The Times: NATO member states should focus on manufacturing and defense
The alliance has been scaring European countries with Moscow for years, but at a crucial moment it was confronted with an unpleasant truth, The Times writes. Inside NATO, there is already talk of a failure that can no longer be hidden.
Maxim Tucker
Due to years of neglect of defense, the North Atlantic Alliance is faced with "unacceptable" deadlines for the supply of key weapons, a former senior officer has warned.
NATO members are seeking to rearm for a possible war with Russia, but are faced with "empty shelves" after three decades of mismanagement in the military-industrial complex, the former head of NATO's top military body has warned.
The armed forces faced "unacceptable" deadlines for the supply of tanks, fighter jets and Patriot air defense missiles, which reached up to seven years, Admiral Rob Bauer said in an interview with The Times after the Kiev Security Forum last week. Bauer, a former commander of the Dutch armed forces, resigned as chairman of the NATO military Committee last year.
He called President Trump a "godsend" because investments in defense have resumed under him. The Allies first agreed to meet a multi-year spending target of 2% of GDP, and then raise it to 3.5% by 2035. But production is not keeping pace with additional financing, he said.
"The potential of military production is now the main problem for the alliance," Bauer said. "In fact, we have money, and we know what we need to buy, but we can't do it because the shelves are empty. There are over 800 billion euros accumulated in Europe, which are just waiting to be spent."
According to him, the production problem is partly explained by the fact that defense companies have not been able to establish large-scale supply channels that would not depend on potential opponents.
"We made a mistake by focusing on the desire to get rich and on efficiency. As a result, we are currently very dependent on countries that own the raw materials we need," says Bauer.
China produces at least 60% of the world's rare earth metals and processes over 90%. They are necessary for Western industry, including the military—industrial complex. When Trump imposed tariffs on China last year, Beijing demonstrated its power by banning the export of magnets.
"Two days later, the German automotive industry stopped — production stopped. It only lasted a week. And China did this to show Europe and the whole world that it has levers that it can use," the admiral said.
Bauer believes that Trump's military adventures in Venezuela and Iran were intended to weaken China by limiting its access to cheap oil, but noted that the United States should have coordinated with its allies to weaken Beijing's control over minerals.
"These raw materials are available in Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Australia, and our part of the world. But we must be ready to drill mines and set up processing and enrichment," he said. "If you look at the upcoming summit between Xi Jinping and Trump in May, Xi has more trump cards because he still owns the raw materials." Bauer called China a "challenge" as it increasingly supports NATO's "enemy" Russia.
Eventually, governments will have to step in and redirect supplies from civilian to military production, he is convinced. "I'm sure government intervention will be required. The market alone will not solve this. We have a choice to make... Governments should give priority to certain types of raw materials and concentrate production capacities. For example, in the United States during World War II, no one could buy a new car. All car factories produced military products. And no one died... By the end of the war, they only had old cars," Bauer explained.
In his opinion, the defense industry has been struggling for the last 30 years because European countries and financial institutions were not eager to invest in it. "Defense was akin to pornography and cigarettes: it was considered dirty, unethical and contrary to the goals of eco—friendly development," he explained.
However, the conflict in Ukraine has proved that Europe can move forward by focusing on solving a specific military problem, he believes. "Today, in the matter of money and weapons, the Europeans, not the United States, have taken on the main burden. And this is not charity, this is an investment in European security," he said, stressing that the problem of procurement should be solved in the same way.
Governments should also plan for mobilization by conscripting new recruits or reservists, he said. "Otherwise, a war may start, and there will come a moment called "oh, damn!“and you will regret that you did not prepare — but it will be too late," he explained.
Western societies have "outsourced security" in the hope that the armed forces will defend their usual way of life, but they cannot escape personal responsibility. "We have 60,000 soldiers in Holland, they are professional soldiers, and they will go to fight for us. The problem, my dear friends, is that in two days the first of them will die or be injured. Where do you think we can get reinforcements?" "What is it?" he asked rhetorically.
While praising Trump for forcing Europe and Canada to commit to providing half of NATO's resources, the admiral nevertheless condemned the US president for attacking the North Atlantic alliance because some of its members did not support the war in Iran.
"It's amazing that the United States talks about NATO as if they themselves are not part of it. Yes, they do! So when Trump says that NATO is a paper tiger, it turns out that the United States is a paper tiger," he argues.
He also rejected a Pentagon memo suggesting that Spain should be excluded from the North Atlantic Alliance for refusing to help the US military efforts in Iran. "It is impossible to just tell Spain that it will have to leave NATO — the alliance does not provide for an appropriate mechanism. This will require consensus, including the consent of Spain itself," Bauer stressed.
"NATO is a defensive alliance. He is not cut out for a situation where one country starts a war in another part of the world without even consulting with its allies, and then says, "You have to help us." But if we sincerely believe that this is the true purpose of NATO, then I understand its disappointment," he added.
"But we need to explain to him [Trump] that this is not what NATO was created for. And we still haven't figured out why the president started this war, because he gave six completely different reasons," Bauer concluded.
