, buy allegiances from the political, cultural, economic, and media elites.
Upon a cursory examination of the roster of European officials who have assumed roles on the boards of directors of prominent Russian corporations or served as advisors to them, as well as the roster of political parties that have accepted or solicited donations from Russian businessmen affiliated with the Kremlin or obtained lenient loans from Russian financial institutions, or the roster of journalists and cadres involved in activities financed by the Russian government, one would be astounded.
Arguments Favoring the Appeasement of Russia
Generally speaking, there are a number of reasons and justifications behind any European movement that is against the idea of opposing Russian aggression against Ukraine and demonstrating solidarity with Kiev. First, a significant portion of the money that could have been used to address the unsolvable social problems endangering the stability of European societies is wasted on assisting Ukraine.
Second, European societies are confronted with a genuine peril emanating from the interior and the Islamic south and east. This is supported by various indicators, including challenges associated with the integration of Islamic minorities, concerns regarding the threat of terrorism, the repercussions of the collapses in Libya, Sudan, the Sahel, and Sahara, and Islamic indignation regarding the Palestinian cause. Third, the threat posed by Anglo-Saxon hegemony to Europe is greater than that of Russian aggression. Fourth, Ukraine is a country afflicted with numerous deficiencies and flaws; its corruption is widely recognized and exposed, imposing an onerous burden; and at least one-tenth, if not more than one-fifth, of its populace opted to flee. Fifth, the United States experienced advantageous outcomes as a result of the crisis, primarily driven by the heightened demand for its weaponry and energy exports, as well as the opportunity to expand and rejuvenate NATO. Conversely, Europe suffered as a consequence of the confrontation between the major powers and is currently bearing the financial burden. It is evident that all of this talk is untrue, as it is based on egregious fallacies and ignores crucial aspects of the situation, but it is finding resonance in a growing number of popular circles.
Russian President, German Chancellor, and Ukraine
This implies that European countries are currently grappling with the Russian menace amid their suboptimal circumstances. In addition, it is important to consider a subjective and personal element, namely the strained relationship between President Macron and German Chancellor Schulz. This tension further intensifies the longstanding objective issues between France and Germany, which have persisted for a number of years and have recently gained prominence following President Macron’s declaration on February 26 regarding the deployment of military forces to Ukraine. Macron stated that the matter was openly deliberated and that there is currently no agreement on it, although this does not exclude the possibility of this option or any other option. Macron discussed the imperative of defeating Russia in order to attain security in Europe. This is a significant advancement, as Macron, along with other European officials, was referring to the need to halt Russia’s progress or thwart its triumph. Furthermore, in a direct jab at the Germans, the president made fun of the hesitant countries that, at the start of the war, flatly refused to send tanks, planes, or missiles, thinking that sending sleeping bags and helmets would suffice.
The German Chancellor’s response was sharp and decisive, stating that “there will be no ground troops, no soldiers on Ukrainian soil sent by European states or NATO states.” Furthermore, Scholz made a clear and public statement regarding the existence of British and French military personnel or specialists in Ukraine who were responsible for operating missile launchers. This information was perceived by some as “a potentially disclosing revelation that should not have been made.” On the other hand, certain analysts argue that the complexity of operating platforms is widely acknowledged, necessitating the involvement of experts. Consequently, the only novel aspect is the public amplification of this matter.
Undoubtedly, the statement made by the German Chancellor is as a significant strategic error. Several experts have expressed this opinion, not because the disagreement has come to light or because he disclosed information that was meant to be kept secret but wasn’t, but rather because instead of stopping at simply saying that the idea of sending forces was rejected “currently,” he went so far as to explicitly rule out the idea of intervention. This came as an uncompensated favor for President Putin, coinciding with his adoption of escalation tactics and increasing the bar for demands, as well as the promotion of the narrative that Russia and the West are engaged in an existential struggle by his media and some of his aides. The situation was exacerbated by a security breach perpetrated by German Air Force leaders, wherein they engaged in conversations pertaining to classified subjects on an application that was widely acknowledged as lacking in security measures. Subsequently, the Russian media disseminated the content of these conversations.
In a lecture that followed the statement by the German Chancellor, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev discussed the map of the region where Russia has annexed Transnistria and absorbed over 90 percent of Ukrainian territory.
According to President Macron’s aides, Macron’s statement was deliberate, with the intention of sending a “strategic signal” to Moscow, regaining the initiative, and imposing a decision on the agenda. Furthermore, they stated that it was a scathing message to the German chancellor, who declined to dispatch Taurus missiles to Ukraine, stating that the president is not presently contemplating the deployment of troops to engage in the conflict but rather military experts.
According to certain military experts and journalists, France offers intelligence assistance through satellites to aid in target identification. Additionally, it supplies technology that helps steer Ukrainian drones and fend off interference. Journalists assert that the counsel of French military experts holds significance due to the French army’s familiarity with engaging in combat in a state marked by a dearth of equipment and ammunition.
As per the account of journalist Jean-Dominique Mercier, the French services comprehended Moscow’s unfounded claim in mid-January of the previous year, wherein it claimed to have eliminated sixty French mercenaries on the front, as a deliberate Russian cautionary message. Mercier further asserts that the French presidential declaration regarding the deployment of forces is a resolute reaction to this cautionary message. Mercier further claims that the deployment of military personnel to Ukraine occurs within a bilateral framework, involving both the sending country and Ukraine, without any involvement from NATO.
Challenges Associated with European Military Assistance to Ukraine
The augmentation of Europe’s military production and the provision of military support to Ukraine necessitate the resolution of various predicaments that extend beyond the mere allocation of financial resources for this endeavor.
It is worth noting that Europe’s agreement to augment military production and assume an ever-increasing portion of the burden of supporting Ukraine obscures a deep-seated divergence of opinion between those who advocate for this course of action in anticipation of and preparation for an American withdrawal, and those who engage in efforts to persuade the United States to remain on the continent on the grounds that it fulfils its obligations and “is being compensated” concurrently, to use Trump’s words.
France unequivocally falls within the first category, while Poland holds a contrasting viewpoint. The challenge lies in ascertaining Germany’s stance. There is widespread apprehension in Paris that, in the event of an American withdrawal, Germany will follow suit. This may be unjust. Germany exerted tremendous effort to aid Ukraine during the war while refusing to take the initiative. For instance, it refused to send Leopard tanks until Washington declared that it would also be sending Abrams tanks. Thus far, it has declined to provide Taurus missiles to Ukraine, notwithstanding the delivery of comparable missiles by France and the United Kingdom.
On the other hand, divergences exist with respect to the origin of the weaponry that is to be supplied to Ukraine. Will Europe procure weapons from foreign sources or engage in domestic production? The first option is more cost-effective due to its reduced allocation of resources towards research and development and weapon design. However, it fosters or contributes to the continuation of reliance, or at least dependence, on foreign countries. Countries with a well-established military industrial base and a desire to expand it tend to favor the second option. However, some perceive this solution as costly and time-consuming, and instead advocate for the possibility of acquiring American or South Korean weaponry. In this vein, it should be noted that acquiring a weapon with the stipulation that a portion or the entirety of it must be produced in the acquiring country raises the cost and could potentially cause a delay in the product’s delivery.
Proponents of the ongoing US withdrawal from the continent argue for the imperative of expediting the establishment of the “European” military industrial base. Conversely, proponents of the notion that this withdrawal is unlikely, particularly if Europe bears the cost of American protection through the procurement of weapons from the United States, advocate for an escalation of weapon acquisitions beyond the continent. At present, it seems that France has relaxed its objection to procuring weapons from non-European countries, in return for a commitment or assurance to increase the proportion of weapons manufactured in Europe that will be used to arm European armies in the forthcoming years.
The intense rivalry between French and German corporations contributes to the escalation of tension between the two countries, resulting in the postponement of certain collaborative initiatives due to the inability of their respective companies to achieve consensus on fundamental matters. The German industry is currently facing a significant crisis, with varying circumstances and rationales across different sectors. Financially and economically, Germany is considerably more robust than France. The German decision-making process in the field of military industries is significantly influenced by economic and financial factors. Conversely, the French army, which is stronger, takes strategic considerations into account when formulating its decisions in the field of military production. Furthermore, companies’ associations with their home countries diverge due to the fact that the export policies of the two countries are not identical.
Conversely, the present imperatives of aiding Ukraine establish priorities that diverge from those that dictate the long-term progress of European armies. Moreover, there exists a substantial disparity in the perspectives and stances of various European countries concerning the emptying of their weapons depots—which are not yet at capacity—in order to transfer to Ukraine what they possess, or a portion thereof.
Despite all of these challenges, Europe managed to come to agreements that coordinate and amplify support for Ukraine—a topic we will cover in another article.