Link: https://youtu.be/mTdn_SGV-Jc
Source: Excerpts from "Arno Wellens: Oorlogseconomie Komt Sneller Dan Je Denkt – Bescherm Jezelf Nu!"
I. The Concept of a War Economy and its Costs
Arno Wellens defines a "war economy" not as a means to profit, but as a system where increased military spending invariably comes at the expense of other societal goods and services. He explicitly states, "er valt niets te verdienen met oorlog" (there is nothing to earn with war).
- Trade-offs and Opportunity Costs: Wellens refers to the "indifference curve" to explain that any increase in military production necessitates a decrease in other areas (e.g., medicine, hospitals). He contrasts historical examples:
- Nazi Germany: Increased nominal output by having citizens work in factories at night, but at the cost of leisure time and freedom.
- Soviet Union: Directly sacrificed the production of civilian goods to make weapons.
- United States (WWII): While making a similar switch, also profited by selling weapons.
- Defense as a Pure Cost: Wellens argues that all investment in defense is a "100% kostenpost" (100% cost item). Unlike other budget items that might have long-term positive side effects, military expenditures have "plussen per definitie nul" (pluses that are by definition zero). He cites the example of a missile: "als je zo'n raket afschiet is die weg hè...komt niks terug" (if you fire such a missile, it's gone... nothing comes back).
- The Broken Window Fallacy: The idea that war stimulates the economy through reconstruction is a fallacy. While it creates the need for new spending, it first involves immense "verlies pijn ellende economische schade generationeel trauma" (loss, pain, misery, economic damage, generational trauma).
- Funding Challenges: Wellens highlights that increased defense spending, especially if financed by budget deficits, will inevitably lead central banks to drastically lower interest rates, resulting in inflation. This means higher taxes, cuts in education or healthcare, or increased national debt.
II. The Current European Context: Incoherence and External Influence
Wellens heavily criticizes European political leadership for dismantling their own defense capabilities and then being forced to buy weapons from the US.
- Dismantling European Defense:Underinvestment: European countries, including the Netherlands, have historically underspent on defense, falling below the 2% NATO target. This was driven by a "vredesdividend" (peace dividend) mentality after the Cold War and ideological opposition to investing in the arms industry.
- Boycotting the Arms Industry: Wellens notes how trade unions and progressive parties successfully pressured pension funds and banks to divest from the arms industry. This starved European defense companies of capital, preventing them from building factories and maintaining production capacity. He mentions the FNV's opposition to pension funds investing in weapons.
- Demographic Challenges: The ability to scale up armies is severely hampered by demographic decline. Wellens points out that finding and training enough personnel (e.g., experienced sergeants) takes decades, not years, and is complicated by the high cost of living and the inability of military salaries to support a family.
- Specific Examples of Neglect:The Netherlands disbanded the 13th Brigade in 2013 under Rutte, who now, as NATO Secretary-General, criticizes countries for low defense spending.
- The UK sold amphibious assault ships to Brazil for "a few million," against the advice of its own military, prioritizing budget cuts over capability.
- France, a major military power, produces only two Rafale jets per month, a figure they are now considering increasing to five, years after the Ukraine invasion began.
