As the crisis of Russian invasion of Europe escalates, NATO command visits Korea with a ‘love call’

The European defense industry is unable to recover due to high costs and low quality… Korea’s ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ Opportunity

The defense industry is literally an industry that develops and produces military materials for national defense. The most advanced technology leading the times is applied, and a lot of money is spent to build industrial infrastructure. With a few exceptions, it differs from other industries in many ways, including that buyers are limited to the governments of each country.

In countries that are currently at war or have a high possibility of war breaking out, the defense industry revolves around the ‘user’, that is, the military. The requirements of front-line soldiers are most often reflected in the development and purchase of weapons systems. The urgency of wartime takes precedence, and corporate interests are sometimes infringed. On the other hand, the opposite situation occurs in countries where there is little possibility of war and who have been at war for a long time. This means that the defense industry operates for corporate profits and job creation. In particular, when industry workers and politicians who feed off their votes collude to form an interest cartel, the defense industry falls into a vicious cycle of losing customers. Just like Europe right now.

As the war that began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has passed two years, Europe is facing the most serious security crisis since the collapse of the Cold War. Direct deployment of troops to Ukraine is being openly discussed in some European countries. Russia reacted against this and warned of the possibility of nuclear war and world war. Since November of last year, there have been voices of concern about a possible Russian invasion from high-ranking government, intelligence, and military figures in European countries. In January of this year, German media reported that “the German Bundeswehr is preparing for an attack on Putin.” It is said that the German military is preparing countermeasures according to the scenario that Russia will invade Europe as early as 2024. Poland’s foreign and defense ministers warned that “there is a high possibility that Russia will invade Europe within 10 years.” The Belgian Army Chief of Staff, the Dutch Chief of Defense Staff, the Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, the Swedish Minister of Civil Defense, and the Prime Minister of Estonia announced in public that a Russian invasion of Europe would occur within 3 to 5 years at the earliest, and within 10 years at the latest.

People who are not familiar with the situation in Europe and Russia often ask, “Is there any reason for Russia to invade Europe?” If we look at the past 1,000 years of history, we can see that Russia has always pursued westward expansion into Europe, and its success was directly related to the rise and fall of the country. Russia has its roots in the country ‘Rus’, which existed in the western part of present-day Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. When the Rus State existed, as well as when it was divided into several principalities, it suffered from frequent outcry. This is because most of the territory is the Great Plains, so there are no huge rivers or rugged mountain ranges to act as natural obstacles, making defense difficult. To the east, the Ural Mountains and the Central Asian Desert, which have a harsh natural environment, act as a barrier, and to the south there is a natural moat called the Black Sea. The problem was the Great Plains region connected to Europe, which was full of powerful enemies.

The area extending from Germany to Poland, the Baltic countries, and Belarus is a wide plain. There are no significant rivers or mountain ranges that can stop the advance of a large army. For this reason, the political communities established by the medieval Rus were frequently threatened by the Teutonic Knights, Poland, and Hungary. During the Napoleonic Wars, the French army marched from present-day Germany and covered Moscow, a distance of over 1,500 km in a straight line, in three months. During World War II, 1 million Nazi German troops crossed the 1,000 km distance from Poland to Moscow in three months, overwhelming the 2 million Soviet troops at the beginning of the war. This is why Russia has made it a key security goal to secure a buffer zone in the current Belarus-Poland-Baltic countries to prevent invasions by European countries from the Middle Ages to modern times.

The US missile interception system ‘Aegis Ashore’ deployed in Romania. [미 국방부 제공]

If securing a land buffer zone was for the survival of the Russian nation, opening a route to the sea was for prosperity. Ports and sea routes were needed for trade, which was the basis of national prosperity. To this end, Peter the Great transformed St. Petersburg, a barren land on the Baltic Sea coast, into a huge port city and transferred the capital. In order to secure floating ports, Russia moved south to the Black Sea area and expanded its territory to the Far East by implementing an oriental policy.

In this historical context, Russia is sensitive to NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) advance. In 2015, the United States installed Aegis Ashore facilities in northern Poland and southern Romania under the pretext of protecting Europe from Iranian ballistic missiles. Aegis Ashore, which was installed on land by removing the ballistic missile defense function of the Aegis ship, poses a fatal threat to Russia. This is because if it is equipped with the latest interceptor missile, it will be able to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles launched by Russia from west of Moscow. In times of emergency, when fighting while wielding the spear of nuclear missiles, the United States has a shield while Russia does not, leading to a serious strategic imbalance. When Russia deployed a large number of Iskander missiles to counter Aegis Ashore, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed under the former Soviet Union and strengthened the armament of Finland and the Baltic countries. Preparations have begun to blockade St. Petersburg, Russia’s largest trading port, in case of emergency. Additionally, the United States has dispatched a military advisory group to Ukraine and has begun work to attract it to the anti-Russian front. In this situation, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

In fact, when the United States began putting pressure on Russia by establishing Aegis Ashore, Europe should have started rearming. This is why former U.S. President Donald Trump even argued with the leaders of France and Germany, demanding an increase in the defense budget and rearmament. Former President Trump’s demand at the time was to restore conventional military capabilities by increasing defense spending to 2% of gross domestic product (GDP). However, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the time had no intention of acceding to the US demands. The defense policies of these countries were being established for the defense industry interest cartel, not for national security. If the security policy and defense industry policy were changed to suit the original purpose of ‘defense’, it was obvious that the defense industry interest cartel would protest.

The extent to which European defense policy is swayed by a cartel of interests can be seen by looking at the German case. The German defense industry mass-produced standard Western world weapon systems during the Cold War thanks to its excellent performance, reasonable prices, and excellent productivity. However, over the past 30 years, the German defense industry has fallen into disrepair. In order to create corporate profits and jobs, the speed of weapons system production has slowed, causing costs to skyrocket. The performance of the finished product also deteriorated.

European-made weapons are often planned, designed, manufactured, and delivered primarily to producers rather than users. It is useless for military authorities to clamor for quick delivery at a reasonable price to replace old equipment. This is because the defense industry, which uses its strong lobbying capabilities and the votes of union members to control the political world, does not even seem to listen. Once European defense companies decide on a weapons acquisition project, they spread the work across as many factories as possible to increase the work period and cost. This is why the Korean K2NO tank, which was ahead in all aspects including performance, delivery date, price, and trade-off, was defeated by the German Leopard 2A7NO in the Norwegian tank introduction project early last year.

At the time, Hyundai Rotem proposed that it could deliver the first 24 units within six months of signing the K2 contract at a lower price than competing models and supply all 72 units by the first half of 2025. On the other hand, the German defense company won the order battle even though it announced that delivery of the initial quantity would be possible only in 2027. There is a strong analysis that this is the result of all-out lobbying in Norwegian politics. The decision was not overturned even though the Norwegian military leadership raised the issue with the Minister of Defense. Even though the German defense company notified that it would deliver a different model from the one originally proposed due to improved performance. Most European arms procurement processes are like this.

German Leopard 2A7 tank. [KMW 제공]

This is not the only problem with European weapons. In the case of the German-made Eurofighter Typhoon, although it is a 4.5-generation fighter, the purchase price and maintenance costs are more expensive than the American F-35, a 5th-generation stealth aircraft. The shocking fact was even revealed that only 8 of the 109 aircraft owned by the German Air Force were in operation. When the Korean K2 tank was embroiled in a ‘high price controversy’ with a price of 10 billion won per unit, the price of the German Leopard 2A7 tank was 40 billion won per unit. Because the price of armored vehicles was so high, the German military ordered them without the secondary armament, machine guns, painted brooms black, and placed them on racks.

Europe is now in a situation similar to wartime rather than peacetime. Military authorities and intelligence agencies in various European countries are calling for the procurement of large quantities of weapons in preparation for a possible invasion by Russia. Nevertheless, the European defense industry, which operates for producers rather than users, appears to have no intention of giving up its interests. Korea should pay attention to this very point. This is because the moral hazard prevalent throughout the European defense industry could actually be an opportunity for Korea.

Recently, NATO officials have been visiting Korea one after another. U.S. Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli visited Korea for the first time as a NATO alliance operations commander and met with Minister of National Defense Shin Won-sik and National Security Office Director Jang Ho-jin on February 29 to discuss cooperation measures. In the same month, a NATO policy planning officer visited Korea to discuss the issue of military supply procurement in Korea. Considering the situation of the European defense industry, it appears that they requested help from Korea based on the judgment that it would be difficult to procure large quantities of weapons on their own. Considering the nature of the defense industry, it is impossible to set up a production line and produce finished products in large quantities in a short period of time. Before the security situation in Europe worsens further, Korea must also reorganize its weapons and ammunition production lines and prepare to supply large quantities of weapons. If Korea responds to the requests of allies and friends and becomes an ‘arsenal of democracy,’ not only will its status in the international community rise, but it can also expect enormous economic benefits.

Christopher Cavoli, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Allied Operations Commander (right), meets with Minister Shin Won-sik and takes a commemorative photo at the Ministry of National Defense in Yongsan-gu, Seoul on February 29. [뉴시스]

Source: Donga

Mark

Mark Jones is a world traveler and journalist for News Rebeat. With a curious mind and a love of adventure, Mark brings a unique perspective to the latest global events and provides in-depth and thought-provoking coverage of the world at large.