Since the beginning of Ukraine-Russia conflict, EU governments significantly increased military spending, but most arms deals often favor US defence contractors to the detriment of European companies – Politico reports.
The question arises as to why the US FMS is so attractive to submitters and why it has so few disadvantages. The FMS scheme allows governments to buy directly from Washington, bypassing defence companies, and can speed up the delivery of equipment by using US Department of Defence stockpiles.
For instance, in October, the US government announced plans to sell more than $1.5 billion worth of missiles to European countries through the FMS scheme. Earlier this month, the US Department of Defence also approved a $2.5 billion sale of M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks to Romania.
The European Commission is considering copying the US foreign military sales scheme to facilitate arms exports.
Should an EU equivalent of the US FMS-scheme be considered, building on government-to-government schemes, to support procurement from the [European Defence Technological and Industrial Base] by EU member states and support to partners, including Ukraine?
First, in early 2024, Thierry Breton, Commissioner for the Internal Market, is expected to present a European Defence Industrial Strategy that will help support the continent’s European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB).
However, the creation of an EU FMS is still at a very preliminary stage and may never see the light of day as its outcome will depend on member states, as the overlap of competences between Brussels and member states, which mainly deal with defence issues, may cause difficulties.
However, the mood towards this issue should be positive: “I’m fighting for [European countries] to buy European,” Breton told Le Figaro this week.
Moreover, some measures have already been taken: on Tuesday, executives from Airbus and Saab urged European governments to depend less on US weapons during a POLITICO event.
The Commission points to long and complex procurement processes as a key disadvantage for the Europeans:
Comparatively, using a one-stop shop offering quick solutions for procuring off-the-shelf equipment is deemed much simpler than launching a parallel procurement process within the EU.
The US FMS system is convenient because it allows governments not only to build strategic relationships with the US, but also to receive a portion of the equipment purchased more quickly.
And as European countries seek to rearm in the wake of Ukraine-Russia conflict, speed is critical, and rapid delivery gives US arms companies a significant competitive advantage over their European rivals.
