Table of Contents
Belgium’s Chef de Défense, Frederik Vansina, has issued a stark warning about the escalating geopolitical landscape, emphasizing the urgent need for Belgium to significantly bolster its military capabilities.His comments,made this week,reflect a growing concern among NATO allies about Russia’s increasingly assertive actions.
Vansina pointed to the concerning situation in the Sahel region, stating, “The CEO of the port of Antwerp said it recently striking: we are not in wartime, but we are no longer in peacetime. Russia is a cunning opponent. The Russians brushed the west from the Sahel without unloading a shot at us. Simply via disinformation, intrigues and their Wagner militia. And at the same time they are busy in the far north, the Baltic Sea…”
This assessment underscores a shift in the nature of warfare, with Russia employing unconventional tactics beyond traditional military engagements. The use of disinformation campaigns and private military contractors like the Wagner Group represents a meaningful challenge to Western security.
In response to this evolving threat, Vansina advocates for a rapid increase in the Belgian army’s readiness. He stressed the importance of practical measures, saying, “By supplementing ammunition stocks and purchasing spare parts, we get more out of the equipment we already have.Together with the Crisis center we are also fully working on enablement. If transit is needed from the port of Antwerp, what should happen then? What adjustments are needed on the track, what can which bridge can do? In the Cold War we were very good at that, we have to grow that again.But that’s also a European story. If you want from Antwerp to Lithuania with a few thousand armed men and a thousand vehicles, I wish you good luck with the administration alone. That should be easier.”
This statement highlights the logistical challenges of rapid troop deployment across Europe, emphasizing the need for improved interoperability and streamlined administrative processes within the EU.
Prioritizing Belgian defense
Vansina identified key vulnerabilities in Belgium’s defense posture. He stated, “The back door of Belgium must be closed. If you look at the east, you will see thousands of kilometers far from everything between us and the russians: tanks, fighter aircraft and so on. But if you look north, you only see air and water. We are not defended on that side. We do have our F-16s and soon the F-35, but an attack on the port of Antwerp, or at Euroclear in the center of Brussels, we are not taking care of that now. That is why we urgently need to install anti-aircraft systems to close that door. That is one of the priorities in the coalition agreement and that is also one of the targets that NATO requires from us.”
This underscores the critical need for anti-aircraft defense systems to protect vital infrastructure like the port of Antwerp and financial institutions such as Euroclear.
While the Belgian coalition agreement aims to increase defense spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2029, Vansina believes this timeline is insufficient. He argued, “Going to 2 percent in 2029 is much too late. The purchases for anti-aircraft weather, this reign must succeed. By then we may not yet have a system that covers all risks, but the frist steps must be taken, so that the back door is only on a small crack.”
The Question of european vs.American Systems
The choice between European and American defense systems is a complex issue. Vansina acknowledged the preference for European solutions but emphasized the urgency of the situation: “Time is a significant factor. Of course we want to buy European. If a European F-35 had existed, the Michel government would have bought it. But there was nothing that came operational near that plane. Now a new European fighter plane is being worked on, the SCF. But the French and the Germans stand opposite each other with pulled knives. Moreover,there is already British-Italian-Japanese competition. So we never learn, in Europe. National interests push the European time and time aside. We can no longer afford that.”
He further stated,“With everything that was said and done this week,the alarm clock went off. Teeth must be added. And preferably for European industry. But if it can only deliver anti-aircraft in ten years, while the Americans may be able to do it in two years, the Israelis in a year and who knows, the South koreans within six months, yes, that will play a role. We must now make our defense as strong as possible as quickly as possible. If that means that we have to purchase south Korean ammunition, then we have to do that, regrettably.”
This highlights the tension between prioritizing European collaboration and the need for rapid procurement to address immediate security threats.
Shifting Roles and Responsibilities within NATO
Vansina discussed the changing dynamics within NATO, noting a shift in the american role: “The Americans will not let go of the NATO partners for the time being, says Vansina, “but they do play a different role. We must now solve it in the first line. They stay behind it and offer their nuclear protection. The tone surprises, but they have been giving that message for years.”
This suggests a greater emphasis on European leadership in addressing immediate security challenges, with the US providing strategic support and nuclear deterrence.
The loss of American intelligence support is also a concern: “Intelligence in the first place. But also the large command structures. The operation against IS, which was led by the Americans from their Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC). Can we do that too? Yes. The British have smaller CAOCs, so do the French. But we will have to expand that. The Americans are waiting for a signal. I saw my British counterpart yesterday and he said that in so many words. Prime Minister Keir Starmer will go to the Americans with the message next week: We got it.We are going to do the necessary.”
This points to the need for European nations to develop their own intelligence capabilities and command structures to fill the void left by a potential reduction in US involvement.
The Future of European Cooperation and the Ukrainian Conflict
Vansina expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a large-scale European military presence in Ukraine: “Gosh, I think that’s premature. There is no peace yet and the Russians have already said that it is indeed unthinkable that NATO countries are being used there. You do not want to end up in a situation that you are attacked by the Russians there as a European force, after which the Americans say, “we said we would not intervene.” but we will first have to see how that peace can get,and whether Ukraine agrees. Only then can you continue. But you feel that different countries want to cooperate. At that moment you may also be able to make agreements with the Americans about the use of certain infrastructure. But we are not there yet. The Russians feel strong, why would they stop now?”
He also highlighted the brutal nature of Russian warfare and the potential for further aggression: “That is possible. Intelligence of the British point to 800,000 Russian victims! Which country can do that? They lose 1,000 men a day: dead, seriously injured or fooled. And they can supplement that. We recruit 2,500 soldiers per year! The techniques of the Russians have not changed as the Second World War. In the west we work with a large handbook, Law and armed conflicts. We eliminate the goals that we have to switch off, but in a controlled way.With the Russians it is indeed complete destruction and then again to be sure. And they now also have an army that is hardened in the fight. Moreover, Putin wants that to grow to one and a half million people and his economy is a complete war economy. Moreover, he still dreams of a Groot-Russia. What will he do with that army, do you think?”
This underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for a robust and coordinated response from European nations.
Vansina’s statements serve as a wake-up call, urging Belgium and its European allies to act decisively to strengthen their defenses and adapt to the evolving nature of geopolitical threats.
Are European Nations Ready for Russia’s Cunning Geopolitical Moves?
In a recent analysis of Belgium’s defense strategies in response to Russia’s geopolitical maneuvers, extensive focus has been placed on the urgency and necessity for Europe to bolster its military power. As Frederik vansina, Belgium’s Chef de Défense, emphasizes, the time for incremental changes has passed, and Europe must react swiftly to the new norms of warfare.
Senior Editor, World Today News (WTN): Russian geopolitical tactics have evolved beyond conventional military engagements. How is Belgium preparing to counter these unconventional threats?
Defense Expert:
belgium, helmed by Defense leaders like Frederik Vansina, is acutely aware that Russia’s tactics often involve disinformation, economic bravado, and the strategic use of private military contractors like the Wagner Group. These methods are potent precisely because they operate outside traditional battle lines, creating challenges in identifying and counteracting threats effectively.
To counteract this, Belgium is focusing on enhancing its military readiness. Actions are being taken to supplement existing ammunition reserves and maintain equipment through timely acquisitions of parts. Vansina’s approach suggests a revival of strategic planning similar to that of the Cold War era—where response readiness was paramount. moreover, the readiness to deploy troops across Europe is being improved by streamlining logistics and addressing interoperability issues. Efficient administration will play a critical role, given the complexity of moving military assets swiftly.
WTN: Logistical challenges often fall behind the spotlight in defense strategies.Can you elaborate on the specific logistical hurdles Belgium is looking to overcome?
Defense Expert:
Logistical challenges represent a important hurdle in deploying military forces quickly. As an example, Belgium’s ambition to move forces from Antwerp to Lithuanian borders underscores the complexity involved. An integrated approach is needed for infrastructure adjustments, like track modifications and bridge capacities. As Vansina notes,these logistics aren’t solely Belgium’s concern but a broader European issue.
Europe must not onyl deploy forces but also ensure that supply lines, dialog channels, and decision-making processes are seamless across differing national jurisdictions. This facet requires cooperative planning and a shared commitment to enhancing Europe’s military mobilization logistics. Building a robust logistical framework will be paramount to effectively counter any immediate threats and ensure rapid response capabilities.
WTN: There’s an ongoing debate on whether European or American defense systems are more effective for nations like Belgium. Could you provide an expert perspective on this dilemma?
defense Expert:
The debate is indeed a complex one and reflects deeper questions about European autonomy versus dependency on American technology. Vansina acknowledges a preference for European solutions, signaling a push for self-reliant defense capabilities. However, the reality is that European defense projects often grapple with nationalistic divides and competition, risking delays.
While European collaboration remains an ideal for boosting indigenous defense industries, the urgency of the current threat landscape could necessitate compromises. American systems, with their rapid deployment capabilities, might offer short-term solutions.Long-term stability, though, will likely hinge on Europe’s ability to develop its own advanced military technologies, reducing over-reliance on external powers.
WTN: With NATO dynamics changing, particularly with a shift in American roles, how might this affect the future of European defense cooperation?
Defense expert:
NATO’s recent dynamics reflect a shift where Europe may take on a more pronounced leadership role in its own defense, with the U.S. providing nuclear deterrence and strategic oversight.The ripple effect sees European nations needing to enhance their intelligence capabilities and command structures.
British and French experience with command centers like the combined Air operations Center (CAOC) offers a template that European nations can emulate and expand. This is an opportune moment for Europe to consolidate its defense mechanisms and strengthen intra-European collaboration, underscoring vansina’s call to ‘grow our capacities again’.
WTN: Looking ahead, what are the key takeaways for European nations in strengthening their defense amidst geopolitical tensions?
Defense Expert:
- Prioritize Interoperability and Logistics: Seamlessly aligning logistical systems across Europe is crucial for rapid military deployments and responsive defense strategies.
- Balance Autonomy and Urgency: While European solutions are preferred for fostering regional industries, nuances exist where short-term reliance on American systems might be strategic.
- Strengthen internal Capabilities: Developing internal intelligence and command frameworks will be essential, particularly as the U.S. revisits its role in NATO.
- engage in Cooperative Planning: A collaborative European approach, free from nationalist competition, is vital for unified defense policies.
Europe must confront these evolving challenges strategically by building resilient and flexible defense mechanisms. The urgency cannot be overstated; with russia’s assertive geopolitical activities,Europe must marshal its defenses to ensure security and stability.
We invite readers to reflect on Belgium’s wake-up call and the broader European defense landscape. What are your thoughts on how Europe shoudl adapt to evolving geopolitical threats? Do share your perspective in the comments below or on our social media platforms. Your insights are invaluable as we navigate this complex global situation together.