[...]
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.
Unnecessary military spending? Being strong enough to actually counter the enemy is the only way to prevent war to begin with. Military alliance or guarantees that are not worth their paper are useless. If the enemy thinks he can beat you, he might as well try.
We already spend 2% of GDP on defense. And if war broke out do you not think that would increase substantially? Do you not think manufacturing would be forced to change to military manufacturing?
We are not at war. We already have multiple well funded militaries throughout NATO. Why the sudden push to increase funding if not to try and start a war?
If they were genuinely serious about this being DEFENSE spending and not WAR spending it would be spent on bunkers for civilian populations, information for civilians to self sustain themselves when centralised systems no longer can, redundancies added to energy, communications, transport, and food networks.
But instead it's spent on shiny new planes when there's already a stockpile of shiny planes. What does that tell you about this push for extra funding? Does it sound like intelligent, well thought out planning for the defence of a population or does it sound like sabre rattling and a chance to try out some new toys?
Defense does not (only) mean bunkers and what not. It actually means stopping the enemy. Like Ukraine does right now. Except that they lost a ton of people, area etc. to the attacker before getting strong enough. Let's not do it like that and be prepared instead.
Yes, of course, it doesn't mean ONLY defensive items. But so far, all of the money is being spent on OFFENSIVE items in the name of DEFENSE. With no defensive items being purchased at all.
And again, without wanting to sound like "my dad can beat up your dad", Russia would not be able to take the EU, let alone NATO, in conventional warfare, and especially if nukes became involved. Ukraine is not comparable.
Whose second hand weaponry is already holding back Russia? What do you think will be the result of the modern stuff being used?
Again, this isn't defence. It's war being dressed up as defence to illicit consent.
Because there's not a single defensive item which makes to aggressor stop. Only offensive items do - by destroying the aggressors offensive capabilities.
Building bunkers only helps if you can also make the enemy stop shooting.
And the civilian population are just meant to die while that is happening? Pray every night their home, of all the homes bombed each night, isn't one of the ones hit? Hope upon hope that missiles don't rain down upon them?
If Russia is such a threat, and we are currently at peace and have time, would it not make sense to build some defensive capabilities at the same time as offensive ones? While there's peace and time to do so? But there's nothing, no bunkers for civilian populations, no mass education of what to do in x and y scenarios, just extra missiles, drones, and planes.
Does that sound like countries that are preparing for defense or ones that are picking a fight?
Russia is the boogeyman used to justify increasing military spending, and then instead of spending that money protecting our populations from them, it's used to attack somewhere else. Iran this time, Afghanistan and Iraq and countless other places in the past.
This isn't defence spending, we don't need to increase it to 5% of GDP when we already have some of the best funded, equipped, and trained militaries in the world.
Some people just want to justify blowing some shit up.
Ukraine needs those items (or whatever we might replace) to defend.