European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen proposes central arms reserve capitals could draw from

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.18-150511/https://www.ft.com/content/aedd1e6b-fb4f-41fd-af10-af9dce6f88dc

The European Commission is seeking to set up collective arms purchasing for the entire bloc, in what would represent a significant transfer of power to Brussels.

Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU’s executive, said on Tuesday that the bloc would set up a “European Military Sales Mechanism” — a strategic reserve of European weaponry that capitals could purchase from to refill their own inventories.

The initiative is part of the continent’s rearmament drive and aims to provide additional orders for arms manufacturers which have struggled to scale up production despite Russia’s war in Ukraine.

  • AlexTheNotSoGreat@feddit.orgEnglish
    7·
    9 hours ago

    I have no clue, that’s why I am asking: Would it make sense to have only one sort of everything distributed across Europe? Who has the best tank? Use it in entire Europe. What is the best rifle? Use it in entire Europe. I think this would make production much cheaper than having each country produce their own weapons.

    • Samskara@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      11·
      9 hours ago

      Standardizations and lower costs through economies of scale are great. However competition is also good, as is redundancy. Some strategic redundancy is also a good idea so the whole European defense doesn’t collapse because of something like Brexit or Orban in Hungary.

      The requirements snd budgets for the armed forces vary significantly depending on the geography and infrastructure of a country and likely missions.

      Having a military with diverse equipment means the enemy will have to learn about more systems and how to fight them.

      Rifles make up a small part of the budget. Buying some weapons locally make them cheaper for the state as the money spent goes into the local economy and some of the cost flows back to the state in the form of taxes. So buying more expensive local weapons can be cheaper overall than importing a seemingly cheaper weapon.

    • cynar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      9 hours ago

      That’s how most EU regulations are created. They take the best parts of the legislation of various members and combine them.

      As for weapons, harmonisation is a thing. However, the exact use cases will vary for different countries. A tank that’s optimal for Spain isn’t necessarily the best for Germany. Neither country wants suboptimal equipment. What is easier to harmonise is ammo, a fact that NATO have been exploiting for a long while.

      There are also the implications. Before now, military has been done on a per country basis. If they want to move as a block, they need individual countries to step up. It also allows countries to act independently if desired. A unified army is seen as a threat to the sovereignty of individual countries.

    • golli@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      6 hours ago

      The one issue that i see is that in a way (at least some) countries are on both the buyer and seller side. As long as there is still drive to favor domestic companies and keep know-how/capabilities rather than sharing them.

      That’s what usually hinders joint development projects e.g. between France and Germany. Both want as large of a share as possible to go to their own industry. Or i think it is partially why Poland went with korean tanks, rather than leopards (but i might remember this one wrong).

      To me it seems like this will particularly be interesting to smaller countries without large weapon manufacturers, but maybe it could also help us here in Germany to finally fix our terrible procurement system.