Victory for France-backed ‘Buy European’ approach to defence spending

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.19-115656/https://www.ft.com/content/eb9e0ddc-8606-46f5-8758-a1b8beae14f1

The planned fund for capitals to spend on weapons would only be open to EU defence companies and those from third countries that have signed defence agreements with the bloc, officials said on Wednesday.

It would also exclude any advanced weapons systems upon which a third country had “design authority” — restrictions on its construction or use of particular components — or control over its eventual use, the officials added.

That would exclude the US Patriot air and missile defence platform, which is manufactured by defence contractor RTX, and other US weapons systems where Washington has restrictions on where they can be used.

The policy is a victory for France and other countries that have demanded a “Buy European” approach to the continent’s defence investment push, amid fears over the long-term dependability of the US as a defence partner and supplier sparked by President Donald Trump.

At least 65 per cent of the cost of the products would need to be spent in the EU, Norway and Ukraine.

EU member states would not be able to spend the money on products “where there can be a control on the use or the destination of that weapon . . . It would be a real problem if equipment acquired by countries cannot be used because a third country would object,” one of the officials said.

  • makingrain@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    4 days ago

    To the mod that removed my comment due to misinformation:.

    Published Jan 29 2025 Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to agree a security pact with the EU is being blocked by French and other member states’ demands over fishing rights and a youth mobility scheme, complicating hopes of an early win in “reset” talks with Brussels.

    https://www.ft.com/content/3fb38bd6-c1a3-4ba7-80d7-290d4bea06fb

    • federal reverse@feddit.orgMEnglish
      1·
      2 hours ago

      As the mod who removed the comment. This was your old comment …

      Not happening with the UK until fishing rights and 18-30 youth mobility visas are on the table.

      Granted, I missed that news item. However, you’ll probably notice too that there are simply different negotiation tactics at play. No? As alvvayson says – why would EU members want to compromise their own security?

      The UK trained Ukraine and provide NLAWs to stave off attack, while Germany gave helmets and Macron was playing mediator.

      Germany’s initial responses (first, “we’ll provide humanitarian aid only” and next, “we’ll provide 5000 helmets”) weren’t adequate, true. However, that was rectified quite quickly, iirc, foreign minister Baerbock took about a week; but even chancelor Olaf Scholz’s “Zeitenwende” SotU-type address, which acknowledged the need for extensive military aid, was only a month after the war had started. Military aid has continuously been expanded since then, granted against a reluctant chancelor.

      Similarly, France has also provided military aid, while, yes, initially trying to set up peace talks. But their role has also shifted. Though France still delivers much less material than e.g. Germany, I do appreciate Macron’s verbal brinksmanship (seriously!).