In the era of Trump 2.0, the first question British defence companies are facing when trying to export their weapons abroad is whether they are independent of the US arms industry. Or simply, are they “Itar-free”?
Itar, which stands for the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, refers to a set of longstanding US rules that govern the items on the United States Munitions List, which is aimed at safeguarding national security.
The list contains US-produced software, components and other technology that can be used for either military purposes or serve a dual use. If a weapon is subject to Itar, it cannot be built, sold or supplied to someone else without US consent and support.
One defence industry source said: “Even if you have US engineers, you become Itar-tainted.”
To employ ex-US military employees, UK companies would become subject to Itar restrictions if they have not been granted an exemption.
Although the restrictions are nothing new, a combination of Trump’s tariffs, vague threats to Canada and Denmark and pause on providing military aid and intelligence to Ukraine has left defence companies and governments thinking twice before investing in American components or equipment.
…
Helsing, a European defence tech company, and Auterion, a supplier of drone operating systems with a European headquarters in Munich, also pride themselves on having Itar-free equipment.
Helsing has pursued the policy because it “was founded on the principle of providing sovereign capabilities for a strong Europe”, according to Amelia Gould, the company’s global maritime director.
“Europe has this technology, we don’t need to import everything from the US,” she added.
Brinley Salzmann, the director of overseas and exports for ADS, a defence trade association, said that what was once a preference for Itar-free weapons was quickly becoming a requirement.
He said: “As international collaboration increases and governments seek greater control over their supply chains, the ability to operate without US extraterritorial export restrictions is becoming a strategic consideration.”
…
Or, the demented rapist could have accepted the 50 billion to build missile systems for Ukraine. But he’s a traitor and a puppet.
This is the way!
While I hate that we have to increase the defence spending, at least it’s creating job in Europe, and supporting the European technology sector rather than the money spent abroad. Moreover, I would love to see the European defence industry having enough revenues to afford telling Sunnii-petro-monarchy to fuck off rather than having to sell money to people who bomb civilian and sentence gays to death.
I’m shocked! Well, not that shocked.
But i’m more interested how this plays out US-internally; the MIC is probably not too pleased with losing sales because US-produced gear is not trustworthy anymore, and the Trump presidency is not even 10% done yet. The MIC is also the largest employer in the US with around 3 million employees in the Department of Defense alone, not calculating anyone in the private sector. That can’t be good for the current admin.
The elephant in the room is China.
If the USA and to an extend the entire West wants to keep their hegemonial power, China has to be contained.
Is there a more elegant way for the MIC to motivate Europe to create more weapon manufacturing capacities?
The MIC won’t object as long as the parts are also not sourced in China.
Is there a more elegant way for the MIC to motivate Europe to create more weapon manufacturing capacities?
These sorts of deals leave out US industrial complex. So they are not interessted. The US military is interessted in cheap weapons as well and scale lowers prices. The MIC wants high European defense spending on US weapons.
If the USA and to an extend the entire West wants to keep their hegemonial power, China has to be contained.
That requires the West to be somewhat united. The way the US deals with Ukraine right now, that is questioned by Europe. The trade war the US started with China, would be a lot easier, if Western “allies” like Europe, Japan and South Korea would help the US by also raising tariffs. However the US actually added tariffs on those “allies”. It is clearly not US strategy.
The US wants Europe to spend more money on US made weapons.
These sorts of deals leave out US industrial complex. So they are not interessted.
But the military, the M in MIC, is. The military needs to increase capacity and the easiest way is to make Europe produce their own weapons. They still can’t build F35 and other things, so the I can still make enough money.
The trade war the US started with China, would be a lot easier
The USA decouples. There is no intention for an agreement.
The US wants Europe to spend more money on US made weapons.
That’s what they say but it can’t be the highest priority if they want to have the highest possible production capacities for a war.
They still can’t build F35 and other things, so the I can still make enough money.
Not if the EU buys Griffons from Sweden. In that case the US I makes very little on that deal. The amount made stands to go down if the EU starts building their own jet engines (which they already build some), and computers. Sure today they are still making some money, but not near as much as if they sold the entire F35, and long therm the amount made stands to go down.
The elephant in the room is China.
The MIC won’t object as long as the parts are also not sourced in China.
Now that’s an easy one: it’s either Usa or China for many topics.
Currently Usa pulls themselves out of nearly anything you can think about. So what would China do? Celebrate days and nights of course.
way to motivate Europe
They need no more “motivation” LOL
If the choice is between USA and China, does Europe choose China? If there is a US Chinese war, is Europe fighting on China’s side?
Europe is gonna delay choosing for as long as they can because both are useful partners for very different things. I can’t imagine the EU would be on China’s side as long as Xi/the communist party is in charge, but I also don’t see them siding with the current US government. Not by a long shot. If current US and Chinese powers go to war they are gonna be trying to wait it out and defend themselves against any threat from any side. The US lost their allies, that is clear as day.
If you read again, you will find that I have not said any such thing.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. If it is either USA or China, and the USA is retreating and China is celebrating, what else do you mean?
The mic in the us objects as they are cut out of any deal.
The MIC is the military and the industry. If the M needs the increased capacity in Europe, the I has to accept.
the MIC is not a single entity. The I part in the US is very big, but they are locked out of the deals in Europe. Thus the MIC in the US objects to this because it hurts them. Things they used to make a ton of money on in the US are things they are not making any money on at all.
As far as I know, the I is only locked out of the additional money that the EU is going to spend. All the regular 2% military spending is free to go to the I.
There is legal lock out, and there is practical lock out. EU countries are going to be looking for other options for the 2% as well. Much of that 2% already doesn’t go to the US - there is paying soldiers. There are several different EU tank manufactures and other equipment. The EU is looking how they can bring some what is going to the US away even if it means worse equipment (that is buying 4th generation EU fighters instead of the 5th generation F35)
… and then they haven’t even started about kill switches.
Kill switches are almost entirely a misconception, as far as I understand it. What’s far more dangerous with US defence products is reliance on them for spare parts, repairs and upgrades. Piss off the US in some way, your very very expensive aircraft no longer gets spare parts, plane can’t fly safely, it’s functionally useless.
Not having essential parts basically works like a kill switch, so we’re screwed either way. If EU governments do similar purchases now they would be real stupid.
