NATO defence spending

[UpForce]

A useful effort from 7 Apr, 2025, brings some realism into Perun's April 1st effort:

Wolff, G., A. Steinbach and J. Zettelmeyer (2025) ‘The governance and funding of European rearmament’ , Policy Brief 15/2025, Bruegel

It's a 32 minute read (I've gone over it once, will have to return to it) so I'll be lazy and just cite the conclusion in full:

Europe needs to rearm rapidly and acquire its own strategic enablers. We have set out two options for this: an incremental approach, involving expanded roles for the EDA and PESCO and a SURE-plus-type lending instrument; and a new European Defence Mechanism (EDM), based on an intergovernmental treaty.

The second option would be far preferable, for three reasons.

1. It would address the fundamental legal constraint that currently precludes an EU defence-goods single market: Article 346 of the TFEU, which allows EU governments to ignore internal market rules by claiming a national-security interest. The EDM would allow European democracies to opt into a legal structure that requires its members to follow such rules. This is much easier than changing the TFEU.

2. It would loosen a critical fiscal constraint by allowing certain defence assets, including both shared strategic enablers and procured materiel that is not immediately needed by the armed forces of EDM members, to remain in EDM ownership. Debt incurred to acquire those assets would remain on the EDM’s books.

3. It would allow non-EU members to join on an equal footing.

Creating the EDM would be an ambitious undertaking. Although it would provide for far greater fiscal benefits than any of the feasible alternatives, it would require substantial paid-in capital. It would require competent staff, including a first-rate treasury. The set-up costs would be substantial. But set-up need not take long: the EBRD, for example, went from signing to start of operations in less than a year.

Like other multilateral institutions created at historical turning points – the International Monetary Fund and World Bank after the Second World War, the EBRD after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ESM after the euro debt crisis – the EDM could be the enduring output of a moment of political will that overcomes national division, bureaucratic inertia and special interests. We may be witnessing such a moment in Europe today.

Edit:

Also EDM:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrhM7TlSJc4


Beware, World!

 

[Scott Kenny]

The EU really needs a better Constitution than the current agreements. IMO, the current EU is more or less at the level of the grossly ineffective Articles of Confederation the US had before the current Constitution.

Unfortunately, the EU didn't recognize this as fast as the US did. (The US Articles of Confederation lasted about 8 years, the EU has lasted over 60)

 

[Arjen]

The EU really needs a better Constitution than the current agreements

That would require changes to the EU treaty, which can only be done if all EU member states consent. There is at least one member state that will oppose any attempt to shift decisions on anything at all away from the member states to EU institutions - like, for instance, the Euro Parliament.

 

[Forest Green]

The EU really needs a better Constitution than the current agreements. IMO, the current EU is more or less at the level of the grossly ineffective Articles of Confederation the US had before the current Constitution.

Unfortunately, the EU didn't recognize this as fast as the US did. (The US Articles of Confederation lasted about 8 years, the EU has lasted over 60)

You would never get a constitution agreed with the current list of members.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That would require changes to the EU treaty, which can only be done if all EU member states consent. There is at least one member state that will oppose any attempt to shift decisions on anything at all away from the member states to EU institutions - like, for instance, the Euro Parliament.

Which is why the US Constitution was set up with a less-than-100%-ratification to adopt via popular vote. And why we had to add the bill of rights to get 100% ratification.

 

[Foo Fighter]

NATO and the UN? FUBAR. There is a 'small' light left on at the end of the tunnel, mayhap the light can still be seen?

Having aggressor nations cancel out a council vote by abstention strikes me as reason for change ASAP.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The EU really needs a better Constitution than the current agreements. IMO, the current EU is more or less at the level of the grossly ineffective Articles of Confederation the US had before the current Constitution.

Unfortunately, the EU didn't recognize this as fast as the US did. (The US Articles of Confederation lasted about 8 years, the EU has lasted over 60)

The EU functions fine for the most part. If it didn't then it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

The actual sole sticking point of the Articles of Confederation, the currency and banking problem, was solved by the Euro and the ECB. The current problem is that it has no need to fill a role which is already filled by the United States: the defense of Europe. When the United States becomes an adversary to the EU, the EU will match the threat. Since Russia was bled dry in Ukraine, and the United States and PRC will likely be bled mutually in the Pacific, this should be fairly trivial and not require some massive arms buildup. But if it came down to that, then between France, Spain and Italy, this could be done for the purposes of deterring saber rattling from EUCOM's naval components at least.

Europe has larger defense industries than anyone else in the world, in aggregate, and will generally be able to outproduce any one of the other three superpowers (USA, Russia, PRC) if it needs to. The question is when and how does it need to do this, when the United States will just yell a lot, while also throwing free weapons at it. That makes for a very tough tightrope to walk for increasing armaments production, but as it stands, Rheinmetall alone will be outproducing the United States in 155mm shells by 2027.