ASD leaders to NYT: Europe's defence spending faces industrial reality check

In an analysis published in the New York Times on 22 June, journalist Patricia Cohen examines the complex challenges facing Europe as it prepares to dramatically increase defence spending in response to Russian threats. The article, "Europe Is Finally Ready to Spend More on Defence. The Hard Part Is How”, offers insights into the industrial and political obstacles that facing European nations as they seek to bolster their ability to defend themselves. 

The urgency of European defence transformation

Cohen's reporting reveals a continent at a critical juncture, where the theoretical commitment to increased defence spending must now translate into practical military capabilities. With President Trump demanding NATO members allocate 5 percent of their GDP to defence – more than double the current 2 percent target – European nations face unprecedented pressure to restructure spending around wartime priorities while maintaining peacetime governance commitments. This transformation becomes even more pressing given intelligence warnings that Russian forces could be prepared to attack a NATO country within five years.

The article highlights how modern warfare has fundamentally changed, with 80 percent of targets in Ukraine now destroyed by drones, requiring radical innovation every two months. This technological revolution demands not just increased spending, but a complete reimagining of European defence capabilities, moving away from Cold War-era heavy armour.

Industry's perspective

The article features significant contributions from Jan Pie, Secretary General of ASD, who provides insights into the industrial challenges hampering Europe's defence transformation. Jan Pie's observations highlight the disconnect between political rhetoric about urgency and the practical realities facing the defence industry. His observation that "the political machinery is slow" and "it's difficult to scale up" reveals a fundamental bottleneck in Europe's defence preparedness efforts.
Jan Pie's specific examples demonstrate the challenges of current bureaucratic processes, noting that environmental approvals for new weapons factories can take up to five years – a timeline incompatible with the urgent security threats Europe faces. Perhaps most striking is his account of how Nammo, a Norwegian ammunitions manufacturer supplying Ukraine, was unable to expand production in 2023 because a TikTok data centre had already purchased the region's surplus electricity. This anecdote encapsulates how civilian priorities continue to compete with defence needs, despite the acknowledged security crisis.
The article also references insights from Camille Grand, the incoming ASD Secretary General and former Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment at NATO, who emphasises the need for fundamental changes in Europe's defence spending models. Grand's analysis of the fragmentation problem – where 12 European countries operate 17 different versions of the same NH90 helicopter – illustrates the inefficiencies that manufacturers must navigate. His call for "more consolidation to create economies of scale and joint procurement" represents the industry's roadmap for overcoming these structural challenges.

Cohen's reporting exposes the labyrinthine regulatory environment that companies must navigate, whereby German-made components for French-made aircraft require separate export certifications that can delay delivery by months. This bureaucratic maze not only wastes precious time, it also runs counter to the very concept of European defence integration that political leaders claim to champion.
The article reveals how Europe's dependence on American weaponry has actually increased over the past decade, with US suppliers now providing nearly two-thirds of military equipment to European NATO members, up from about half previously. This trend poses risks to European aspirations for strategic autonomy.

The path forward for European defence industry

Despite these challenges, the article argues that Europe has reached a turning point in defence funding commitment. NATO's European members have doubled military spending since 2016, with projections indicating 800 billion to 1 trillion euros will be spent on defence equipment and infrastructure by decade's end. The article quotes McKinsey's Hugues Lavandier: "the budgetary debates and the spending debates are behind us”, and focus now shifts to the critical question of translating funding into actual capabilities.

The insights provided by ASD's leadership in Cohen's article underscore why the association's advocacy role has never been more crucial for European security. As the representative body for 4,000 defence companies across Europe, ASD serves as the essential bridge between political ambitions and industrial realities. The association's members possess the technical knowledge and production capabilities that will determine whether Europe's increased defence spending translates into genuine security enhancement.

Furthermore, in an era where technological innovation cycles every two months and geopolitical threats evolve rapidly, ASD's role in advocating for streamlined regulations, coordinated procurement, and strategic industrial policy becomes not just economically important, but strategically vital for European security and long-term prosperity.