Belgium warns defense spending boost will hurt welfare state

7 comments

1. And if Europe’s collective defense doesn’t become credible enough, for which we need everyone to do their part, then a crisis/war with EU’s eastern members will for sure shock the economy in ways that the financial damage will be greater on the western EU members who aren’t under direct military threat than the cost of chipping in is.

   So even from purely pragmatic, self-interested way, being cheap about collective defense is not a good move. Way to do this correctly would be that the nations that aren’t under direct military threat try their best to find dual purpose ways to contribute. Military logistics that have a peacetime purpose as well. Of course the entire military can’t be structured like that, but finding little niches like that is a good way to bring down the overall costs.

   Finnish Defense Force is considered by most to be quite credible, yet it for the longest time hovered under the 2% benchmark before being in NATO. Credibility of the Finnish military is not due to excessive spending, but because of wise spending. It also helped that in late 00s/early 10s when everyone was getting rid of their military equipment, Finland was there to buy it for pittance.

   For an example, Finland bough 100x Leopard 2 A6 with full maintenance kits for 200 million back in 2014 from Netherlands. Unit price for those new is at around 10million each, so Finland got them with a 80% discount. Then investing on relatively cheap things, but the things you are going to need anyway, like artillery in volumes to matter. Then spend some money on “bling” in places where it’s worth it, like with fighter jets and their missiles.

   It also helps a ton (and is probably the primary reason tbh) that the procurement process is quite streamlined and the military basically tests out the competitors, names a winner and then if the request stays within the allocated budget, it is rubber stamped as is by the government that traditionally has always had very “Let the military be in charge of military things” approach, regardless which party is in power. There is no party that is significantly more “pro/anti military” than the rest. So the process is apolitical and there isn’t much red tape like in Germany where any procurement sits a decade in courts as all the contract competitors sue each other and then appeal, then appeal the appeal.

   My overall point being, that military shouldn’t be treated like a slot machine where you insert money to get some known quantity of military capabilities out. Every step of the procurement process should be considered and tailored for the nation. You can spend tons of money and get nothing of value out, or spend relatively little and get much more.

2. Belgian budget minister Vincent Van Peteghem told the Financial Times that bigger defence budgets would take a toll on Europe’s welfare systems. Nato leaders are likely to agree in June to raise military budgets to more than 3 per cent of GDP, following the US president’s threats to no longer protect European countries that spend insufficiently on their own security.

3. What’s the point of having a welfare state if you can’t defend yourself and risking an overtake from a foreign invasion?

4. A huge increase of spending without any particular spurt of growth means the money has to come from somewhere be it tax increases or cuts from other areas or a combination of both.

5. Better be poor, than dead.

6. See: America

   Seems like a really good trade deal with the USA which reduces the trade deficits USA is concerned about and maintains their security presence on the continent/membership in NATO, would leave the funds available to maintain the welfare budgets.

7. Yes, this is a trade-off you have to make. The US subsidized European defenses which allowed them to spend more on welfare and helped lift the economies of NATO allies by protecting trade routes and bringing stability.

   Europe being forced to spend more on defense will require spending less on welfare or taking on more debt while experiencing lower stability, decreased Western influence and greater vulnerability compared to US’s domination of Europe.

   This is a trade-off that must be made though because the US is declining its presence in Europe so Europe either has to invest in its or defense or it will be vulnerable.

   I think this is what’s missing from the current discourse saying American decline will elevate Europe. America’s dominance helped elevate the rest of the west. US lifted European countries up far more than it kept them down. 

   The relative power of the west will fall as the US falls making it more likely the balance of power will shift to the east, although this was basically already in motion. 

Comments are closed.