Europe's Defence Plans Clash With Energy Transition Strategy
Europe's security and defense are in a precarious state. The 'Nations First' approach of the new Trump administration is putting the continent's military and security structure at risk. Calls from Brussels (EU and NATO) for increased defense spending across Europe, including the UK, have been met with positive reactions. European nations are now discussing potential investments of $200-300 billion in military hardware and force expansion over the coming years. However, a Black Swan looms on the horizon—one that could undermine all these efforts.
While leading European nations such as Poland, France, Germany, and the UK plan to raise defense budgets to 3-5% of GDP—suggesting money is not the issue—market forces are failing to meet demand. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's call for a war economy, initially met with skepticism, now seems essential, especially as Washington considers reducing its military presence in Europe. The prospect of Europe facing Russia and other adversaries alone, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere, is becoming increasingly real. Yet, politicians remain hesitant to confront the underlying challenges.
Allocating money for military expansion is easy in theory, but the reality is far more complex. As the World Economic Forum recently noted, European economies are fundamentally designed to provide security through social welfare, not military readiness. Transforming them to confront an existential military crisis is an unprecedented challenge. European nations have also become highly dependent on imported military equipment, primarily from the U.S. To change this dynamic, a complete overhaul of the European defense industry and manufacturing sector is needed—alongside a reassessment of Europe's energy security.
For the foreseeable future, defense operations remain heavily reliant on hydrocarbons. Tanks, planes, and ships require vast quantities of oil-based fuels to function. A report by the Dutch Center for International Energy Policy (CIEP), "A Game of Jenga with European Industry" (link), has already warned of the fragile state of Europe's refinery sector and manufacturing base—a crucial factor often overlooked in security debates.
A more pressing issue is the impact of Europe's aggressive energy transition policies on its security and industrial capabilities. The EU Green Deal, the Draghi Report, and the new European Omnibus all push for rapid emissions reductions and the electrification of industry. While these are noble environmental goals, they are currently incompatible with the urgent security needs of Europe. Brussels' relentless push for strict Paris Agreement implementation risks not only crippling key industrial sectors—such as steel, aluminum, and shipbuilding—but also undermining Europe's defense readiness.
Without domestic production of raw materials, components, and hardware, defense procurement becomes an illusion. Europe not only needs to preserve its manufacturing base but expand it to meet the vast defense investments planned for the coming years. Companies like Krups, Tata Steel, Volkswagen, Damen Shipyards, and VDL are essential to bolstering Europe's defense capabilities. Without support, Europe will remain dependent on the U.S., South Korea, Israel, and Turkey to supply its military needs—leaving it vulnerable to geopolitical shifts.
To put this in perspective, total European defense industry revenues have hovered around $200 billion (excluding Turkey) in recent years. That figure will need to grow substantially to absorb the influx of new defense spending. However, without reliable hydrocarbon-based energy and materials, Europe's armies and navies will be left stranded. Refineries and chemical plants must be upgraded, not dismantled.
The world has changed. The Big Bad Wolf is no longer global warming but the military threat at Europe's borders. If European leaders do not reassess their low-carbon agenda, they risk jeopardizing the continent's security. Some of the most extreme green policies may need to be put on hold—because if Europe fails to act, it may soon find itself heating up by other means.
By Cyril Widdershoven for Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.comRead this article on OilPrice.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump-Musk Feud Means for SpaceX and NASA
The U.S. government relies on SpaceX to support NASA and other agencies, and the company has received more $20 billion in federal contracts for it. As Musk and Trump threaten to cut ties, here's what that would mean for the U.S.'s space ambitions.
Business Insider
41 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'
WASHINGTON — June 7, 2025 President Donald Trump is distancing himself from Elon Musk—publicly and materially. According to The Washington Post, Trump has told aides in recent days that he is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla (TSLA) Model S he purchased in March, a gesture that once symbolized his support for Musk. Confident Investing Starts Here: 'I might just get rid of it,' Trump told aides, according to a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The car, still parked near the White House as of this week, has become a visible casualty of the rapidly souring relationship between Trump and Musk. The split followed Musk's harsh criticism of the administration's latest domestic policy bill, which he publicly called a 'disgusting abomination.' That comment triggered a sharp response from the president, both publicly and privately. On Air Force One, when asked by a reporter about Musk's alleged drug use, Trump replied: 'I don't want to comment on his drug use. I don't know what his status is.' 'I read an article in The New York Times. I thought it was, frankly, it sounded very unfair to me.' But privately, Trump has reportedly told associates that Musk is 'crazy' and blamed his behavior on drug use, according to The New York Times. Musk Gave No Public Comment on the Car—But a Hint at Peace? As of Saturday afternoon, Elon Musk has not issued any public statement specifically addressing Trump's decision to unload the Tesla. However, he did respond to a suggestion from investor Bill Ackman on X that the two men should reconcile for the good of the country. 'You're not wrong,' Musk replied—his only recent public comment that could be interpreted as a gesture toward de-escalation. Beyond that, Musk has been active on X in recent days, directing criticisms at others, including Steve Bannon and critics of Tesla, but has avoided commenting directly on Trump's actions regarding the car or federal contracts. Trump Weighs Tesla Breakup The sale—or symbolic disposal—of the Tesla would mark a final, visual severing of a political and personal alliance that once had significant policy weight. Musk had been one of Trump's most prominent business backers, and the March purchase of the Model S was, at the time, framed by aides as a nod of approval to the entrepreneur's role in the administration. Now, according to officials, the car is being referred to inside the West Wing as a political relic. And while no final decision has been made, staff say it's become a quiet but pointed symbol of Trump's intent to distance himself from Musk for good. Trump himself, speaking about Musk during a press gaggle on June 6, said: 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Whether the car is sold, donated, or simply removed from view, it now stands as a monument to one of the most dramatic falling-outs in recent political history. Is Tesla Stock Still a Buy? Meanwhile, Wall Street isn't exactly bullish on Musk's flagship automaker. According to TipRanks, Tesla currently holds a 'Hold' rating based on 37 analyst reviews over the past three months. It's a split camp: 16 analysts rate it a Buy, 10 say Hold, and 11 recommend Sell — a clear reflection of the uncertainty swirling around the company. The market seems just as cautious. The average 12-month price target for TSLA is $284.37, suggesting a 3.7% downside from its current level.
an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
