Austerity is hollowing out Europe’s armies

See article

Readers' comments


Michael Dunne

An ok article, giving a necessary year-end review of sorts on defense issues.
However, standardization, diseconomies of scale and a trend towards austerity when it comes to military spend date back to the 1950s/Post WWII era.
As for France intervening on its own in Africa, it has a bit of a record of doing that (as well as basis to support interventions in places).
What I think is noteworthy is that Europe probably represents the future for the rest of the world that is relatively well-developed and likely to experience declining populations. With the exception of N. Korea, I suspect East Asia will similarly follow this European trajectory by 2030, as swords need to be beaten into stethoscopes for aging populations.
Same with Russia, with dealing with an aging population (money spent on military toys aside).

A. Andros

Who are the Europeans going to fight? Each other? No one in lederhosen even thinks of invading a country where people wear berets. Will the Bear lurch westward in order to conquer states it could not get rid of fast enough twenty years ago? Are there still empires to protect? (Bermuda comes to mind.)

France is currently rummaging around in Africa for reasons best known to itself. Otherwise, Europe, like Milton's Samson, is an instance of "All passion spent."

The center of world politics and economics for centuries to come lies in the Pacific Basin. And, of the NATO powers only the USA is a Pacific state. The Europeans vis a vis the Pacific have the enviable position enjoyed by the USA vis a vis Europe into the 20th Century -- just not their affair.

The Middle East might concern Europe, dependent as it is on oil. A nuclear Iran is one worry but, in fact, if a single Arab state ever fielded a well-trained, equipped and supplied armored division it is dubious whether the EEC together could defeat it with their current armories. Thus, the EEC depends on the US -- but with domestic oil production now booming and the country weaning itself off imports, it is equally dubious whether the US would intervene in the Middle East to ensure European oil supplies.

And, besides, aren't most conventional arms shadow-boxing in the nuclear age? If Iran does produce a single nuclear weapon does anyone believe that Europe would go to war with that country for any reason whatsoever?

The UK is currently building two magnificent aircraft carriers. It plans to lay one up in ordinary at completion and wants to sell the other. This is not fecklessness on the part of the Brits. Against what "enemy" are these carriers a potential defense -- the Hochzeeflotten?

Europe's time is over. The continent increasingly resembles the ABC powers of South America in the early part of the last century. Each of these, one can recall, had a prestige battleship or two and not one of these dreadnoughts ever fired a single shell at a foreign foe. Mostly, they rode at anchor and rusted.

The USA, Japan and China are the only significant military powers. They may, perhaps, be joined by India. But, again, the geographical locus of potential Great Power conflict (now there's an old-fashioned word!) lies in Asia and the Pacific.

Full fathom five "HMS Prince of Wales" lies, of its guns are coral made. The sea change is that Europe has little reason to ever intervene again "overseas" unless for reasons of ludicrous imperial memory (Central African Republic), a squabble in the Balkans (which the Yanks will settle) or if faced with an oil war.

The dreadnoughts, panzers, Lancasters and cuirassiers of the past are now the social welfare payments of the present. The money that once went into tin hats and the Short Magazine Lee Enfield now goes to fix the rotten teeth of a single-mother in council housing in Leeds.

All passion spent. And, on the whole, Europe is a happier place for it all!

Michael Dunne in reply to A. Andros

Well the French have established a military presence in the UAE; from a NY Times article on the subject dating back to 2009:
"The new military presence comprises a French facility at the Emirate’s Al Dhafra air base, which can accommodate Mirage and Rafale jets; a naval base of eight hectares, or about 20 acres, at the port of Mina Zayed, which can handle any French naval vessels except aircraft carriers, though these can berth in a nearby port; and an army camp at Zayed, specializing in urban combat training."
I could see the British doing something similar in the future, say in Oman (to be discrete, but remain near the Gulf), if necessary.

McGenius in reply to A. Andros


The US is currently following the European model and soon the M1 Abrams, F-16 Falcons, and Nuclear Carrier fleet will follow the European militaries to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and whatever the final cost ObamaCare imposes.

Western society as a whole will demilitarize. One presumes such an exercise doesn't happen without consequences. But heck, maybe this time there will be no repercussions and the crazy will stay on the other side of the globe.

Last time Americans thought that, airplanes were flying into office buildings, leveling them, in downtown Manhattan just a few blocks from the UN Building.

supamark in reply to McGenius

Why do we need M1 tanks and F-22 raptors to fight "terrorists" again? Please explain *why* the US needs to have a military capable of defeating the rest of the world again? I think Dwight Eisenhower (supreme allied commander WWII and 2 time US president) said it best:


McGenius in reply to supamark

"Why do we need M1 tanks and F-22 raptors to fight "terrorists" again?"

Because we've needed such weapons in the past and despite our best wishes, there is no reason that we won't need their equivalencies into the future. Ironically, you chose to "quote" Dwight Eisenhower, whom , after the last great disarmament, was involved in a conflict that then required a 15 million man military to be reassembled and deployed.

Regarding you "quote":

Michael Dunne in reply to McGenius

Well you are probably right that demilitarization will occur. I also think that will extend to non-western societies facing rapidly aging demographics.
Not to nit pick, but I thought F-16s were being retired anyways, to be replaced by F-35s? With IOC slated for 2015 for the Marines, 2016 for the Air Force, etc.?
Otherwise, another nit pick - with regards to NY geography, the UN is up by 42 street, by the FDR, while the Twin Towers were down towards Battery Park, 4 1/2 to 5 miles away.
With some larger issues around SS, Medicare, etc. - remove the loophole where contributions to the social security system are capped at wages of around $117,000; remove the loophole with carried interest; let Medicare more aggressively negotiate services/prices; have prices published for the public along the whole value chain of life sciences/healthcare industries….

supamark in reply to McGenius

lol, you post a link without reading it and inadvertantly strengthen my point (seriously, why didn't you actually read that post you linked before linking it? - it literally makes my point). If you don't think Ike saw the huge military buildup of the 1950's as a bad thing, you might also want to have a look at his speach about the military-industrial-(congressional) complex upon his retirement from office.

There is no Soviet nuclear bogeyman today, and won't be. The PRC might be rattling some sabres, but their whole economy is predicated on exports and war is very bad for the export business. Russia is a bad joke at best, and will be for at least a decade after Putin's gone (that's how bad he is mucking up Russia).

Tanks and advanced fighter jets are useless against an insurgency. Those are won with overwhelming infantry and winning over the local populace to your side (hearts and minds).

McGenius in reply to supamark

I read the post.

If you haven't noticed, times and budgets have changed. We're not talking about a huge military buildup. This isn't the 1950s. We're talking about cutting what's left of an already depleted military. The article itself mentions the struggles of defense corporations attempting to merge to maintain a business of what's left.

You speak with such omniscience of what historically has been a violent world at the time the US President is attempting to manage, if not motivate, the decline of the US from the world scene.

Ike was speaking at a time when the psycho Stalin was near his deathbed and wishing for tranquility from the other side, not necessarily to disarm ours. It wouldn't be until Reagan and his arms buildup was the Soviet Union ultimately shut down.

Go quote JFK and the need for weapons- no doubt you liberally quote him for everything else.

McGenius in reply to Michael Dunne

"I also think that will extend to non-western societies facing rapidly aging demographics."
I think it will, but taken to the extreme you naturally begin to view the world as a group of geriatric nations too old to fight but just to grunt at each other. I guess that sounds comforting, but the moment you begin to get relaxed, some a-hole pulls the sun-tzu stuff on you and wants to fight again. Like Korea after WW2.
We'll see how the F-35 budgets goes. Lots of nations looking to cut budgets are invested in the thing. The F-22 turned into a glorified prototype. I used the F-16 (and not the F-15) because it's the current bread and butter fighter of choice and will be, with avionics and weapons upgrades, for years to come. No new bomber in decades. I think the entire fleet of US Bombers, of all models, is a bit over 100. Stuff is getting old.
"With some larger issues around SS, Medicare..."
There are solutions all over the place. Just referencing Nancy Pelosi, who sadly represents much of the Economist' view point, she views that with so many people dependent on government wealth transfers, and the government encouraging so many more people to become reliant, and the ability to finance all these obligations being flippantly ignored, there is literally nothing to cut.
If there is a conflict/threat in this world, where do you get the funds to raise another military to deal with it all when the same budget that feeds is the same budget that fights? Whatever the Europeans cut now in defense to feed their people won't be replaced tomorrow. It's the risk they've chosen to take. You place that bet enough times, you will lose in horrific fashion.

supamark in reply to McGenius

Yup, times *have* changed and we simply don't need that big ol' military any more (and I'm *still* waiting for your explaination as to why we do - beyond supporting the sycophants in the defense industry that is). We still outspend almost the entire world combined on the military and that's just short sighted and stupid - money would be much better spent on infrastructure to improve our economy and quality of life.

McGenius in reply to supamark

We don't have a "big ol' military" any more. To quote the article, for European spending:

"Overall defence spending in Europe now stands at about 1.5% of GDP, well below the NATO target of 2%". US spending ain't much better.

"money would be much better spent on infrastructure to improve our economy and quality of life."

Obama's already addressed that- he's already taken care of the shovel ready jobs. Where've you been?

boydogtruck in reply to A. Andros

You have a good literary gift, Andros. But I'm not sure Europe's time is over, so much as it is leading a trend towards peacefulness that eventually the whole world will follow - and in the not-distant future, I believe.


Why Reimo Juks - Sveriges Riksbank, Vladimir Yankov FED, Linda Adamaite -
European Commission, Roman Horvath - Czech Bank, Detelin Ivanov
-European Commission, Nikolay Angelov - EBRD, Ivan Cerovski EBRD,
Tsvetan Tsalinski from European Commission, Mihai Copaciu
from NBR and others from CEU, Budapest are m_ind-cont_rolled on the
networks of Telekom as Telecom Austria and close to Soros. Do they play
together in a mafia? r

Carlos Collaco

This is a national problem facing nearly each and every European country before it becomes a multinational one, if Europe is taken as the single entity it is far from being!
The scaling down of European defence forces has initiated long ago only to be made worse by the current austerity drive.
My view is that it is a political (choice) issue much before it gets to public budgets and their increasingly difficult bargaining.
A loose and detached view of military needs, mission and purpose has long taken hold in Europe. Many choose to adopt an unwarranted 'peace and love' attitude to international relations. The history of nations, their interaction, power balances and individual self-esteem, however, do not comply with such feelings of blissful generosity.
There would be plenty of worthy arguments to trade but when a country cannot achieve a meagre 2% of GDP on military spending - or even attempt to get there despite NATO's recommendation - the message is one of permanent weakness.
Indeed now is the time for national governments to seriously decide on the armed forces and their permanent role.
In peacetime as well as when called upon to flex their muscles.


How can you suggest the UK doesn't want to deploy its armed forces? We have assets in over 80 different countries right now. Your maybe mixing things up with wanting to get involved in other peoples whims & leaving our own interests open to be abused by the likes of Spain (Gibraltar) or Argentina (Falklands) not to mention Cyprus & its dodgy neighbours to name just 3 & we havent even mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq.

Michael Dunne in reply to thorpeman

Are the British still in Iraq? If so, in a formal capacity (deploying conventional military assets/units), or an advisory one, or an advisory plus clandestine one (secretly providing more substantive support on the ground, say with SAS, through the embassy, secret arrangements?)?

Cadet Rousselle


"We can not fund military mission in which we are not involved in the decision process," Merkel said in the night to Friday during the EU summit in Brussels. However, she explained that "there is reason to believe that an intervention in Central Africa was necessary."

that sums up the european leaders mentality, the Central Africa expedition is justified, and you, French, are welcome to make it, but forget us, we didn't decide it ourselves.

I'm fed up of this EU dictating our daily life, ruling olive oil in restaurants, and ecigarets... but doesn't care if people are slaughtering themselves a few plane hours away, eh, the poor Africans can't buy "Made in Germany" products, but cheap chinese's ! And the Ukrainians, them, are virtual 'Made in Germany" products consumerisers, so it is important to meddle into their inner affairs, so that they are kept under the zeropeans hands !

Hollande is a fool to believe that's there's a european solidarity, our reliable allies are the americans and to a lesser point, the Brits, but forget the aging Mittle europea countries, that live like rentiers, and are afraid of the unknown and of the day after happening

Now, if Putin is threatening your "trading with good friends" behaviour, don't expect us that we'll lift the little finger, at least Russia will not threatening France, eh !


Who needs an army when the biggest threat to a strong and united West are its own paranoid secret services?

Plazidus in reply to emmyfinchley

Ouch...! And what about Chinese, Russian and other spooks? Do we not hear about them because their recruitment and disciplinary policies are more thorough than than the USA's, hence no Sad Ted Snowdens? Or, are they so phenomenally competent that we can't detect them?

emmyfinchley in reply to Plazidus

The Chinese and the Russians never advertised freedom of the individual and liberty as their unique selling point. Whistleblowers usually appear when the gap between indoctrinated ideals and reality ends up to be too wide for some individuals to bear.

Never met anybody from those countries who would deny arbitrary government decisions and corruption as ubiqituous. Hence, there's just not much chance for revelations.

Did you choose this example to imply that a full-scale surveillance of the EU and UNICEF is necessary for the Anglo-Saxon democracy role models to protect against those adversaries?


This is excellent news. Most Western military adventures since the second world war have been disasters.

Michael Dunne in reply to E.P.G.

Others may feel differently, like the South Koreans, the Bosnians, the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Kurds, even the Palestinians in Lebanon in 1982 and the Lebanese in 1958, or the Afghans who didn't like having the Taliban massacring them (think Hazaras, maybe the Tajiks, etc.), or the Malaysians, with the military emergency prior to independence (or support once it faced Indonesian pressures post independence).
And do some of the small operations count? Like Libya 2011, Oman in the 1960s and 1970s, Zaire 1978, Chad in the 1980s, and so on.
Otherwise, how do you account for western powers preventing other western countries from engaging in some adventure? Say the US compelling the Dutch to ditch Indonesia, or France and Britain to drop their expedition against the Suez in 1956?
Of course, how would you define "military adventure"? Suez would seem to fit the bill, but South Korea 1950, Kuwait 1990 and the Balkans 1990s come off as defying such characterizations...


The future of EU military capability: six soldiers from assorted countries each holding a stick and shouting "bang." Each stick will be a different length and made from different materials, thanks to the 7,000 bureaucrats in the various EU defense organizations all keen on ensuring "national champions" go on milking their respective governments for sub-standard kit.

Basically, if Putin can ever whip the Russian military into something more than a total shambles, the only thing standing between him and recapture of the former CCCP states will be an ocean of over-fed EU bureaucrats piled up to form a human barrier.

The EU nations have lived too long at peace. They've utterly forgotten that pieces of paper and good intentions count for nothing as soon as you're confronted by one powerful tyrant eager to expand his territory. Pretending that day will never come is merely self-indulgent denial.

E.P.G. in reply to CA-Oxonian

So, you're saying that if Russia didn't have a bad army, they would be a threat to their neighbours. I agree. However, this is trivially true. If Russia didn't have a bad economy, its people would be rich. If Russia didn't have a bad political system, its people would be free.

LVX in reply to CA-Oxonian

Very very true in the pre-nuclear days.

Today, with so many Countries having nuclear missiles, I'm not sure that still holds true.

1. A war is much more unlikely
and more likely to happen because of a nutcase than of someone rationally willing to "take back former states"

2. Why should non-nuclear Country spend a lot?
Take a country like Italy.
Why should it spend in military when it doesn't have nuclear power? How could it help Europe in the case of a stand off with Russia?

hmy_ in reply to LVX

What about MAD? Isn't that deterrence enough to prevent either side from ever going nuclear, hence keeping both sides locked in conventional warfare?

After all, if one side ever launched a nuclear weapon their nation would entirely cease to exist and their people would all but be removed from human history. At least by keeping the war conventional, even if they lose, there will be a home left to rebuild and future generations to avoid the same mistakes.

Of course, this only works if both sides in a conflict possess nuclear weapons -- but in this case, western Europe and Russia both do.

LVX in reply to hmy_

That could indeed be the case, but it's not a certitude.

Imagine a country is losing the war, which if it's a war between two nuclearly equipped nation is going to be a huuuge thing: its ruling class would be swept away.

So they might thing: we're losing the conventional war, what if we might get an edge by being the first to use nuclear?

And they'd go ballistic..

hmy_ in reply to LVX

Against whom? If they were fighting the liberal west, why would they ever go nuclear? Our history is quite clear in that we generally treat our enemies with respect after defeating them, and in the case of Germany and Japan we rebuilt their nations into far better ones than before the war.

If the enemy was North Korea or something sure, because if you lose the war they are going to massacre you. But if it's the US, UK, France, etc. why would you ever commit suicide for your entire people when you could just surrender and have a better country than you had in the past?

LVX in reply to hmy_

True, but still the best that would happen to those oligarchs is they're going to get jailed and put in the pillory, which they'd fully deserve, but they might still prefer using their last bullet/hope (look at Hitler and the secret weapons, or if Japan had had a nuclear missile quite likely they would have tried to use it).

Totally agree with you for the reconstruction, but not so much so during the war unluckily: the firebombing/incendiary missions of Dresden, Berlin (didn't work there thanks God), Tokyo and others is a huge stain and a shame which hasn't been fully acknowledge by those nations.

Didomyk in reply to E.P.G.

'.. if Russia didn't have a bad army, they would be a threat to their neighbours.'

No dispute that Russian army and navy are weak. But, most of Russia's direct neighbours (China excluded) are considerably weaker. Russia continues to blackmail most of its DIRECT neighbours with its territorial mass, its widespread intelligence network, its energy supplies, its nuclear missiles. None of Moscow's direct neighbours (again China excluded) has comparable assets.
Take Black Sea as an example: Russia has only a few older naval vessels in Sevastopol, no match for any real navy, but it regards the Black sea as its own realm even though Turkey controls the Straights. Could Turkey close the sea exit ? Not without provoking a strong retaliation and all out war. Not a likely scenario.


I mean what is the threat?

The Russian army is useless and struggled to invade Georgia. Europe still has some of the best military technology in the world (Leopard 2 etc). The UK and France both have more capable armies than the Russians.

Nobody other than the Americans have the logistical capability to fight a war outside their own borders. There is no real threat to Europe and something like Mali is about as big a expeditionary war a European power is going to get involved in.

There is no real threat to Europe. Asia is another matter which is why there is such growth in defence spending there.

Britain does have a logistical ability to support intervention overseas. It does not have the ability to support multiple interventions overseas... slight difference; and neither does it have the political will.

Leopard 2 may be an awesome piece of kit in the hands of the Danes, in the hands of the Germans it is almost akin to scrap metal in the making...

However, I feel there are multiple threats to Europe - asymmetric threats that must have a defence capability. That capability sometimes comes from having rather larger conventional forces - the elite troops of the SAS come from the creme of the British Army; a reduced army will provide a much smaller pool from will to draw. Now spread that thought across signals, snipers, medics, engineers etc and the draw down will impact on the ability of nation states to fight those small asymmetric conflicts and win.

Cutters. in reply to Ostrava

However, the UK does not need a large army to protect it self, a medium sized navy is more than substantial.

Asymmetric warfare is not won by sending in every increasing numbers of infantry, it is won by being willing and able to use subversive elements to take on subversive elements.

hmy_ in reply to canabana

The western world is far wealthier as a whole and far more populous than it was in the post-war era when NATO was founded. The Soviet Union collapsed and large parts of the communist empire switched sides, becoming wealthier like their new allies and taking with them a massive chunk of the USSR's population. Both Britain and France have dramatically grown as well.

NATO was created to address a massive communist empire, of which only one impoverished and technologically/socially backward part really exists today.

Russia is not a threat, it has no client states of substance, it cannot move large numbers of troops or equipment even remotely as quickly as either Britain or France (and ESPECIALLY not the US), it no longer has a large industrial base in eastern Europe, etc.

It is simply powerful enough to cause a mess and antagonize the west; it could never come close to defeating the west or even Britain or France alone.

Michael Dunne in reply to canabana

I believe when it comes to training, skills/sophistication, operational efficiencies, etc. the UK and France have been viewed as possessing better armed forces.
Now the Russians have the Georgia conflict under their belts from 2008, but they didn't do so well in Chechnya (even the second time around was a ham fisted affair, even when they won). There has also been some odd stuff going on in Ingushetia and even Dagestan I believe (persistent conflict), where the Russians haven't exactly acquitted themselves all that well.
Then throw in the bullying and abuse of conscripts, the corruption (Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov was dismissed in November 2012 amid a corruption scandal involving billions of rubles), the aging military industrial complex still experiencing significant capacity constraints stemming from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and recognition for the need for reforms articulated by the likes of Putin, and one can reasonably suggest that the Russian armed forces face a qualitative issue.

LVX in reply to hmy_

"population" doesn't really equate power in any significant way as you were mentioning, and if you use Georgia and Chechenya as an example then one could as easily mention Afghanistan for UK and France.
It's quite easy getting bogged down.

Also before WW2 the French army was thought to be the strongest in continental Europe, and that goes for the dangers of relying on "on paper assessments".

But I agree with you the Russians are hardly a threat to the EU as of today, but as long as there's the danger of having a bully as head of the armed forces in Russia then it would be good to never let the guard down too much.

Dan17 in reply to canabana

The point is there is no need for NATO and has not been since 1991. As others have said the reason for NATO was a response to the threat of Stalins Soviet Union, with an occupation of all of Eastern Europe and Red Army force in Germany alone of 350,000 men and 5,000 tanks, sitting West of Berlin! that backed up by further forces in the rest of eastern. Europe, then the forces of the satellite states of the, Warsaw Pact, then the forces in the. Western Soviet Union.

Today the entire Russian Army is 350,000, the Warsaw Pact no longer exists and all the ex members are now in both NATO and the EU. The western Soviet Union is now the independent Baltic republics, and Ukraine. The. Russian Army has to worry about an imploding North Korea, a militarising Japan, where they are still formally at war since 1945, a China with a much bigger population and rapidly expanding economy, a variety of Muslim republics in. Central Asia, an internal population with increasingly restive Muslim population, a potential nuclear Iran on its southern border, and the Caucasus whether Chechnya and Dagestan inside Russia or Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to the south all potential trouble. The idea of invading Western Europe any time soon is a non-starter.

It is a similar issue at sea the entire surface fleet in. European waters is a carrier and 5 escorts in the northern fleet and another 3 escorts in the Baltic, even just the British or French would put up 20 escorts.

Didomyk in reply to hmy_

'.. it could never come close to defeating the west or even Britain or France alone.'

Precisely because Russia knows there is the NATO principle of common defense.

As to Britain and France alone, well first you will have to move Germany and Poland somewhere to make this a serious question.


Is NATO countries are spending less than 2% of GDP, then their membership should be called in to question.

The America has one type anything is a lie, the USA is a single country and is not "America" in its totality, the Economist is open to ridicule to compare a single country with a customs unions and political forum that is the EU.

Several UK government have said that they are happy for the EU members to create a single EU armed forces, so long as the UK does not have to be any part of it or pay for it. That other EU members do not want to do not want to do so without the UK is their own problem.

If Poland is scared of the Bear next door, then it need to spend a lot more on its own defence and not rely on NATO to do the job that Poland's forces should be able to do on their own. Germany is supposed to be the EU powerhouse, but where are its forces?

Cooperation on joint military procurement in the EU has proven to be very late and costing far more than the original budget, if it get past the planning stage at all, and so is a tried and tested failure.

ChrisFrance in reply to Cutters.

Actually Poland is spending per person more then any other country in Europe, yet it is not scared of Russia at all. The country is buying everything from Jets to drones to tanks to helicopters to submarines etc.

Trust me, Poland is not the problem here. The problem here are the other countries in the region like the Baltic states, Germany, the Czech R and Slovakia and countries further south too.

Poland is modernising very quickly and already has an army more capable then Britain, but the other countries in the region spend on average 1% of GDP on defence - they are the problem so point fingers at them.

Didomyk in reply to ChrisFrance

'Trust me, Poland is not the problem here'

Wow, I could not resist a big smile. 'Trust me' you say, but how do you expect anybody to trust YOU when Poland cannot trust its neighbours on both sides ? (And I don't mean Lukashenka and Yanukovych. But leaders do change, don't they ?)
After 1939 Polish leaders should not trust anybody.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

