La nuova corsa agli armamenti – Gli europei arretrano nella spesa per la Difesa
STEPHEN FIDLER e ALISTAIR MACDONALD
– La guerra di Libia è stata la prima campagna militare Nato non diretta dagli Usa, ma ha anche messo a nudo i limiti della potenza militare europea, che pure ha fornito l’appoggio aereo senza il quale i ribelli non avrebbero vinto:
o da sola la UE non avrebbe potuto condurre la guerra, ha avuto difficoltà a gestire gli attacchi aerei, benché molto meno numerosi di quelli della campagna Nato del 1999 contro il Kosovo.
o In Libia sono stati impiegati circa 250 aerei di oltre una decina di paesi Nato, con circa 150 sortite al giorno; nel 1999 furono impiegati 1200 aerei con 1200 sortite al giorno.
o meno della metà dei 28 paesi Nato (tutti europei, salvo Usa e Canada) che l’hanno approvato hanno partecipato alla guerra libica; e un numero ancora inferiore ha effettuato attacchi aerei, perché non in grado di farlo.
– Crescenti preoccupazioni sulla capacità di proiezione militare dell’Europa, mentre si sta spostando l’equilibrio militare internazionale. La potenza Usa, militarmente predominante, sta concentrando la propria attenzione sulla regione del Pacifico – mentre la Cina sta rafforzandosi militarmente, e i paesi Nato osservano preoccupati Russia e Medio Oriente.
o Il segretario generale Nato, Rasmussen: sarà sempre più difficile per l’Europa assumersi la gestione di crisi internazionali oltre i propri confini, data la mancanza di investimenti per la Difesa.
o Si prevede che nel 2010-2015 la spesa per a Difesa dei paesi europei membri della Nato cali del 2,9%;
o nel 2010 essi hanno speso mediamente l’1,7% del PIL, contro il 5,4% della spesa per la Difesa degli Usa.
– Sta aumentando il divario tra Usa ed Europa: 20 anni fa’ la spesa per la Difesa degli europei rappresentavano 1/3 della spesa totale della Nato, oggi solo il 20%.
o Il segretario Usa alla Difesa, Gates: Se la tendenza continuasse gli Usa potrebbero in futuro valutare che investire nella Nato non vale il costo;
o Rasmussen: gli Usa potrebbero preferire la comparazione con potenze emergenti, a quella con l’Europa.
– Alcuni tentativi di cooperazione (la cosiddetta “smart defense”, difesa intelligente) per progetti di appalti congiunti dei paesi europei sono falliti per rivalità nazionali e questioni di politica interna.
– Secondo Rasmussen, la “smart defence” potrebbe risolvere le difficoltà create per la spesa della Difesa dalla crisi finanziaria: cooperazione nell’acquisto di equipaggiamento, addestramento e nelle esercitazioni militari congiunte, e specializzazione dei vari paesi in compiti specifici. La maggior parte della spesa Difesa non è per le operazioni militari ma per addestramento, formazione e appalti.
o 12 paesi Nato hanno cooperato nell’acquisto di 3 C-17, per il trasporto di truppe ed equipaggiamento; due aerei Nato con Sistema di Allarme e Controllo Aviotrasportato (Awacs), con equipaggio di diversi paesi, hanno aiutato a coordinare le operazioni aeree sopra la Libia.
o Esempi di specializzazione: il controllo aereo sopra Estonia, Lettonia e Lituania è fatto da altri paesi Nato in rotazione;
o Estonia e Finlandia (che non fa parte della Nato) hanno acquistato assieme 12 sistemi radar Thales-Raytheon (l’Estonia è uno dei pochi paesi europei che sta aumentando le spese per la Difesa).
o La Danimarca, 5 anni fa’, ha rinunciato ai sottomarini, ad altre parti della sua marina, e ad alcuni sistemi radar, lasciandoli a “chi lo fa meglio”.
– I vari paesi hanno stabilito priorità diverse per la spesa; la Germania ad es. giustifica con le sfide economiche i tagli alla spesa per la Difesa.
– Tra i paesi europei criticati da Gates per l’insufficiente contributo alla guerra libica, Germania e Olanda; quest’ultima prevede di ridurre la spesa per la Difesa dall’attuale 1,6% all’1,15% del Pil nel 2015.
– L’Olanda dispone di equipaggiamenti militari per una proiezione internazionale (F16, sottomarini, aerei da rifornimento, fregate, capacità di sorveglianza, elicotteri per trasporti pesanti), ma in numero limitato e perciò sufficienti solo per brevi periodi.
– Slovenia e Croazia hanno discusso la creazione di una aviazione congiunta;
– Cekia e Slovacchia hanno in programma la unificazione dei sistemi di formazione militare.
– Olanda e Belgio cooperano da anni, hanno un comune quartier generale della marina militare;
– l’Olanda sta discutendo con la Germania la produzione congiunta di munizioni;
– GB e Francia condividono alcuni equipaggiamenti e cooperano nello sviluppo di tecnologia militare; fallito però il tentativo dello scorso decennio di cooperare nella costruzione di portarei.
– la GB sta negoziando con paesi del Nord Europa, compresa Norvegia e paesi baltici, per più stretti legami militari; con la Turchia per cooperare nella costruzione della Fregata 26.
– Il progetto di difesa missilistica Germania-Italia e Usa in sviluppo, non è finora riuscito ad avere finanziamenti per la produzione da Germania e Usa.
– Rinvii e costi superiori alle previsioni per altri progetti europei, tra cui il consorzio a 4 per la costruzione dell’Eurofighter, usato dalla Royal Air Force britannica per la guerra libica, e un progetto a 8 per la costruzione dell’aereo da trasporto militare A-400M.
– 4/5 dei bilanci europei per la Difesa vanno ad acquistare prodotti di produttori nazionali; un tentativo di rendere più difficile ai governi la promozione di “campioni nazionali” per l’industria della Difesa è la direttiva UE, in vigore dal 2011, stabilisce un mercato unico europeo per numerosi acquisti militari.
Cambiamenti del bilancio difesa 2008-2011, nei vari paesi europei;
a lato: Forza militare: soldati in servizio attivo; principali carri armati; sottomarini; elicotteri da attacco; aerei da guerra. Dati per UK, Francia, Germania, Italia.
The New Arms Race – Europeans Retreat on Defense Spending
This is the fourth in a series of articles examining how the global military balance is shifting with the world economic order.
Russia’s Fading Army Fights Losing Battle to Reform Itself 4/20/2011
BRUSSELS—The unraveling of Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s regime is a milestone for the European armed forces providing the air support that turned the tide for Libyan rebels, who were on the verge of being overrun only five months ago.
– Yet despite the scenes from Tripoli of rebel forces advancing with the help of European airstrikes, the first North Atlantic Treaty Organization campaign not led by the U.S. has shown the limitations of the Continent’s military power in an era of crushing national debt and slashed defense spending.
– "The fact is that Europe couldn’t have done this on its own," said NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in an interview last month, citing essential U.S. intelligence support. "The lack of defense investments in Europe will make it increasingly difficult for Europe to take on responsibility for international crisis management beyond Europe’s borders."
– In Libya, some 250 aircraft from more than a dozen NATO nations have been flying roughly 150 sorties a day. That’s far fewer than the 800 sorties a day flown during NATO’s campaign in Kosovo in 1999, which used 1,200 aircraft. In a speech in Brussels in June, then-U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates decried the difficulties of European allies handling even those limited numbers.
– While all 28 NATO nations approved the Libya mission, fewer than half are participating, and fewer still are conducting airstrikes. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t," said Mr. Gates, who stepped down in July. "The military capabilities simply aren’t there."
– The mounting concerns about Europe’s ability to project power overseas come as the world’s military balance is shifting. The U.S., the world’s dominant power, is under growing pressure to control military spending and is increasing its focus on the Pacific region. At the same time, China is undertaking a military buildup that has left many of its neighbors worried about its global ambitions.
– In the wake of the world-wide financial crisis, defense spending by European members of NATO is expected to decline by 2.9%, after adjusting for inflation, between 2010 and 2015, according to forecasters at IHS Jane’s, a defense-information firm.
– European members of the alliance—that is, all NATO nations except the U.S. and Canada—spent an average of 1.7% of gross domestic product on defense last year, according to NATO, compared with 5.4% by the U.S.
– Mr. Rasmussen, NATO’s civilian chief and the former prime minister of Denmark, says he is concerned about the "increasing gap" between the U.S. and Europe. Twenty years ago, at the end of the Cold War, "European allies represented one third of total defense spending in NATO," he says. "Today it’s only 20%." If that trend continues, he says, "it may eventually lead to a change of the American attitudes. The U.S. might be more interested in cooperating with emerging powers, because they will fill the gap left by Europe."
– Mr. Gates warned in June that "if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders—those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me—may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost."
– Europe’s strapped militaries are looking for ways to cooperate with one another to compensate for cutbacks. But past efforts on that front have run into difficulties. Joint-procurement projects have been tripped up by national rivalries and domestic politics. One early effort to join ground forces, a Franco-German army brigade created in the late 1980s, has never been deployed in combat, in part because the two countries have contrasting views on the use of force.
– Germany, Europe’s largest economy, declined to participate in the Libya effort at all, saying that contributing to the air campaign might lead to pressure to contribute troops later. "Nations set different priorities," said Lt. Col. Holger Neumann, a spokesman for Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defense, in reference to the country’s declining defense budget. Germany still faces "economic challenges."
– The Netherlands, like Germany, was one of a handful of countries criticized by Mr. Gates, during a private meeting with NATO defense ministers in June, for not contributing enough to the Libyan effort. The Netherlands contributed a squadron of fighters to police a no-fly zone, but its aircraft didn’t take part in any airstrikes.
– The Netherlands has whittled its defense budget from 1.6% of gross domestic product in 2006 to an expected 1.15% by 2015, according to IHS Jane’s. Rob de Wijk, a former Dutch defense adviser, told the Netherlands’ Parliament in May that the country’s military spending had fallen too far and the Dutch were now just "international freeloaders" on defense. He says the response he got from politicians left him with the impression that "they just didn’t care."
– The Dutch have the equipment necessary for projecting power overseas: F-16 jets, submarines, air refuelers, frigates, surveillance capabilities and heavy-lift helicopters. But the numbers aren’t sufficient, says Mr. de Wijk, to keep operations going for more than short periods. A spokesman for the Netherlands Ministry of Defence did not return calls seeking comment.
– Defense-spending trends across Europe alarm Mr. Rasmussen, who became NATO’s civilian chief in 2009. "If you’re not able to deploy troops beyond your borders, then you can’t exert influence internationally, and then that gap will be filled by emerging powers that don’t necessarily share your values and thinking," he says. He didn’t specific any countries, but China is often mentioned in this context.
– Mr. Rasmussen says one answer is what he calls "smart defense." Cooperation among countries in buying defense equipment, in training and in military exercises, he says, can deliver better value for the money. Countries also can specialize in certain military tasks. He wants that issue at the top of the agenda for NATO’s next summit in Chicago next year.
"Instead of pursuing purely national programs, we get more bang for the buck if we pool and share resources," he says. He has identified what he calls 10 critical capabilities, including the strategic airlifting of troops and equipment, intelligence gathering, drone technology and ground surveillance.
– NATO already has done some pooling. Twelve countries cooperated to buy three C-17 air transports for carrying troops and equipment. Two NATO Airborne Warning and Control aircraft, staffed by multinational crews, have helped to coordinate air operations over Libya.
– Some specialization also is taking place. Air policing of the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—is not done by those countries but by other NATO allies, in rotation. The Baltic states "have deployed troops to Afghanistan because we have freed resources through collective air policing," says Mr. Rasmussen.
– Mart Laar, defense minister of Estonia, one of the few countries increasing its defense spending, contends that the future for European defense lies with shared procurement and pooling resources. Recently, Estonia and Finland—which doesn’t belong to NATO—bought 12 Thales-Raytheon radar systems, which meant that Estonia effectively got two radars for the price of one, says Mr. Laar.
– Denmark, whose contributions in Libya were praised by Mr. Gates, already specialized its armed forces five years ago, giving up on submarines, other parts of its navy and some radar systems. With respect to submarines, "somebody is doing it smarter than we are, so we will rely on somebody else in NATO," says Danish defense minister Gitte Lillelund Bech.
– Three months ago, Ms. Bech told her chief of staff for defense to look at what countries are best suited for more cooperation and procurement sharing.
– Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform, a think tank in London, says opportunities exist for smarter defense spending. Most spending is not for military operations, he says, but for things like training, education and procurement.
– Four-fifths of European equipment budgets are spent on products from domestic manufacturers, which often don’t offer the best value. "There’s a shocking contrast between the way we fight together and the way we build our forces in splendid isolation from each other," he says. A European Union[e] directive that goes into effect this year mandates a single European market for a large number of military purchases, which will make it more difficult for governments to promote "national champions" in the defense industry.
– Mr. Valasek says Slovenia and Croatia have been discussing a joint air force, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia have a program to combine their military-education systems.
– The Netherlands and Belgium have been cooperating for years, and they share a navy headquarters. The Netherlands is talking to Germany about the joint production of ammunition. Britain and France, which have similar views about the use of force, last year vowed to form a joint expeditionary force, share some equipment and cooperate on developing military technology.
– Britain is talking to Northern European countries, including Norway and the Baltic states, about closer military ties, and to Turkey about helping to build its Type 26 Frigate, a ship due to enter service in the early 2020s.
– There is skepticism, nonetheless, that much will change, particularly given what happened in the past. British and French efforts over the past decade to cooperate on building aircraft carriers foundered, in part because they couldn’t agree on designs. In 1999, the U.K. pulled out of a project with France and Italy to build warships. A missile-defense project involving Germany, Italy and the U.S., now in the development phase, has so far failed to secure financing from Berlin and Washington for production.
-Other European projects have been dogged by delays and cost overruns, including a four-nation consortium that built the Eurofighter, which was used by the British Royal Air Force over Libya, and an eight-nation project to build the A-400M military transport aircraft. Many European countries see no alternative but to cooperate on major projects, despite difficulties secure agreements among themselves.
Mr. Rasmussen isn’t in favor of all cooperative efforts. The European Union[e] has revived talk about setting up a permanent EU military headquarters. "There is no lack of headquarters," says Mr. Rasmussen. "What we lack in Europe is hardware."
Write to Stephen Fidler at stephen.fidler@wsj.com and Alistair MacDonald at alistair.macdonald@wsj.com