
EU plans to rearm within five years. It's unclear how that could be done
In a speech to the European Parliament marking the launch of Denmark's six-month term as holder of the EU presidency, Frederiksen lamented that 'cutting our defense spending in the past 30 years was a huge mistake.' European officials have warned that President Vladimir Putin could soon try to test NATO's Article 5 security guarantee–the pledge that an attack on any one ally would be met with a collective response from all 32. Most of the allies are EU countries. Russia has been accused of acts of sabotage, cyberattacks, and fake news campaigns–largely to weaken European support for Ukraine–and 'while Europe is not at war, it is not at peace either,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said.
'Russia's military rearming means that they could within two to five years pose a credible military threat to Europe and NATO,' Frederiksen told EU lawmakers in Strasbourg, France. 'Strengthening Europe's defense industry is an absolute top priority, and we have to be able to defend ourselves by 2030 at the latest,' she said. 'Never ever should we allow Europe to be put in a position again where we cannot defend ourselves.' Many European leaders insist they have heard the Trump administration's warning that American security priorities now lie elsewhere–in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific–but Europe's effort to arm is moving only slowly.
When NATO's ambitions are not enough. At a key summit last month, NATO leaders endorsed a statement saying: 'Allies commit to invest five percent of GDP annually on core defense requirements as well as defense- and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.' That historic pledge will require them to spend tens of billions of euros (dollars) more over the coming decade, not five years. Spain–NATO's lowest spender with 1.28 percent of GDP last year–quickly branded the target 'unreasonable.' The goal has sparked debate in Slovenia–which spent 1.37 percent of GDP last year–about whether to hold referendums on defense spending and even on NATO membership itself. Belgium has cast doubt over whether it will make the grade. Heavyweights France and Italy are mired in economic woes and will struggle to get there too. Money spent on military support to Ukraine can now be included in NATO's defense calculations, but even that accounting boost will not hike the GDP military spend by much.
The EU's Readiness 2030 plan. With the threat of Russian aggression at the forefront of its concerns, the EU's executive branch has come up with a security plan. It hinges on a 150-billion-euro (176 billion) loan program that member countries, Ukraine, and outsiders like Britain could dip into. It aims to fill gaps that the US might leave. Spending priorities for joint purchase include air and missile defense systems, artillery ammunition, drones, equipment for use in cyber and electronic warfare, and strategic enablers like air-to-air refueling and transport. Countries are urged to buy much of their military equipment in Europe, working mostly with European suppliers–in some cases with EU help to cut prices and speed up orders. This is partly to create jobs in the European defense sector and partly to reduce reliance on American systems.
On Tuesday, 15 EU countries were permitted to take advantage of another measure–a national escape clause–to allow them to spend more on defense without breaking the bloc's debt rules. To help Ukraine fend off the Russian invasion, the plan aims to provide at least two million artillery rounds each year, supply more air defense systems, missiles and drones, and train tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops annually. Beefing up Ukraine's defense industry is also a pillar. The country produces arms and ammunition faster and more cheaply than its EU partners. Kyiv estimates that 40 percent more of its industrial capacity could be exploited if Europe were to invest.
Still, ambition is one thing and the reality another. 'Things are not moving fast enough to be able to defend ourselves in five years,' Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told reporters last week. 'It's a huge, huge challenge to reach that goal.'
On the need to take risks. A big part of the problem is that governments and the defense industry are stuck in old ways of thinking, and neither wants to take a risk, even with Europe's biggest land war in many decades still raging in its fourth year. 'You cannot expect industry to invest in production capacity if you don't have long-term orders,' said Joachim Finkielman, the director of Danish Defense and Security Industries. 'If you need to build new factories, if you need to engage a larger workforce, you need to make sure that you have that,' he told The Associated Press on Friday.
Demand for 155mm artillery shells is a typical example, Finkielman said. 'When you see the kinds of orders that have been placed around Europe, it is two to three years out in time,' he said, while industry needs five to 10 years' worth of orders to take a chance. Finkielman said that if governments and industries in Britain, France, Germany, and Italy start to move, the rest will follow. When they might do so is unclear. 'The problem is we are confronted with a peace-time logic in a situation where there is war in Europe,' he said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Saudi Gazette
38 minutes ago
- Saudi Gazette
Iranian FM meets Saudi Crown Prince to appreciate his efforts to enhance regional security
Saudi Gazette report JEDDAH — Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman met with Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Abbas Araghchi and his accompanying delegation at Al-Salam Palace in Jeddah on Tuesday. During the meeting, Araghchi thanked Saudi Arabia for its position in condemning the Israeli aggression. The Iranian minister appreciated the Crown Prince's efforts to enhance security and stability in the region. The two leaders reviewed bilateral relations between the two countries. They also discussed the latest regional developments and the efforts being made to address them. The Crown Prince expressed Saudi Arabia's hope that the ceasefire agreement would contribute to creating the conditions for enhancing security and stability in the region. He reaffirmed the Kingdom's position in supporting dialogue through diplomatic means as a means of settling disputes. The meeting was attended by Saudi Minister of Defense Prince Khalid bin Salman; Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Faisal bin Farhan; and Minister of State, Member of the Cabinet, and National Security Advisor Dr. Musaed Al-Aiban.


Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
French intel chief: No certainty on whereabouts of Iran's uranium stocks
The head of France's foreign intelligence service said on Tuesday that some of Iran's highly enriched uranium stocks were destroyed by American and Israeli strikes, but there was no certainty on where the rest was now located. Speaking in an interview on LCI television, Nicolas Lerner, who heads the DGSE, said all aspects of Iran's nuclear program had been put back by several months following the air strikes, but while Paris had indications where Iran's highly enriched uranium stocks were there would be no certainty until the United Nations atomic watchdog returned to the country.


Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
What will the world look like in November 2026?
Listening to the speeches of US President Donald Trump leaves one with the impression that the man is convinced he can change realities he does not like. Theoretically, this conviction could be well-founded. He is the absolute ruler of the most powerful country in the world. I use the word 'absolute' deliberately; over the past few months, since assuming office on Jan. 20, Trump has managed to seize control of institutions through executive orders, marginalized the opposition and personalized the national interest. He has diminished international relations in ways that remind us of the famous phrase 'L'Etat, c'est moi' ('I am the state'), widely attributed to France's Louis XIV, who ruled from 1643 to 1715. Since he came to shape the course of events, everyone (rivals before allies) has acquiesced to playing the role of mere spectator. Among them are the major competing powers: China and Russia, NATO and other countries that have long convinced themselves they are 'friends' of Washington. So far, everyone has engaged with Trump's beliefs, actions and statements depending on their priorities, but the outcome is always the same. To this day, people rightly have the sense that confronting a US president who enjoys a clear and fresh popular mandate is futile. Thanks to that mandate, he has monopolized all the levers of governance: An absolutely loyal inner circle has been appointed to run all the agencies and departments of the executive branch. His party has a majority in Congress that is bolstered by a populist wave. An ideologically conservative judiciary that shares the administration's views and interests. A tamed media, either by owners or outside pressure. Even digital and 'smart' media alternatives and those who are 'too clever for their own good' have been brought to heel. A billionaire elite that find themselves completely unshackled. Indeed, they have been empowered to do whatever serves their interests and to crush any challenge to those interests. Accordingly, unless something wholly unforeseen occurs, this 'adaptation' to Trump will continue, at least until the midterm elections. His trial-and-error approach to both domestic and international issues will persist. And this brings us back to the question of Trump's ability to change the realities that bug him. Are the states' considerations not shifting? Are there not lessons to be learned from a gamble here, a misadventure there and a disappointment somewhere in between? Are there not unforeseen circumstances that have not been accounted for, such as natural disasters? Moreover, the global reach of the Trumpian experiment might well be a double-edged sword. While Washington's policies may be bolstered by the experiences of certain governments (whether in Europe or Latin America), the emergence of 'Make America Great Again' clones and the posturing of those who pretend to belong to the MAGA camp could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less resilient or flexible than the US — societies that might not accept what the US public has been accepting. Whether Trump succeeds or fails between now and the midterm elections scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026, the implications will be global. Raising the stakes (especially in global hot zones like Ukraine, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Taiwan), the American president is a 'dealmaker' who relies more on instinct and public relations than on long-term strategic planning. That is why absolute loyalty, personal friendships and financial partnerships have largely determined his appointments of aides, advisers and Cabinet members. That is a break with the approach of most of his Republican and Democratic predecessors. This has meant that many critical responsibilities have been handed over to figures who are widely seen as controversial or underqualified. In fact, some of them are now beginning to lose the trust of even the hardcore ideological MAGA base, including media figures and activists like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes. The emergence of MAGA clones could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less flexible than the US. Eyad Abu Shakra As for the Middle East, particularly the question of Palestine, Trump's handling of both Iran and Israel has begun to impose itself on political discourse, at least in the media and online. Strikingly, the white Christian right in America has publicly criticized Benjamin Netanyahu's policies. Chief among their complaints is the accusation that both Netanyahu and the American Jewish right are pushing Washington into war with Iran to serve the Likud and Israel's agenda. While they may differ on the details, several European countries, especially the UK, may be entering a phase of reassessment in their party politics. In Britain, where the current Labour government stands unapologetically with Israel, the political left has begun to shake things up. It was last week announced that a new left-wing party is in the pipeline, led by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and MP Zarah Sultana, both of whom are vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause. This was followed by early signs of a reconfiguration on the political right, with a new far-right party, Restore Britain, emerging. It is even more right-wing than the hard-line, anti-immigrant Reform UK. For this reason, I believe that between now and November 2026, Washington could, given the lack of real solutions to international crises, lay the groundwork for significant transformations outside the US. I believe that the fodder for these shifts will largely be: religious extremism, racial hatred and socioeconomic hardship.