Repurposing Industry for Military Production: A Path to Economic and Strategic Resilience in Europe

The world today is defined by uncertainty, heightened global tensions, and a shifting balance of power. Europe faces growing security threats from multiple fronts, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, increasing tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and economic competition from China and other low-cost manufacturing nations. These challenges have highlighted the necessity for Europe to bolster both its economic resilience and military self-sufficiency. At the same time, Europe is struggling with a severe mismatch between demand and supply in its defense sector. The continent’s military stockpiles have been significantly depleted due to ongoing conflicts and military support commitments, yet production of ammunition and equipment has failed to keep pace. This situation not only threatens Europe’s defense readiness but also exposes vulnerabilities in its industrial and economic landscape. However, this crisis presents an opportunity. Struggling industrial firms, e.g. in the autmobile indsutry - many of which are failing to compete globally - can reinvent themselves by shifting towards military and defense production.[1] In doing so, Europe can simultaneously revitalize its industries, create new jobs, and ensure a more secure and independent defense sector.

Historical Precedents of Industrial Repurposing

The idea of repurposing civilian industries for military production is not new. Throughout history, major companies have successfully pivoted toward defense manufacturing during times of war and crisis, demonstrating the adaptability of industrial economies. During World War II, American automotive giants such as General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler repurposed their factories to produce tanks, aircraft engines, and munitions. Ford’s Willow Run plant famously manufactured entire B-24 Liberator bombers, while Chrysler adapted its production lines to build Sherman tanks. Boeing shifted from commercial aviation to mass-producing military aircraft, while IBM provided vital logistical support through its computing machines. Similarly, Japanese companies such as Sony and Panasonic played a key role in military electronics and surveillance technology during the Cold War.

These historical examples prove that industries can be rapidly reoriented toward military production, given the right incentives and government coordination. More importantly, they show that such shifts do not just serve immediate wartime needs but often result in long-term industrial and technological advancements. The same potential exists in Europe today, where struggling manufacturers can use the demand for military equipment as a lifeline to regain competitiveness and drive economic recovery.

The Opportunity for European Industry

Europe’s manufacturing sector has been struggling to compete with economies that benefit from cheaper labor and production costs, particularly China. Many traditional industries - especially those in heavy manufacturing, steel, and automobile production - are either closing down or surviving only through government subsidies. However, rather than waiting for inevitable economic decline, these industries can seize the opportunity to pivot toward military production, which is both in high demand and essential for European security.

A transition of this kind would have multiple benefits. First, it would allow struggling companies to recover financially by securing long-term defense contracts, ensuring business continuity, and preserving thousands of jobs. Unlike consumer goods industries, military procurement operates on long-term government contracts, providing a stable source of revenue and investment.

Second, producing military equipment domestically would significantly enhance Europe’s strategic independence. In recent years, Europe has become highly dependent on external suppliers for critical defense equipment, particularly from the United States. While transatlantic cooperation remains important, reliance on external actors leaves European nations vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, political restrictions, or shifts in foreign policy. By strengthening its own industrial base for defense production, Europe can reduce dependency on foreign powers and take control of its own security needs. Domestic production of weapons, ammunition, and defense technologies would ensure that European militaries can procure essential supplies without bureaucratic delays, export restrictions, or geopolitical uncertainties.

Third, this shift would allow Europe to stockpile military equipment more efficiently, ensuring that in times of crisis, resources are readily available without bureaucratic delays or supply chain disruptions. Currently, Europe relies heavily on American military support, but in a scenario where the United States prioritizes its own interests - such as in the Indo-Pacific - Europe could find itself struggling to secure necessary defense materials. Increasing domestic production of ammunition, vehicles, drones, and electronic warfare systems would provide European nations with the ability to respond independently to crises.

With NATO members aiming to meet the 3% GDP defense spending target, having a robust domestic production base would make it easier to fulfill these commitments. Increased European military production would also allow the European Union to play a greater role in global security initiatives, reducing reliance on outside powers while reinforcing its own defense posture. The ability to produce and control its own military equipment would not only benefit Europe’s security but also bolster its geopolitical influence.

Beyond immediate security concerns, an investment in military production would have broader industrial benefits. Defense industries are often at the forefront of technological innovation, driving advancements in fields such as robotics, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and aerospace engineering. A thriving European defense sector would contribute to broader technological development, creating spillover benefits for civilian industries as well.

By repurposing struggling industries toward military production, Europe would not only revitalize its own economy but also ensure greater autonomy in security and defense matters. This shift represents an essential step toward securing Europe’s long-term geopolitical and economic future, making it a more resilient and independent actor on the world stage.

Implementation and Strategic Considerations

Shifting industries toward military production requires a well-coordinated approach between governments, private sector firms, and defense contractors. European governments must create incentives, such as tax breaks, direct investment, and fast-track regulatory approvals, to facilitate this transformation. Collaboration between traditional manufacturers and established defense firms can also accelerate technological adaptation, allowing companies to integrate military-grade standards into their existing production capabilities.

Certain industries are particularly well-suited for repurposing. The automotive sector, for example, has extensive experience in high-volume manufacturing and could pivot toward producing armored vehicles, logistics support trucks, and drone systems. Steel manufacturers, struggling due to declining demand in traditional markets, could shift toward producing high-strength materials for tanks, ships, and infrastructure. Electronics firms, facing global competition in consumer markets, could instead focus on developing critical military communications, surveillance, and cybersecurity solutions.

Long-Term Strategic Benefits for Europe

Beyond short-term economic recovery, investing in military production would have significant long-term strategic advantages. By increasing domestic defense production, Europe would reduce its dependency on external suppliers, strengthening its geopolitical standing and resilience against external pressures. This would also drive innovation in high-tech military and aerospace industries, leading to broader advancements in engineering, materials science, and automation. A strong domestic defense industry would not only create jobs but also position Europe as a key player in global defense markets, allowing it to export military technology rather than relying solely on imports.

Moreover, a Europe with strong industrial and defense capabilities would be better positioned to respond to crises. Unlike in previous decades, when European nations often depended on the United States for military equipment and logistical support, an independent defense industry would provide a more self-sufficient and agile response to emerging threats. This would also give European governments greater leverage in geopolitical negotiations, reinforcing Europe’s position as a global leader in security and defense.

Conclusion

Europe’s current geopolitical and economic challenges demand bold action. While military stockpiles are running low and industrial firms struggle to compete globally, repurposing industries for military production presents a strategic opportunity. History has shown that companies can rapidly adapt to defense manufacturing, as seen in World War II and the Cold War. Today, struggling European industries can follow a similar path, ensuring economic revitalization, increased military self-sufficiency, and enhanced geopolitical resilience. With proper coordination between governments and private industry, this transformation can provide Europe with both the economic stability it desperately needs and the defense capabilities required to navigate an increasingly uncertain world.

The Future of Ukraine and a Peace Deal

A meeting between two former television personalities might sound like the premise of a late-night comedy skit, but what unfolded at the White House was far from amusing. Instead, it felt like a scene ripped from Black Mirror or an ill-conceived sequel to Scary Movie - a bizarre fusion of political theater and public humiliation, where spectacle drowned out substance. The meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump was not a diplomatic exchange but a calculated display of power dynamics, designed more to ridicule than to resolve. When global leaders reduce discussions of war and security to superficial mockery - fixating on socks and language skills rather than strategy - it exposes just how far international diplomacy has deteriorated. In the face of an ongoing war, a well-tailored suit is the least of a leader’s concerns, yet this meeting was little more than a carefully staged performance, utterly devoid of any meaningful engagement on how to achieve peace.

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance’s approach to Ukraine has taken a dangerous turn, treating Ukrainian lives as political bargaining chips. Their behavior - belittling a wartime leader and misrepresenting expressions of gratitude - resembled schoolyard bullying rather than serious diplomacy. This is not about alliances, democracy, or even pragmatism; it is about a power play designed to demean and control. The idea that Ukraine should “show more gratitude” is nothing more than a distraction tactic, one that shifts the focus away from the pressing question: How do we secure peace?

While Washington falters, where is Europe? French President Emmanuel Macron stepped up, correcting Trump and ensuring that Europe’s voice was heard. But words alone are not enough - Europe must act, and it must act now. The moment for deliberation has passed; it is time for direct engagement. Several European nations, led by France and the United Kingdom, are already exploring the possibility of deploying peacekeeping forces to Ukraine. However, EU capitals must move beyond discussions and make tangible commitments. Bureaucracy should not stand in the way of decisive action. If direct troop deployment proves politically or logistically challenging, an alternative solution must be found.

One possibility is the creation of an EU-funded mercenary force - a structured army in which volunteers enlist and serve as paid peacekeeping soldiers. The precedent already exists: international volunteers from Taiwan, Georgia, and other nations have fought alongside Ukrainians in solidarity. By formalizing such an initiative, the EU could provide Ukraine with additional manpower while avoiding the political hurdles of direct national deployments.

However, establishing such a force presents its own set of challenges. First, there is the issue of training - new recruits need standardized preparation to operate effectively on the battlefield. Second, coordination among EU member states require harmonization of military protocols. But the most significant obstacle is the shortage of equipment. The EU, in its current state, is not adequately equipped for a large-scale peacekeeping mission. Critical gaps exist in artillery, air defense systems, and armored vehicles, among other resources. If Europe is serious about stepping into this role, it must identify solutions to bridge these gaps - whether through ramping up domestic arms production, acquiring stockpiles from allies, or repurposing existing defense budgets.

Despite these logistical challenges, the EU already outspends the United States in terms of total investment - allocating roughly 60% to Washington’s 40% in the Ukrainian war effort. If Europe truly commits to leading a peacekeeping operation, it must be willing to increase that investment. One way to fund this initiative would be through a resource extraction partnership with Ukraine, a concept already discussed between Kyiv and Washington. By stepping into this role, the EU could secure additional funding for its mission while also reducing its reliance on Russian energy. This move would not only strengthen sanctions against Moscow but would also give European nations access to rare materials - resources that are currently dominated by Chinese supply chains. The result? A strategically independent Europe, freed from Russian energy blackmail and better positioned to counterbalance global powers.

And while Europe might have to lead the way, it does not have to do so entirely alone. Historically, the United States has always backed the United Kingdom, both militarily and politically, through times of crisis. This transatlantic alignment has endured for centuries, and despite the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s foreign policy stance, Washington has reassured London that this support will continue. If Europe takes decisive action, particularly with Britain at the forefront of a peacekeeping initiative, it is likely that, despite initial hesitation, the U.S. would eventually offer backing. Whether through logistical assistance, intelligence-sharing, or indirect military support, America’s deep-rooted commitment to the UK could ultimately translate into renewed engagement in Ukraine - especially if Britain plays a leading role.

The EU has reached a crossroads. It can either remain stuck in endless deliberations, allowing the situation in Ukraine to deteriorate further, or it can take control of its own future. The United States may waver in its commitments under new leadership, but Europe has the capacity to act decisively. And if Britain spearheads this effort, history suggests that the U.S. will not stay on the sidelines forever. The time for hesitation is over. If peace is truly the goal, then Europe must stand firm, invest in its own security, and prove that it is capable of leading the charge toward stability.