The EU and Britain outspend Russia on defence – but clunky procurement, high prices and limited production mean Europe is still years away from countering the threat, two prominent think tanks find.

Archived

[…]

Researchers from the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy sought to assess when the European Union and the United Kingdom might be prepared to respond to potential Russian aggression by 2030. Multiple Western intelligence reports suggest that Russia might test Europe’s resolve even earlier.

The think tanks previously concluded in September that it would take the bloc several decades to adequately prepare – and in their latest update, released on Thursday, the researchers found that “the situation today is even more concerning”.

That is partly due to a much-weakened US commitment to European security, following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

But the researchers also found that Russian industry continues to significantly outproduce European factories, despite substantial increases in investment. Military procurement across the EU remains slow, bureaucratic, and focused on relatively expensive weapons systems.

Russia’s military spending reached €130 billion in 2024, or 7.1% of its GDP. While combined EU and UK expenditures exceed that figure, the study found that Russia’s military purchasing power remains comparable.

To deter – or, if necessary, fight – Russia without relying on US support, European production of various weapon systems “must increase by a factor of around five”, the report states. Air defence systems, in particular, would need to multiply even more to match Russian capabilities.

“Europe thus remains highly vulnerable and dependent on the US,” the report states.

The researchers conducted a detailed analysis of military procurement data from Germany, Poland, the UK, and France to understand broader European trends. They found that production still lags, and the volume of military hardware being acquired “remain low compared to Cold War periods or Russian numbers.”

[…]

The EU’s €800 billion ReArm Europe plan, for instance, “will be too small, if equipment is bought at current high prices,” the authors caution.

  • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
    53·
    8 days ago

    I seriously don’t know. So far anything i came across had links to dubious economic or political interests.

    When it comes to broader analysis of what is going on, i like to listen to John Mearsheimers presentations and interviews. Mearsheimer is a professor in Chicago and a “Realist” in foreign policy. However i doubt him to have the insight into such details as to who can outspend who.

    Problem in this particular case for instance is:

    The researchers conducted a detailed analysis of military procurement data from Germany, Poland, the UK, and France to understand broader European trends. They found that production still lags, and the volume of military hardware being acquired “remain low compared to Cold War periods or Russian numbers.”

    That is fundamentally something where you need to be given access to the detailed information. Why would a military or ministry of defense give such information if conclusions they might not like, could be published?

    As for the Kiel institute they have a long lasting academic history which gives them credibility imo.

    The Bruegel however was founded 20 years ago and were run by the following guys:

    Bruegel’s former chairs Leszek Balcerowicz and Jean Claude Trichet are honorary chairmen of Bruegel. Mario Monti is the founding chairman of Bruegel.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leszek_Balcerowicz#BELLS

    During the Eurozone crisis Balcerowicz has been an outspoken supporter for fiscal discipline and has been frequently dubbed the anti-Bernanke for his scorn of distortionary fiscal stimulus. In various articles he has developed a comparison between the fiscally-profligate PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) and the fiscally-disciplined BELLs (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).[38] Responsible fiscal policy brings about better growth outcomes, claims Leszek Balcerowicz.[38] He has many followers among East European economists, most prominently Simeon Djankov, Deputy prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Bulgaria between 2009 and 2013.[39]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Trichet#Controversy

    In January 2003, Trichet was put on trial with eight others charged with irregularities at Crédit Lyonnais, one of France’s biggest banks. Trichet was in charge of the French treasury at that time. He was cleared in June 2003, which left the way clear for him to move to the ECB.[31] A parliamentary inquiry found no wrong-doing by Trichet, other civil servants or the three finance ministers in office during the critical period.[32] 2009 banking crisis

    Within the European Central Bank, Trichet strongly resisted any contemplation of Greece defaulting on its debt. It was only in October 2011, with the end of his term imminent, that consensus was reached to allow a 50% cut in the value of Greek bonds.[33] Trichet during the WEF 2010 Hypo Alpe Adria bailout

    As part of a 2015 investigation launched by Austria’s parliament into defunct lender Hypo Alpe Adria, then opposition party NEOS named Trichet among 200 people it wanted to question.[34] At the time of Austria purchasing Hypo Alpe Adria from BayernLB in late 2009, Trichet had lobbied for the deal.[35]

    Trichet has been criticised for the ECB’s response to the Great Recession, which emphasised price stability over recovery and growth.[36][37] He was also criticized when he refused to answer a question about a possible conflict of interests concerning his successor’s involvement at Goldman Sachs before taking charge as head of the ECB.[38]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Monti#Labour_market_reforms

    On 20 January 2012, Monti’s government formally adopted a package of reforms targeting Italy’s labour market. The reforms are intended to open certain professions (such as taxi drivers, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers and notaries) to more competition by reforming their licensing systems and abolishing minimum tariffs for their services.[40][41] Article 18 of Italy’s labour code, which requires companies that employ 15 or more workers to re-hire (rather than compensate) any employee found to have been fired without just cause,[42][43] would also be reformed. The reforms to Article 18 are intended to make it easier for companies to dismiss or lay off employees, which would hopefully encourage companies to hire more employees on permanent rather than short-term renewable contracts.[43] The proposals have been met with strong opposition from labour unions and public protests.

    So we have neoliberals, some involved in shady and possibly criminal activities, leading a thinktank mainly partnering with mayor banks, fossil energy companies, big tech companies and the usual suspects from the consulting sphere.

    From that environment we can always expect conclusions in the space of:

    1. Lower taxes on companies
    2. Increase taxes on individuals and remove social security systems
    3. Government austerity except for military spending
    4. Using the military to serve the corporations interests abroad. Remain an economy centered around fossil fuels and slow down any renewable enegery.