This article was reprinted with permission after being published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Only two weeks after a European Union summit where the bloc’s leaders pledged to spend billions on defense in a , “watershed moment for Europe” , , they are returning to Brussels for another meeting on March 20-21. In light of continued doubts about the US’s commitment to protecting European nations and maintaining military assistance for Ukraine, the EU’s leaders this time want to consolidate plans for strengthening Europe’s protection autonomy.
The coalition’s foreign ministers discussed Kaja Kallas’s most recent plan to get money for Kyiv in the lead up to the summit on March 17. And on March 19, the German Commission is set to announce a white sheet on the future of European security. The paper is anticipated to provide suggestions on how to establish a true, integrated European defense market and to further the ReArm Europe proposal, which calls for the EU executive to spend up to 800 billion euros ($ 872 billion ) on defense spending over the next four years.
There are concerns about how reliable everything is, as always in Brussels. Officials I have spoken to believe that it’s a good first step, but, as one top EU official told me,” The devil is always in the details, and there are plenty of spirits around”.
Looking further, it appears that the 800 billion figure has a lot of great uncertainties and is very idealistic. If and how fast can this request been adapted into new weapons and ammunition. And if any of those arms may make it to Ukraine.
The truth is abundant. Andrius Kubilius, the EU’s security commissioner, stated in a statement to the European Parliament last week that the country now lacks” hundreds of tanks and armoured vehicles” and has a defense deficit of at least 500 billion euros.
European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, also addressing the Strasbourg chamber, noted that, on average, EU countries contributed just short of 2 percent of gross domestic product ( GDP ) on defense. Washington is pushing for 5 %, while NATO, according to sources within the military alliance, is considering making 3.7 percent the established goal at its June formal summit in Hague.
Even so, personally Western diplomats claim it may take a decade for Europe to conduct significant military operations without US assistance despite a significant and quick increase in defense spending. In Europe at the moment, knowledge, security, specific acquisition, and surveillance are nearly all entirely provided by the United States.
Restoring Europe’s defenses?
ReArm Europe aims to reduce the EU’s dependence on the US by requiring EU countries to improve their defence budgets. But did they? Von der Leyen hopes to raise 800 billion dollars by lowering the EU member state defence spending regulations over the next four decades, and 650 billion euros may be raised. Each participant condition would be able to manage an extra 1.5 percent of their GDP to defense expenses under this plan. While this more fiscal room is welcomed, some believe all capital will use it.
The remaining 150 billion dollars are a loan program that 20 nations in the union, which do not have triple-A credit ratings, can use to secure unused EU budget funds. Although it’s unclear whether all the components in such equipment must be from EU countries or whether they could get from non-EU states like Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey, these loans should be used to fund purchases made from European protection producers.
The issue here is that it is also a mortgage and many of the countries, notably in southeastern Europe, that need to improve their defense spending are greatly indebted. Additionally, some northern EU states are questioning the reasoning of this plan, with the French parliament just only just passing a nonbinding quality to accept the ReArm Europe plan with the claim that it will only add to the bloc’s debt accumulation.
The second component of Von der Leyen’s plan, which would let member states to use the more than 300 billion dollars left over from the EU budget, which ordinarily would go to the coalition’s poorer regions for infrastructure investment, for defense. The matter here, when again, is that it is deliberate. And that implies that some nations didn’t care unless they are forced, even though it can’t get blocked by Russia-friendly nations like Hungary and Slovakia because it doesn’t require consensus.
Ties And Bazookas
Then there is Germany. Friedrich Merz, the incoming president, has promised a actual” saving bazooka” that includes a proposal to exempt defence spending above 1 % of GDP from the limitations of Germany’s constitutional debt brake. The fundamental budget deficit is currently limited to 0.35 percent of GDP, with exceptions in situations.
This could activate a European security purchase of billions and is something that is usually welcomed in Brussels. Not as much in other European capitals, where it is assumed that Germany may spend the majority of it on local businesses and give itself an unfair advantage.
This could also result in more calls from southern European nations for Brussels to issue joint borrowings, specifically for defence investments. A similar thing was done to combat the Continent-wide downturn after the coronavirus pandemic. Most colonists, especially the Netherlands and Germany, find it a chore to issue joint bonds, but Berlin’s case for putting a price on defense may ultimately prove fruitful.
Danish Model and Military Freedom
Financing, or “defense ties” as they are now being rebranded, are likely to create it into the European Commission’s white papers on the future of German protection. However, the things to watch out for are some of the nitty-gritty recommendations for military accessibility. Although it may not seem like the most pressing thing, EU officials are stressing how crucial it is to be able to move military equipment fast between EU member states.
As it stands today, that wouldn’t be easy. In the event of a crisis, there are no coordinated regulations across the organization, such as moving military cars from one EU nation to another. In the papers, suggestions are made for strengthening roads, railways, and highways to be able to carry heavier military loads.
Another feature likely to be included is the plan to incorporate Ukraine’s defense business into the EU business as the nation slowly but steadily is moving toward membership of the union. Many Western diplomats and citizens of the United States view this as a true win for the EU, because Ukraine then boasts perhaps the country’s most competent military and is” ahead of the curve compared to the rest of us on things like defense drones,” according to a senior EU official with knowledge of the situation.
In this regard, the document will also promote the so-called Danish support for Ukraine. This approach involves EU member states directly procuring defense equipment manufactured in Ukraine or establishing joint ventures with Ukrainian defense companies. The idea of training Ukrainian soldiers in Ukraine and not just in the EU is also being discussed.
assisting Ukraine
But these plans are all for the future, and the question remains what Brussels can do for Ukraine right now. This year, Kyiv has indicated that it may require up to 33 billion euros in additional military funding. The EU needs to find the majority of that money right away because it might not be making much of a contribution.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put forward a new plan to EU member states last week, seen by RFE/RL, which proposes a voluntary scheme that encourages participating states to “deliver military support to Ukraine in 2025 with a provisional value of at least 20 billion euros and potentially reaching 40 billion euros pending Ukrainian needs”.
The deadline for those participating in the project is April 30; it also specifies that payments must be made by June 30 in order to ensure deliveries by the end of the year.
According to the plan, this money should primarily be used for training Ukrainian soldiers and large-caliber artillery ammunition, air-defense systems, missiles, drones, fighter jets, and air-defense systems. It should also support other contributions from member states, for example, sending troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal.
Countries should contribute based on their gross national income ( GNI), which is the paper’s recommendation, but not by much. This notion has previously irritated France, which asserts that Paris does many things in secret and is willing to send actual boots on the ground in Ukraine to ensure a potential future cease-fire. This claim is supported by trackers of military support and for Ukraine, such as the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Looking Ahead
The European Commission will release an action plan on how to support the European Union’s steel industry on March 19. The United States announced on March 12 that it was slapping a 25 % tariff on imports of steel ( as well as aluminum ) from the bloc, which normally wouldn’t generate too much interest, but this is a different story. The bloc will roll out countermeasures in April, but the fear is that a full-scale transatlantic trade war will break out, causing severe damage to many sectors of the EU’s economy.
