The recently heightened tensions between Russia and Ukraine, after numerous years of low-scale conflict, is more than a conflict between a former superpower and its former region. For NATO, the conflict is proof of its relevance more than 70 years after the organization’s inception. For the European Union, the conflict is a critical moment in the ongoing efforts to bolster European defense.
As the United States was continuing to pivot towards Asia, some European actors and most notably French president Macron were looking to fill this gap with a more integrated, stronger European defense. However, this project had its first major moment when the current Russian pressure around Ukraine and Europe’s Eastern border intensified.
As Anna Sauerbrey writes in her February 8th op-ed for the New York Times, “Europe Is on the Brink of War, and Germany Has Gone Missing”. As Germany has the strongest economy in Europe, it was expected that Germany would lead in this new crisis or at least be at the forefront of NATO’s efforts.
However, as many European countries took a stand next to Ukraine and NATO, Germany was blocking the donation of old military equipment from Estonia to Ukraine, obstructing a NATO ally’s effort in reinforcing Ukraine with East German made artillery.
Recently, Germany has ramped up its efforts by reinforcing its troops in Lithuania as part of a NATO mission. However, this reinforcement of 350 men is more or less a measure to appease the backlash Germany received for its original lack of response.
While Germany has been the odd man out in the Ukrainian crisis, its attitude should not surprise anyone as it is in line with its defense policy. As former president Trump phrased it, Germany is one of the NATO countries that spends the least on its military —well below the required minimum of 2% of a NATO members GDP. Germany’s military has suffered from this, from spares parts lacking to abysmal aircraft availability.
Apart from facing capability and investment issues, Germany has also been questioned for its mentality:a strong pacifist ideology spread throughout its population. Notably, 71% of Germans are against supplying Ukraine with weapons, a position shared by all parties.
But the notion that Germany is totally anti-war is a smokescreen in some respects: Germany is a major arms producer and exporter, crafting key weapon systems such as submarines, tanks, armored vehicles, and selling them world-wide. The key detail here is that arm exportations are under the authority of the German Parliament, which is why the handing of artillery from Estonia to Ukraine was denied: every weapon system that originates from Germany or uses German parts is under their authority. While this policy is meant to avoid providing weapons for war, Germany allowed weapon sales to countries such as Turkey, which is now using German made tanks to fight the Kurds.
In the current age where the development of military equipment and weapon systems is becoming so complex and expensive that even the United States is trying to share the burden with partners for their fighter jet program, the strict control of military exportations by the German parliament is becoming a key issue for military partnerships. Quite logically, Germany’s partners in major military programs want to have the freedom to sell the finished product to whomever they see fit, but Germany is notorious for being more strict and idealistic in its decision making regarding exportations.
More than just an issue of exportation rights, most major military programs conducted by Germany and some of its closest allies, notably the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), the Eurodrone, and even the modernization of the Tiger Helicopter, are running into major hurdles, often attributed to Germany by its partners. With a mix of lack of funding, lack of political will, different specifications and requests for a larger industrial share, all four programs have faced difficult negotiations and disagreements among partners, often between Germany and others.
For example, the Tiger attack helicopter modernization project, where France, Germany and Spain were expected to provide funds since they all operate the platform, was significantly reduced when Germany backed out. France, operating 67 Tiger helicopters, is now planning to modernize only 42 of them, due to Germany’s withdrawal, forcing France to either lose some capability in the future or to pay much more than planned for the expected capability.
While the Tiger project might seem relatively minor, the FCAS, MGCS, and even the Eurodrone are destined to become pillars of the European Defense by 2040: the FCAS will be a 6th generation fighter jet and drones designed to be associated to it, while the MGCS will be the main battle tank (MBT) and associated vehicles leading the land forces. By replacing the current MBTs and fighter jets for both France and Germany, the two projects are supposed to lead the two main EU powers in the era of networked combat. They are therefore critical for the future of European defense and for the security of NATO’s eastern border.
When some are criticizing France and its president Macron for pushing on their own for a specific vision on European defense and the future of its military capability, the main issue is actually the absence of Germany. Since the EU has long been dominated by the French-German couple, even more so since Brexit, the complete absence of Germany in the debate means the lack of moderation between a very proactive, pro-European defense power in France and more moderate, pro-NATO countries such as Poland. As Angela Merkel recently stepped down, Olaf Scholz, Germany’s new chancellor, cannot let France be the only country that pushes for a vision not shared by many others in the EU: Germany needs to moderate France but also to push other EU members towards a more efficient, inclusive European defense within NATO.
In an era where countries worldwide are rearming themselves and European militaries are refocusing on global conflicts, Germany cannot let its pacifism blind itself from the geopolitical realities of today.
Be First to Comment