German defense minister to Macron: EU depends on US security guarantee

[The Minsky Moment]

When they are talking about an EU military I'm think of more of missions like keeping the peace in the Balkans, Caucus mountains, Cyprus, and North Africa.

Let's learn to walk before we try to run.

So patrolling football games? That should be doable now that England is out.

[Valmy]

Ok so what about all the lessons from the Armenian-Azeri War? With Drones appearing to be the future of warfare for awhile then all you need is money and tech know how to have a competitive military. That should be right up the Euros alley. A small professional well trained force with tons of fancy tech gear backing them up. The Russians might be powerless to threaten fortress Europe with the right kind of strategic thinking here.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally - Euro but not EU - the UK government has, after a very long time of salami-slicing the defence budget, announced a large increase with some quite important investments I think:

UK to boost defense budget by $21.9 billion. Here's who benefits — and loses out.
By: Andrew Chuter   4 days ago

LONDON — The British government has approved the largest rise in its defense budget since the end of the Cold War, with £16.5 billion (U.S. $21.9 billion) in additional funding made available for spending on shipbuilding, space, cyber, research and other sectors over a four-year period.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the increase could transform the military and bring to an end an era of retreat in the armed forces.

"For decades, U.K. government has pared and trimmed our defense budget. If we go on like this, we risk waking up to discover our armed forces have fallen below the minimum threshold of viability. I have refused to pick up the scalpel yet again. I've decided the era of cutting must end, and end now," the prime minister told Parliament in a statement.

The retreat to which Johnson referred is made up of capability cuts, program delays and cancellations, reductions in research and development, and slashed personnel numbers amid defense budgets that have regularly failed to match ambitions.

Winners and losers

Among the efforts likely to benefit from the commitment of new money are the Tempest future combat air program; a number of shipbuilding projects, including a fleet of logistics ships; and various space and cyberspace assets. Specifically, the spending commitment will finance the country's order of eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates, which are under construction in Scotland, where the U.K. government faces renewed calls for independence.

Johnson said he is also committed to the embryonic Type 32 next-generation frigate and the building of a multipurpose research ship.

Also included in Britain's transformation plans are the creation of a Space Command capable of launching a rocket from a site in Scotland by 2022 as well as a new agency focused on artificial intelligence.

But Johnson also warned some programs would not receive equal attention.

"We will need to act speedily to remove or reduce less relevant capabilities — and this will allow our new investment to be focused on the technologies that will revolutionize warfare," he said.

Johnson gave no clues to where the ax might fall, but new armored vehicle programs, of which the British Army have several currently running, are often cited by analysts as a potential target for cuts.

"Now is the right time to press ahead because emerging technology on the horizon will make the returns from defense investment infinitely greater," he told Parliament. "We have a chance to break free from the vicious circle where we ordered ever deceasing numbers of evermore expensive pieces of military hardware, squandering billions of pounds along the way."

The government said military modernization will be underpinned by a record investment of at least £1.5 billion extra and £5.8 billion in total on military research and development, including a commitment to further invest in the future combat air system.

"This reverses the systematic decline in this crucial area in the last 30 years," according to the Prime Minister's Office.

What's been the reaction?

Commitment to the major hike in extra spending came after the Treasury gave in to pressure from Johnson to provide extra funding for the armed forces over a four-year period rather than accept the chancellor's preference for a one-year funding settlement.

The announcement is being termed as the first phase of an integrated defense review being conducted to coordinate defense, security, foreign and development policies. The review was expected to already be published, but with plans in flux and the new factor of additional cash, a more detailed review will not likely be public until next year.

The Royal United Services Institute think tank in London said that over the next four years, the "additional cash represents a real-term increase of between 10 percent and 15 percent in the defense budget: equivalent to some £4 billion more annually than had been promised."

RUSI also noted the announcement, "provided little clarity on the foreign policy ambition, and it appears likely that we will have to wait until the new year for the full integrated review to be revealed. In the meantime, the [Ministry of Defence] will be under considerable pressure to ensure that its ambitions do not again outrun its (now significantly enhanced) means."

Analysts here say that despite the new spending commitment, the MoD will still have to cut a number of programs to balance it's books.

The National Audit Office, the government's financial watchdog, has repeatedly warned the 10-year equipment plan is unaffordable, saying it could be too costly by as much as £13 billion. The current annual defense budget is about £40 billion. The new spending pledge will see the defense budget account for 2.2 percent of gross domestic product, meeting NATO guidelines.

Johnson, who is currently self-isolating, having recently come into contact with a lawmaker who has subsequently tested positive for COVID-19, said he had taken the decision to raise spending in the teeth of the pandemic because the "defense of the realm must come first."

"The international situation is more perilous and more intensely competitive than at any time since the Cold War, and Britain must be true to our history and stand alongside our allies," he said.

A statement from the Prime Minister's Office said the increase will cement the U.K.'s position as the largest defense spender in Europe and the second largest in NATO, after the U.S. The announcement drew an immediate and welcoming response from acting U.S. Defense Secretary Christopher Miller.

"The [Department of Defense] applauds the announcement by the U.K. to significantly increase defense spending. The U.K. is our most stalwart and capable ally, and this increase in spending is indicative of their commitment to NATO and our shared security," he said. "With this increase, the U.K. military will continue to be one of the finest fighting forces in the world. Their commitment to increased defense funding should be a message to all free nations that the most capable among us can — and must — do more to counter emerging threats to our shared freedoms and security."

The move was also welcomed locally by ADS, a major industry lobby group. "This investment will boost our national security, help the U.K. address new and rapidly evolving threats by developing innovative world-class equipment, and support our economic recovery. The commitment to key projects will embed high-value design and manufacturing skills in all regions and nations of the U.K. for decades to come," said Paul Everitt, the ADS chief executive.

But Everitt also said the money must be quickly spent with the U.K.'s prosperity a priority.

"It is important that the procurement regime delivers quickly and in a manner that prioritizes U.K. industrial impact, aiding planning and clarity and helping to build back better," he said.

The £16.5 billion in extra spending is over and above the government's pledge to increase defense spending by 0.5 percent above inflation for every year of the four years remaining of the existing Parliament. The government said that on existing forecasts, this is an overall cash increase of £24.1 billion over four years. Johnson told Parliament that would represent spending of £190 billion over the next four years.

But how will the government's massive spending in the fight against COVID-19 impact these spending plans? Media and analysts here reckon Britain's huge overseas development budget is likely to take a hit to make these new efforts a reality.

This is another bit of foreign and defence policy where I'm actually quite impressed by the government - especially on building up cyber (and AI), focusing on the navy (not the army) and expanding space (the UK has quite a lot of private sector activity here so this should be something where there can be cooperation).

In terms of reaction and this thread it was very striking that the defence ministers of all the Baltic states were tweeting about this as a positive move.

[viper37]

Ok so what about all the lessons from the Armenian-Azeri War? With Drones appearing to be the future of warfare for awhile then all you need is money and tech know how to have a competitive military. That should be right up the Euros alley. A small professional well trained force with tons of fancy tech gear backing them up. The Russians might be powerless to threaten fortress Europe with the right kind of strategic thinking here.

You still need boots on the ground.  And you can't send infantry without support, but you can't have drone patrolling a zone 24/24, hence the need for artillery and mobile infantry, armored vehicles, etc.

You also need a navy and an airforce to transport your people and equipement to the designated zone, be it in Africa or to the limits of Europe.  You need submarines to hunt for Russian nuclear subs just so they don't get any fancy idea that they could try and sneak anywhere they want, hit the target, retreat to cover.
Drones are good for precision strikes, but I suspect they'd be much less efficient for heavily defended targets with anti-air defence.  You would need bombers able to hit their target from outside the range of those defences.  Modern fighter-bomber up to B-52 types of aircraft.

So, basically, what you need is a fully equipped army
Euros frown on that, a lot.  At the same time they reject nationalism like you do, they hate the idea of having one unified chain of command with all Euro-zone countries. Somehow, being able to order the guns anywhere you want is a kind of fetish for Euro politicians and they ain't keen on abandoning it
In all seriousness, I do understand part of their feelings.  France had primal interests to intervene in Côte D'Ivoire and Mali.  Germany, less so, Belgium, nil.  Belgium may want to intervene somewhere X in the future to stabilize the country while Germany would have zero interest in doing so.  It was already a tough sell to send soldiers in Afghanistan, and later Iraq for some of them, I can't imagine any politician relinquishing a fight with its constituants when it comes times to have their soldiers deploy in a foreign land to protect some other country's commercial interests.

[Valmy]

At the same time they reject nationalism like you do

If only 

Even to the extent they reject nationalism it isn't usually the same way I do it, but some weird class consciousness or something else I reject.

You still need boots on the ground.  And you can't send infantry without support, but you can't have drone patrolling a zone 24/24, hence the need for artillery and mobile infantry, armored vehicles, etc.

Well they have that shit already but the most recent war showed how hopeless and ineffective all that is. The main thing artillery and armor did in that war was get destroyed. If the Europeans can master that then the Baltic States should be able to defend themselves with that kind of assistance.

[viper37]

At the same time they reject nationalism like you do

If only 

Even to the extent they reject nationalism it isn't usually the same way I do it, but some weird class consciousness or something else I reject.

Well, some of them get an allergic reaction to the word, and to overt display of patriotism like flag waiving the American way.  Meh. I've had enough debates with the French guys over this in the past.

Well they have that shit already but the most recent war showed how hopeless and ineffective all that is. The main thing artillery and armor did in that war was get destroyed. If the Europeans can master that then the Baltic States should be able to defend themselves with that kind of assistance.

Artillery would be useful in a defensive position, to stall the attackers until an airstrike can be launched.

It's not that they don't have any of that, it's that they don't have enough of it, with the required army personnel to do it, with appropriate training.

Even with a drone, you don't just put a civilian used to play some Xbox games on this, they need retired pilots, or injured pilots that know their way around an aircraft.

None of them are really willing to increase their military expenses to the detriment of their social expenses like the US does, nor are they willing to surrender their sovereignty.

[Sheilbh]

Other EU states have chipped in on the idea of aspiring to strategic autonomy.

The Spanish PM has said he is more with the German vision of transatlantic relations.

The Polish defence minister has also done an article - the key points are that he fully agrees with Germany. Europe cannot replace the US as a security provider and "we should abandon illusions of 'European strategic autonomy'". This makes sense from Poland's perspective as he explains "our embrace of the alliance is due to our close ties with the US for many generations, combined with our historical experience and deep knowledge of the threat of aggressive Russian policy. A number of other Central and Eastern European countries have similar experiences, and they fully share our point of view." Though, being from the current Polish government he couldn't resist a dig at the Germans: "we are pleased with the recent change in messaging among our key European allies, especially the Germans."

As I say my own view is that AKK's views are an accurate description of the position now, but that Macron's position is right as a goal. I also think Macron's view supports the alliance. Having said that, Macron has been quite big on working with Putin and bringing Russia in from the cold which probably makes CEE states even more suspicious of him (and I think lots of Europe's more populist leaders already hate Macron because he deliberately sets himself up as their opponent). But I think this is an optimistic take on US-EU relations. I don't know how long the US can be asked to view Europe's security interests as their own and I think the US's focus is, rightly, going to be on China and the pacific not Europe so European states need to build an alternative rather than discover that the US has moved on and they've got nothing (except for the French and, outside the EU, the UK).

[OttoVonBismarck]

The news out of the UK seems good to me. Some 7-8 years ago I was personally in favor of moderate trimming of the U.S. defense budget, but one thing I've somewhat come around to understanding is that as long as the projects aren't entirely unnecessary waste, defense spending almost always involves domestic manufacturers and can generally been seen as a "good" form of stimulus, contributing to higher income working class job creation. I was thinking of just that with reading about where some of these ships and space capabilities will be built (domestically in Britain), as something worth considering as a positive of more robust defense spending.

[viper37]

The news out of the UK seems good to me. Some 7-8 years ago I was personally in favor of moderate trimming of the U.S. defense budget, but one thing I've somewhat come around to understanding is that as long as the projects aren't entirely unnecessary waste, defense spending almost always involves domestic manufacturers and can generally been seen as a "good" form of stimulus, contributing to higher income working class job creation. I was thinking of just that with reading about where some of these ships and space capabilities will be built (domestically in Britain), as something worth considering as a positive of more robust defense spending.

The budget isn't infinite.  Whatever choicis you make to invest more or less in military spending will mean less money for social projects.  American conservatives are always up in arms about big spending plans like Obama-care or Green New Deal (and I understand them), but they are always silent about the size of the military, there are never questions raised about how many ships should the Navy have, how many soldiers should be actively enlister vs a reserve force, how many aircrafts do you really need, etc.

Maybe in the end, more spending is necessary, I don't know.  But it seems to me like conservatives are always asking for more military spending.  Except maybe under Trump for a little while in the beginning, but that's been discarded.  They ask hard numbers for any plans from the Dems, but are willing to accept basically anything for the military.

[Berkut]

I am wondering when someone will say "Does the US REALLY need 12 carriers???"

[grumbler]

I am wondering when someone will say "Does the US REALLY need 12 carriers???"

Well, the plan says that the US can't afford 12 carriers (long-term, it plans for 9-10 depending on the specific year) and you really don't want your ships driven so hard that they come back from 208 days straight at sea and looking like this:

[The Larch]

That one looks destined for a lengthy stay in a dry dock for repairs. 

[Tamas]

That one looks destined for a lengthy stay in a dry dock for repairs. 

It seems to have water pouring out and not in so it can't be THAT bad. 

[The Larch]

That one looks destined for a lengthy stay in a dry dock for repairs. 

It seems to have water pouring out and not in so it can't be THAT bad. 

Well, that water had to get in in the first place... 

[The Brain]

Many scale modelers tend to go overboard with weathering. Less is more.