Anyone who didn't realize that the American push for countries to up their defense spending, was simply a push to increase American arms manufactures bottom line, needs to give their head a shake.
For almost two decades Washington’s message to Europe was simple:
Spend more on defence. Take responsibility for your own security.
Europe is finally doing exactly that.
But when defence spending shifts from procurement to production, the political meaning changes. Buying weapons sustains alliances. Building factories creates strategic autonomy.
That distinction matters.
Europe’s €860 billion defence expansion is not just a response to Russia’s war against Ukraine. It is also a structural lesson learned from several shocks:
• the vulnerability exposed by the war itself
• the uncertainty created by American domestic politics
• the supply bottlenecks revealed during the first two years of the conflict
Industrial capacity became the real battlefield behind the battlefield.
From a European perspective, relying indefinitely on external suppliers for critical weapons systems is a strategic risk.
From an American perspective, losing Europe as a major export market is an economic and political loss.
Both views are understandable.
But the deeper point is this:
What Europe is attempting now is not decoupling from NATO.
It is rebalancing the alliance.
A stronger European defence industry does not necessarily weaken NATO. In fact, it may be the only way the alliance can sustain long wars like the one in Ukraine without exhausting American stockpiles.
The real question is not whether Europe should build its own arsenal.
The real question is whether the United States will see this as burden-sharing…
or as market competition.
History suggests alliances survive the first interpretation far better than the second.
Americans really have been ostracised by themselves , no future proofing like China, USA thinks it’s still in Wild West , kick ass mentality, going to go broke, fighting everyone and no one to fall back on when the need arises
Arrogant people always miss one thing. They aren't always the smartest person in room.
The US title super power mislead the arrogant village idiots they could bully and attack the world into submission to their demands. America isn't the good guys here, if it ever was with white men using their wealth to control everyone else.
The billion dollar question is how to get Congressional leaders to use their authority to stop this administration from continuing on their present course of world dominance? I know it's a complicated answer and I already know the answer to some. My concern is how much is riding on the midterms as the solution. The polls are showing still large numbers still in support of this administration. Factoring in those incumbents and new candidates winning who support the current administration and gerrymandering is still cause for uncertainty. The lives lost here and aboard yesterday,today, and tomorrow can't be restored by a change in majority in 1/27 when they are sworn in.
Anyone who didn't realize that the American push for countries to up their defense spending, was simply a push to increase American arms manufactures bottom line, needs to give their head a shake.
And paying exorbitant prices for the American war products.
The moment you start manufacturing at home, the price of imports suddenly matters a lot more.
Turns out “spend more on defense” sounds different when the money isn’t coming back to your own contractors.
Well it’s backfired 😂🇬🇧
When customers become manufacturers, the market changes overnight.
I’m glad Europe is (a) defending itself and (b) manufacturing & innovating the defence infrastructure
Countries that manufacture their own defence systems control their own future a lot more than countries that simply shop for them.
Feels like Germany’s industrial base is quietly pivoting—automotive scale, engineering depth, now redirecting toward defence.
Fred,
There is a certain strategic irony here.
For almost two decades Washington’s message to Europe was simple:
Spend more on defence. Take responsibility for your own security.
Europe is finally doing exactly that.
But when defence spending shifts from procurement to production, the political meaning changes. Buying weapons sustains alliances. Building factories creates strategic autonomy.
That distinction matters.
Europe’s €860 billion defence expansion is not just a response to Russia’s war against Ukraine. It is also a structural lesson learned from several shocks:
• the vulnerability exposed by the war itself
• the uncertainty created by American domestic politics
• the supply bottlenecks revealed during the first two years of the conflict
Industrial capacity became the real battlefield behind the battlefield.
From a European perspective, relying indefinitely on external suppliers for critical weapons systems is a strategic risk.
From an American perspective, losing Europe as a major export market is an economic and political loss.
Both views are understandable.
But the deeper point is this:
What Europe is attempting now is not decoupling from NATO.
It is rebalancing the alliance.
A stronger European defence industry does not necessarily weaken NATO. In fact, it may be the only way the alliance can sustain long wars like the one in Ukraine without exhausting American stockpiles.
The real question is not whether Europe should build its own arsenal.
The real question is whether the United States will see this as burden-sharing…
or as market competition.
History suggests alliances survive the first interpretation far better than the second.
Excellent analysis Hans.
Once production capacity exists, it changes the strategic equation permanently.
Factories outlast purchase orders.
Americans really have been ostracised by themselves , no future proofing like China, USA thinks it’s still in Wild West , kick ass mentality, going to go broke, fighting everyone and no one to fall back on when the need arises
The bigger shift Pam... may simply be that the world is moving toward multiple power centres.
When that happens, every country has to rethink alliances, supply chains, and strategy.
"The Rules of the New Game" this line made me giggle! haha.
Ya, the orange ball wanted to play, but, only if it benefits him.
He doesn't even care if it helps Americans, only that he can skim
off the cream! Now there are more threats...I'm not playing with
you anymore, you won't follow my new rules :(
Haha, sometimes one sentence captures the whole moment.
The global rulebook is definitely being rewritten right now.
From taboo to blockbuster—defence tech just went mainstream.
Arrogant people always miss one thing. They aren't always the smartest person in room.
The US title super power mislead the arrogant village idiots they could bully and attack the world into submission to their demands. America isn't the good guys here, if it ever was with white men using their wealth to control everyone else.
Global power has always been messy.
The U.S. has done good things and bad things... like most major powers in history.
What’s really changing now is that the world isn’t unipolar anymore. No country can simply dictate the rules the way it once could.
The billion dollar question is how to get Congressional leaders to use their authority to stop this administration from continuing on their present course of world dominance? I know it's a complicated answer and I already know the answer to some. My concern is how much is riding on the midterms as the solution. The polls are showing still large numbers still in support of this administration. Factoring in those incumbents and new candidates winning who support the current administration and gerrymandering is still cause for uncertainty. The lives lost here and aboard yesterday,today, and tomorrow can't be restored by a change in majority in 1/27 when they are sworn in.
Political cycles come and go, but the deeper change is already underway.
Countries are diversifying power and supply chains so no single country dominates the system anymore.