Power versus power: ‘We are in a new arms race’

Due to the war in Ukraine and the war language from Moscow, many European countries are increasing their defense budgets. Also in the Netherlands, and that happens without much contradiction. Experts say: “The new arms race between NATO and Russia is a fact.”

Where does that lead and how will a race end? We ask this to a peace organization, a military historian and a former army commander.

“Yes, we are in an arms race. I would almost say: an old-fashioned, complete arms race,” says former commander of the Army Mart de Kruif.

Russia is expanding its armies, including outside Ukraine. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, this is necessary. “We must strengthen, to neutralize NATO’s expansion in our direction,” he said earlier. Russian defense spending has increased sharply since the invasion of Ukraine: by more than half to 4 percent of the total Russian economy.

Mass and quality

European countries are catching up, fearing that they will not be able to repel a Russian attack on their own. If the Americans under a new president – possibly Donald Trump – decide to leave NATO, the Netherlands will also have to double defense spending, outgoing Minister of Defense Kajsa Ollongren said in Nieuwsuur last month.

“It’s mass, quantity: so who makes the most grenades for the guns? But it’s also quality: who’s the first with a drone? Who’s the first with an underwater drone? Who’s the first with new cruise missiles” , says De Kruif. He doesn’t see many alternatives. “It seems that Putin only listens to power, so you have to counter that with power. Otherwise he will probably continue.”

This bidding against each other has often gone wrong in history. For example, in the First World War, when two power blocs entered into battle after a long run-up at the beginning of the last century. Resulting in tens of millions of deaths and injuries.

Military historian Christ Klep sees the parallels. “First of all, the incredibly high stakes. We are talking about an existential stake. Both parties are now actually saying that it is about the survival of their system, not just their country.”

Klep sees a second parallel in the idea that weapons can solve something. “That’s the key to a new arms race.” The third parallel, according to Klep, is the idea that tempers and emotions will diminish in the course of the conflict. “But, and you also see this in this conflict, the enemy is only becoming more devilish, even worse. That is exactly that escalating thinking that we also saw in the First World War and was also an important cause of that war.”< /p>

Escalation and mistakes

The largest peace organization in the Netherlands, PAX, supports the arms support for Ukrainian self-defense against the Russian aggressor. But the organization believes an arms race is very dangerous. “Because once you’re in it, it’s hard to go back,” says PAX director Rolien Sasse.

The emphasis on weapons and military solutions to problems, according to Sasse, can also lead to “more escalation and mistakes”. “That you misinterpret each other, are anxious and therefore react too strongly. We really have to prevent that,” she says.

Russia does spend a larger percentage of its economy on Defense than NATO countries, but if you convert that into monetary amounts, then the Western countries are miles ahead:

Aren’t the NATO countries exaggerating by increasing budgets like this? De Kruif: “Budgets are mainly being increased in Europe. Europe is militarily the weak arm of NATO. And in the West everything is much more expensive: so higher salaries, we charge VAT, pensions, redundancy pay, etc. This is included in the Russian budget none of it.”

The Cold War, also with an arms race between the West and Russia, ultimately ended without enormous bloodshed. Precisely because the weapons were so deterrent, says Klep. This mainly concerned nuclear weapons and they are now strong pawns again. For example, last month Putin threatened nuclear war if NATO countries sent troops to Ukraine.

Klep: “You could even say that an important reason why NATO has not intervened physically in the conflict so far, with troops and with tanks and with planes, is partly because Putin is threatening with nuclear weapons. We simply have to conclude that this unthinkable weapon, which is the atomic weapon, has still retained its function.”