Private Defence Companies Capitalise on Europe's Fearful Apathy

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion

A study conducted by IE Universidad and Airbus - concluding that though nearly half of Western European youth professed a fear that their nation would be at war with Russia within the next ten years, only a third of them would be willing to militarily defend their country - grabbed headlines late last year. The findings were presented as a symptom of declining national pride caused by increased apathy and political polarisation. I wish to problematise this narrative a bit. What is Airbus, or other defence companies’, ideal number of people willing to die for Britain, France, or Germany?

In their attempt to appeal to youth rather than maintaining their focus on fostering relationships with ruling elites, private defence companies like Airbus demonstrate their desire to capitalise on threat narratives that disillusion Western Europe amidst relative economic decline. Previously, lobbying from companies such as Airbus was largely informal and subtle, and centred around increasing their number of governmental and private domestic defence contracts. However, recent strategies stray from traditional profit-seeking behaviours by overstating Russian military capacities and strategy, in order to present it as a larger threat to comparatively declining European economies and militaries. These overstatements largely present Russia as a state that is capable of and interested in imposing its ideology and governance style across Western Europe, and aim to evoke nationalistic sentiments centred around protecting Western European “ways of life”. In this light, the results of the IE-Airbus study are skewed by the fact that even posing the question of war with Russia seeks to capture a more broadly pessimistic worldview shared by young adults. This is especially evident in the case of Germany, with its weakened manufacturing sector, and its burgeoning far-right politics.

Thus, the validity of this study should be questioned as it preys upon the fact that young people do not feel confident regarding the stability of their nations for economic and political reasons, rather than due to the actual possibility of war with Russia, which is low considering its increasing weakness after prolonged war with Ukraine. The most prevalent critique of the private defence sector as a whole is that their lobbying presence is deeply unethical as they profit from aggressive state behaviour, which seems to be proven true in this case.

This has catastrophic political consequences in that it both alienates young people and creates an overblown sense of fear of Russia as a monolith in academic and policy spaces. It seems that a fear of Russia masks a larger discontent with economic opportunities and political freedoms. By tapping into narratives that nationalistic sentiment and a “rally around the flag” effect, private defence companies seek to emulate the actions of governments like America’s in the 1940s, uniting an economically depressed nation through preparations for war. In fact, these companies largely centre their lobbying efforts around the positive economic impact they can have on sluggish Western European manufacturing sectors. When justifying why young people should become more involved in private defence than political elites, it is the projected GDP growth their presence offers that representatives from Airbus cite. This signifies a marked shift in the role of private defence companies in contemporary military and political strategy, as their increased agency necessarily leads to an increased societal focus on military activity. Ultimately, this is an exploitation of an increasing pessimism in younger people who are likely to perceive current political and social climates using apocalyptic language to convey their hopelessness when it comes to finding work, homes, or families.

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion

Yet, an obvious logical fallacy, along with a moral conundrum emerge. Defence contracts place a strain on governments which are already forced to cut back social and even military programs. Moreover, though militarisation has served as an economic stimulant before, most notably in pre-WWII Germany and WWII America, it is largely inapplicable to today’s Western Europe. It can, however, succeed in fostering the development of increasingly fractious and aggressive domestic politics - consider the rises of far-right parties such as Reform UK. It is worrying that the military industrial complex is gaining strength in a tense global political moment, it could well accelerate a shift right in already backsliding states. Planting fear and encouraging a fixation on war in an already fragmented society is deeply problematic on the part of private defence companies seeking to appeal to young people. This study, and recent lobbying activity from companies such as Airbus and BAE Systems, demonstrates that magnifying the Russian threat both causes unnecessary and detrimental fear in already pessimistic young people, whilst diminishing the importance of all too real atrocities committed against the Ukrainian people.