...from what really matters: capability development. Minna Ålander argues in the Europe Dispatch that the new NATO defence spending pledge is unhelpful.
Minna, great summary! Much of the details I did not know and this is helpful to understand, and heartening to read in many respects. However, the percentage spending I would view as something to mollify the orange infant in diapers and acts as a pacifier while Europe builds its own capabilities and leaves the US behind quietly. You are right to worry about wasted spending and duplication, but the moment is too serious to engage in such folly.
In the end, NATO as we have known it is dead. It will move forward as a European plus Canadian endeavor and hopefully over time under a completely different infrastructure from NATO.
Yes indeed the pledge was lip service to pacify Trump for the moment and help NATO survive the summit. As such it was an ok move. I will write more about the European strategy vis-à-vis Trump soon, perhaps next week.
Despite the US easing export controls on electronic design automation (EDA) and ethane, China continues to restrict their exports of rare earths and rare earth magnets.
You're right, Minna, Bergmann's article was spot on. "A Eurobarometer survey shows that overwhelming support for a centralized EU defense effort is over 80 percent", but..."NATO and Europe’s leaders have just offered more of the same and failed to give Europe what it wants: a common effort to defend Europe."
This is so frustrating. The idiomatic expression "like herding cats" seems appropriate when applied to the state of European defense planning. They all know what the problem is (Russian aggression) and they know what the solution is, but actually applying the necessary methods to address it seems beyond their capabilities. You would think that, by now, the urgency introduced by the election of the Trump regime (and all that meant for NATO) would have been enough of a goad to precipitate a strong collective movement towards a common defense, but apparently nothing beyond political "chatter" has ensued. I've said before that it will be far too late when Russian troops suddenly appear in Tallinn in a few years time. Every day is a gift for European defense planning...they can't afford to waste them on political posturing.
I think one of the largest elephants in the room continues to be Europe's unwillingness to spend the money the aggressor state has deposited in our banks.
Apart from Ukraine, no other European state is technically at war with Russia although many of us have been attacked. But it's no secret that the context for these talks about defence spending is the need to defend the continent from Russia. The fact that we won't use Russian money to do so makes us look - because sadly we still are - fundamentally unserious about the nature of the threat.
We should be spending that money on and in Ukraine as quickly as Ukraine is able to absorb it.
Minna, reading your newsletter I’m reminded of the Herculean task it is to manage the European Union. (and NATO) Reading about the ASAP, EDIRPA, and EDIP and the various committees of EU and NATO one realizes the massive, Byzantine, Soviet-like bureaucracy that slows everything down.
It is what it is. Still, I’m like you in that my glass is half full. Without the US there is no choice. It has to work.
Thanks for this very detailed article. There's so much going on in the EU defense policy that it borgers the mind. However, the message is clear: the EU will rearm and there will be money on a structural basis to improve European weapon industry. The problem as always with the EU are the national interests. The industries in the separate countries will need to work together to provide European standardized weaponry. To put it bluntly, there's no way France will give up its own industry and rely on British and German manufacturers. The same goes for the UK and Germany of course. So, the European answer will always be to work together, develop new weapons in coalitions that benefits each member country. The Eurofighter springs to mind for instance. So politically, it will be about working together and buying European weapons, even when the US made weapons are probably of better quality and performance. I think what we're seeing is the birth of a truly European defense union and that in itself is a quite remarkable feat.
Maybe the French won’t rely on German or British industry, but they might on Sweden 😉 France is proactively seeking a closer industrial partnership with Sweden
The NATO summit was no more than a placation of the orange doofus for which it was a great success and Trump walked away with a win. This, for his pea sized brain was a bigly victory that he can utilise when his leadership is ever challenged on the world stage. Europe knows their man and the objective of the summit was to buy time.
Whilst much is discussed publicly about re-arming, the content of which is to placate Trump not provide useful detail that would benefit either Russia or the US, which can no longer be counted on as a reliable ally.
Europe will buy from Europe but there are significant legacy US platforms that will need to be maintained but new technology and platforms will be sourced from Europe so never again will we find ourselves in a position reliant on the whims of a petulant child sitting in the Oval office.
There are capability gaps in Europe that, at the moment, the US fills. Europe is starting to address those gaps and because that will impact the US DIB, when Trump realises that, he will go postal. They already wigged out when the EU announced a fund for member states that was not accessible by non-EU countries.
So Trump is always on a hair trigger, looking for his next outrage. Why then would Europe publicly announce their detailed plans other than perhaps generically referencing some minor projects. No, this buys them time and I am convinced that far more work is going on behind the scenes which also keeps Putin in the dark. The longer this goes on the longer those legacy platforms can be maintained.
It occurs to me that if, say, France, Germany, England and Poland (or some subset of the above) could get a good intelligent start on coordinating their defense elements together, this could provide a template for other European nations to follow. In other words, concrete leadership might be crucial.
I saw today that Denmark is stepping up in this regard ("Europe mulls options after U.S. pauses weapons shipments" - the AP 7/4/25. Heartening indeed! Some leaders, like Mette Frederiksen and Ursula von der Leyen actually lead.
Many thanks for this excellent summary. Europe (the EU +) is indeed getting its act together behind the scenes. The cringeworthy performance of SG Rutte and various European leaders at the recent summit get the press headlines but obscure the fact that things are moving ahead relatively fast by European standards ! It's also worth highlighting, and this too is new, that Ukraine is very much part of the process and is even leading the way in some areas. In a recent "Foreign Affairs" interview, Celeste Wallander , former senior US official for many years, made the point that the Ukrainian armed forces have, over the past 3 years, moved significantly to shed their Soviet legacy and, thanks to NATO and particularly European support, have increasingly adopted NATO standards and practices. And that when the politicians eventually give the green light for Ukraine's NATO membership, its armed forces will seamlessly take their place in the alliance.
And by they way, if NATO summits were abandoned (an excellent idea !) the same should go for the useless G7, photo-op summits too !
Thanks, Minna. Very interesting as usual. I'm curious about the actual key factors that are preventing Europe from working more closely and efficiently together (and exactly what that means) to create a strong defense alliance. I can certainly speculate... but I'll spare you and won't. Perhaps enumerating the key factors and theorizing how each might best be overcome would make for interesting reading. The stake Europe has in achieving a strong pan-national defense is enormous, of course, and the click is ticking.
Agree that Europe needs to develop independent space capacity, but it might also be a good idea in the meantime to cultivate direct communication with Elon Musk, given his fury at Trump, to increase the chances that Starlink's support for Ukraine will continue.
Yes in the longer term local procurement matters. But till then buying from the US is still good use of funds. (Assuming Trump isn't too upset with how it impedes Russia's imperial agenda, and blocks it).
Minna, great summary! Much of the details I did not know and this is helpful to understand, and heartening to read in many respects. However, the percentage spending I would view as something to mollify the orange infant in diapers and acts as a pacifier while Europe builds its own capabilities and leaves the US behind quietly. You are right to worry about wasted spending and duplication, but the moment is too serious to engage in such folly.
In the end, NATO as we have known it is dead. It will move forward as a European plus Canadian endeavor and hopefully over time under a completely different infrastructure from NATO.
Yes indeed the pledge was lip service to pacify Trump for the moment and help NATO survive the summit. As such it was an ok move. I will write more about the European strategy vis-à-vis Trump soon, perhaps next week.
Look forward to your insights in the European strategy for handling Trump.
Despite the US easing export controls on electronic design automation (EDA) and ethane, China continues to restrict their exports of rare earths and rare earth magnets.
https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/chinese-freeze-on-rare-earth-magnet-talks-pushes-indian-automakers-towards-costlier-alternatives-report
This is a bottleneck worth watching. As you know, no rare earths, no missile defenses.
You're right, Minna, Bergmann's article was spot on. "A Eurobarometer survey shows that overwhelming support for a centralized EU defense effort is over 80 percent", but..."NATO and Europe’s leaders have just offered more of the same and failed to give Europe what it wants: a common effort to defend Europe."
This is so frustrating. The idiomatic expression "like herding cats" seems appropriate when applied to the state of European defense planning. They all know what the problem is (Russian aggression) and they know what the solution is, but actually applying the necessary methods to address it seems beyond their capabilities. You would think that, by now, the urgency introduced by the election of the Trump regime (and all that meant for NATO) would have been enough of a goad to precipitate a strong collective movement towards a common defense, but apparently nothing beyond political "chatter" has ensued. I've said before that it will be far too late when Russian troops suddenly appear in Tallinn in a few years time. Every day is a gift for European defense planning...they can't afford to waste them on political posturing.
Thanks, Minna, for an insightful analysis.
My glass is half full 🙂 if the EDIP is implemented with an ambitious interpretation, it’ll be quite something.
Thanks Minna, very good.
I think one of the largest elephants in the room continues to be Europe's unwillingness to spend the money the aggressor state has deposited in our banks.
Apart from Ukraine, no other European state is technically at war with Russia although many of us have been attacked. But it's no secret that the context for these talks about defence spending is the need to defend the continent from Russia. The fact that we won't use Russian money to do so makes us look - because sadly we still are - fundamentally unserious about the nature of the threat.
We should be spending that money on and in Ukraine as quickly as Ukraine is able to absorb it.
Minna, reading your newsletter I’m reminded of the Herculean task it is to manage the European Union. (and NATO) Reading about the ASAP, EDIRPA, and EDIP and the various committees of EU and NATO one realizes the massive, Byzantine, Soviet-like bureaucracy that slows everything down.
It is what it is. Still, I’m like you in that my glass is half full. Without the US there is no choice. It has to work.
Thank you, Minna.
Thanks for this very detailed article. There's so much going on in the EU defense policy that it borgers the mind. However, the message is clear: the EU will rearm and there will be money on a structural basis to improve European weapon industry. The problem as always with the EU are the national interests. The industries in the separate countries will need to work together to provide European standardized weaponry. To put it bluntly, there's no way France will give up its own industry and rely on British and German manufacturers. The same goes for the UK and Germany of course. So, the European answer will always be to work together, develop new weapons in coalitions that benefits each member country. The Eurofighter springs to mind for instance. So politically, it will be about working together and buying European weapons, even when the US made weapons are probably of better quality and performance. I think what we're seeing is the birth of a truly European defense union and that in itself is a quite remarkable feat.
Maybe the French won’t rely on German or British industry, but they might on Sweden 😉 France is proactively seeking a closer industrial partnership with Sweden
But yes you’re right I think a lot of these developments will in total amount to a very different EU than we’re used to.
Excellent summary Minna.
The NATO summit was no more than a placation of the orange doofus for which it was a great success and Trump walked away with a win. This, for his pea sized brain was a bigly victory that he can utilise when his leadership is ever challenged on the world stage. Europe knows their man and the objective of the summit was to buy time.
Whilst much is discussed publicly about re-arming, the content of which is to placate Trump not provide useful detail that would benefit either Russia or the US, which can no longer be counted on as a reliable ally.
Europe will buy from Europe but there are significant legacy US platforms that will need to be maintained but new technology and platforms will be sourced from Europe so never again will we find ourselves in a position reliant on the whims of a petulant child sitting in the Oval office.
There are capability gaps in Europe that, at the moment, the US fills. Europe is starting to address those gaps and because that will impact the US DIB, when Trump realises that, he will go postal. They already wigged out when the EU announced a fund for member states that was not accessible by non-EU countries.
So Trump is always on a hair trigger, looking for his next outrage. Why then would Europe publicly announce their detailed plans other than perhaps generically referencing some minor projects. No, this buys them time and I am convinced that far more work is going on behind the scenes which also keeps Putin in the dark. The longer this goes on the longer those legacy platforms can be maintained.
I also am a half-full kind of guy.
It occurs to me that if, say, France, Germany, England and Poland (or some subset of the above) could get a good intelligent start on coordinating their defense elements together, this could provide a template for other European nations to follow. In other words, concrete leadership might be crucial.
I saw today that Denmark is stepping up in this regard ("Europe mulls options after U.S. pauses weapons shipments" - the AP 7/4/25. Heartening indeed! Some leaders, like Mette Frederiksen and Ursula von der Leyen actually lead.
Mette is on a roll. She’s more popular in Sweden than the Swedish government :)
Many thanks for this excellent summary. Europe (the EU +) is indeed getting its act together behind the scenes. The cringeworthy performance of SG Rutte and various European leaders at the recent summit get the press headlines but obscure the fact that things are moving ahead relatively fast by European standards ! It's also worth highlighting, and this too is new, that Ukraine is very much part of the process and is even leading the way in some areas. In a recent "Foreign Affairs" interview, Celeste Wallander , former senior US official for many years, made the point that the Ukrainian armed forces have, over the past 3 years, moved significantly to shed their Soviet legacy and, thanks to NATO and particularly European support, have increasingly adopted NATO standards and practices. And that when the politicians eventually give the green light for Ukraine's NATO membership, its armed forces will seamlessly take their place in the alliance.
And by they way, if NATO summits were abandoned (an excellent idea !) the same should go for the useless G7, photo-op summits too !
Thanks, Minna. Very interesting as usual. I'm curious about the actual key factors that are preventing Europe from working more closely and efficiently together (and exactly what that means) to create a strong defense alliance. I can certainly speculate... but I'll spare you and won't. Perhaps enumerating the key factors and theorizing how each might best be overcome would make for interesting reading. The stake Europe has in achieving a strong pan-national defense is enormous, of course, and the click is ticking.
Thank you for the question, I can for sure address that in the Europe Dispatch !
Agree that Europe needs to develop independent space capacity, but it might also be a good idea in the meantime to cultivate direct communication with Elon Musk, given his fury at Trump, to increase the chances that Starlink's support for Ukraine will continue.
Yes in the longer term local procurement matters. But till then buying from the US is still good use of funds. (Assuming Trump isn't too upset with how it impedes Russia's imperial agenda, and blocks it).
8:05
Angi
Q pros near me
INSIDE MD SPORTS
to utas invored were surprisea vy uie
frankness of Wang's remarks.
And then there is this:
Finbarr Bermingham @fbermingham
EXCLUSIVE
Wang Yi told Kaja Kallas that China cannot afford for Russia to lose the war in Ukraine, otherwise the US will divert its full focus to Beijing
scmp.com/news/china/dip..
3:33 PM • Jul 3, 2025