Having committed to an outlay of 60 euros for a social club luncheon which was to be addressed by the Belgian minister of defense, Admiral Michel Hofman, speaking on how the ministry is preparing for what it calls ‘geopolitical evolution,’ meaning World War III, I was more than a little disappointed to learn, as we were standing by our seats awaiting our ‘at ease’ orders, that our speaker would be a no-show. Apparently he was called away to confer with colleagues in the government, and since this government has only one week to enjoy its perquisites before it is swept away by the June 9th parliamentary elections, the minister’s priorities are understandable if unforgivable from our perspective as paying guests.
Happily, however, at the initiative of the club’s president and of some attendees who have military standing, a chap from the ministry who is responsible for human resources was rushed in, had a quick bite to eat now that we all had advanced to the main course while awaiting his arrival, and then provided us all with what I am about to present below.
For obvious reasons, HR is in the spotlight now that the number one question facing this and other member states of NATO and of the EU is whether they can and will rise to the challenge of a Russian ‘imperialist menace’ and do the right thing, namely impose mandatory military service on the young and swell the ranks of their military forces. At my table, there was already a lively discussion of the socializing benefits of national service for the young, as if this issue were entirely separate from its context of a coming war that will utterly destroy the Continent.
If I may telegraph my punches, the key learning from the talk of our stand-in speaker is that there is no money to pay for masses of conscripts. Indeed, the Ministry is already struggling to cope with personnel costs that eat up between 80 and 85% of the defense budget. Belgium may have just 18,000 men in the services, but it would appear that keeping them in clothes, food and pensions is already a great burden. Moreover, given the professionalization of the armed forces in recent decades, it is estimated that it takes 18 months to bring a new recruit up to speed on the equipment he is supposed to be using on the missions of his units. Six months or even a year in uniform will not do much to make the recruits net contributors to the nation’s defense.
Yes, the Belgian military is tiny. Our admiral has under him a total of 5 mine sweepers, 2 frigates and 2 patrol boats (source: Wikipedia). For that reason the principal concern is the first from among what our speaker called the three ‘coups’ of war making – solidarity with fellow NATO members, self-defense, and facilitating the ‘arrival of the cavalry’ which means giving logistical support through the port of Antwerp to arriving forces and equipment from North America.
After all, in Belgium the second ‘coup,’ defending itself, comes down to air defense, for which it is today utterly unprepared, like all other EU member states, as we know not just from the hints of today’s speaker but from full-blown articles these past several days in The Financial Times. And as for the ‘cavalry,’ it seems that this ministry does not count on the reliability of Washington any longer.
There you have it in a nutshell: Belgium cannot and will not increase its armed forces; and Belgium is wholly committed to solidarity with its NATO confrères for the simple reason that it has no independent military capabilities. Indeed, as our speaker noted, one of the most positive consequences of the Ukraine-Russia war has been to drive solidarity among NATO members to new heights. This can only be to Belgium’s benefit.
Or can it?
Usually in luncheons like this, we have a fairly generous time allotted to Q&A, but today we were running late by the time we reached desert and the microphone was given to only person. By the luck of being seated close to the dais and of being quickest to raise my hand, that person was me.
And so I posed my question: is solidarity really so fine when the policy of NATO is to issue ever more provocations to the Russians, to pose what they consider to be existential threats, including the shipment of F16s to Ukraine and the latest decision to ‘free the hands of Kiev’ to use the long range missiles being provided to it by the US, by the UK, by France to strike deep into the Russian heartland. If NATO member states are not prepared today physically and morally to enter into a direct, frontal war with Russia then why are we doing this?
Dear readers, you will not be surprised to hear that I got no answer to my question worth repeating.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024