US officials object to European push to buy weapons locally

8 comments

1. Submission Statement: U.S. officials have raised concerns over Europe’s growing push to procure weapons locally, a shift that may limit the involvement of U.S. defense manufacturers. This development comes as the European Union strives to reduce its reliance on non-EU suppliers, focusing on building its own defense industry. A key factor in this change is the European Union’s desire for greater autonomy in defense and the geopolitical pressure of increasing security needs. However, U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, argue that such a shift could harm transatlantic defense cooperation and limit the benefits of NATO’s unity. U.S. defense contractors have long been suppliers of advanced military technologies, and American-made weapons are integrated into many European defense systems.

   The European push aligns with efforts to strengthen the European Defense Fund, which aims to support the development of Europe’s defense capabilities. The EU has proposed increasing its investments in local weapons production as part of its broader security strategy. However, U.S. policymakers fear that limiting competition could undermine the quality of military technology available to Europe. Furthermore, they argue that buying weapons from the U.S. ensures that European allies benefit from cutting-edge technology and well-established partnerships.

   There is also concern that this move may negatively impact the defense industry in both Europe and the U.S., potentially leading to trade disputes. The U.S. sees itself as an indispensable partner in European defense, particularly as Russia’s actions in Ukraine have heightened security concerns. The U.S. has provided critical support to NATO, and reducing its role could weaken the alliance. In response, U.S. officials are advocating for continued open defense markets between the U.S. and Europe to ensure both sides benefit from mutual defense and security advancements. Despite European aspirations for self-sufficiency, U.S. objections suggest that closer collaboration, rather than isolation, is essential for maintaining security in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

2. America first: good

   Any other country first: bad

   American naivety and arrogance at its finest.

3. What arrogant toddlers, they want to have their cake and eat it. Why would we have any trust with the American side on this.

4. “limiting competition could undermine the quality of military technology available to Europe”

   BS. US defense contractors got very used to their quasi monopoly status, and now they are afraid of losing it. Buying American and maintaining their quasi monopoly was mostly a political choice. This was done under the assumption that by buying American kit, you strengthen yourself being under the US security umbrella. Well, the umbrella doesn’t exist anymore. So there is no reason to buy American for stuff where equivalent European products exist (which is almost everything).

5. It is peak American to think you can have it all ways….if the people are too ignorant to understand the damage Trump is doing then their economy certainly will

   Also laughable to claim only they can make quality weapons

6. The demands are really baffling. How stupid would you have to be, to first threaten others, and then expect them to buy the weapons from your manufacturers? Sometimes it feels like I could do the job just as well as all these guys, and I‘m absolutely not qualified to do it.

7. In other news: water is wet.

8. Failing to buy military equipment from the US ‘would be looked upon negatively’ by the US administration.

   I imagine European leaders have had to quietly put up with this kind of strong-arm tactic for decades.

   I hope they will take some pleasure in saying ‘no, thanks’ now.

Comments are closed.