War by other means
Let's face it - Europe is under siege. And while the economic and ideological attacks are perhaps more important, these are topics for other blog post. This weekend's text is all about the physical threat to Europe. More specifically, I want to focus on the techno-economic aspect of the current cold war with Russia.
Into the war room
First of all, let's establish the context.
- Both sides face only lose-lose options. If Europe cuts Russia off, energy will be more expensive; if Russia loses access to European customers, it loses a large market for its gas. Prolonging the conflict hurts both sides.
- Right now the conflict is best described as cold — or perhaps "lukewarm." The one active battlefield is outside the EU (Ukraine), while Europe faces multiple probing or sabotage actions (suspicious drones, undersea cable damage, election interference).
- In theory things could escalate, but that seems unlikely soon: both sides lack the necessary resources — and possibly the will — to raise the stakes quickly.
- The core issue is Ukraine’s political future. Russia wants a pro-Russian government to secure borders and influence resources; Europe (and NATO) wants to preserve the status quo and avoid territorial changes by force; Ukraine wants independence plus security guarantees to rebuild.
The calculus of war
What a mess we've got ourselves into! There is clearly a lot of uncertainty: each side wants different things and is willing to take risks to get them. More and more this is shaping up to be a marathon. The side that can best use their resources in the long term, will prevail.
Let's use the new "drone wall" campaign as an example to understand how resource management influences this conflict. Russia has sent rogue drones (and in some cases fighter jets) into several European countries — partly to provoke a reaction and test whether NATO and EU allies will honor collective defence commitments. The natural instinct is to use our fabled technological superiority - shoot down all drones that enter European airspace!
However, shooting out a drone is usually expensive. For one, you first need to sense and locate the drone. That requires acoustic sensors, radar coverage and a complex management system to collect and fuse those data. Then you need to actually fire a rocket or another means to dispatch the drone, like jamming, laser or even nets. All of this can become very costly when long borders must be covered.
On the other hand, a drone is cheap to mass produce. That means that if the "drone wall" initiative is to be successful, it needs to offer a cost effective solution to counter Russian aggression.
What winning looks like
A war is never clear and glorious. Europe has superior technology, more people and a better economy. But winning is not a simple comparison at a flash point. Superior technology alone is not going to cut it. Instead victory requires strategic thinking and grit. The side best prepared to sustain costs and make hard choices over time will have the strategic advantage. But true victory should also be doing this on our own terms and without losing our liberties.
So here is my question to you: How should Europe pay for resilience without inviting escalation?
Comments
Post a Comment