The executive president of the Oesía Group, Luis Furnells, stated this Monday that, in light of the current scenario of geopolitical instability and the "threats" coming from both "the east and the south," it is sensible to reinforce defense spending with the aim of avoiding future wars and protecting the European way of life.
During a conference organized by the Chair of Economy and Society of the 'la Caixa' Foundation, he referred to the classic dilemma of "guns or butter" to emphasize that, in his opinion, there is no outright opposition between defense and social welfare. "We must have a credible deterrent capacity to prevent attacks: if we avoid the attack, we will not have to defend ourselves," he stated.
The top official of Oesía argued that investment efforts in defense, besides generating high-skilled jobs, act as a deterrent by conveying to the potential aggressor that the cost of an attack would far exceed any benefit they could obtain. In his view, reinforcing security would allow for the preservation of the welfare state, preventing European economies from having to pivot towards a war industry in the face of a hypothetical prolonged conflict.
In this vein, he insisted that it is not about indiscriminately increasing military spending, but about coordinating it on a European scale. "I am not saying that we spend more than 400 billion. I am talking about jointly designing to save 30% [of the aggregate spending of 27 countries separately] and with those 100 billion, perhaps, there is even room to dedicate it to welfare," he explained, advocating for a common planning that avoids duplications.
Furnells compared the structure of the sector between both sides of the Atlantic and pointed out that the main difference between the defense industry of the United States and the European one is not so much the number of companies but the size of the large firms. "The gap is concentrated at the top. The top five American companies, from Lockheed Martin to Boeing, total 230 billion, more than double that of the 15 European ones combined and 3.6 times what the top five in the European Union generate," he detailed.
The executive emphasized that the major obstacle lies in the fragmentation of demand: while the United States articulates a single defense budget, the European Union operates with 27 different plans, each with its own priorities and requirements. As a consequence, in America they work with 33 weapon systems, compared to the 171 existing in Europe; they have two models of tanks compared to the 13 European ones and only two types of combat vehicles compared to the 21 used in the Old Continent.
In light of this dispersion, Furnells proposed that Europe move towards "horizontal integration" based on "loyal and generous cooperation" among community partners, so that each country contributes to the whole what it is most competitive in. "It's not about all of us doing everything, but about all of us being able to do everything together. That, for me, is the secret. Strategic autonomy and design authority is a principle that must be closely related," he emphasized.
He also considered it appropriate to follow the line marked by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi to create a pan-European entity dedicated to the development of cutting-edge defense technologies, inspired by the model of the American DARPA. "We have the European Defense Agency, but its role is different. [This] tells us what capabilities we need. What we lack is someone who decides with funding, importantly, and with autonomy why disruptive technologies should be bet on to equip ourselves with them," he pointed out, calling for an organization with real decision-making power.
In his opinion, the challenge lies in articulating a common vision that connects all existing efforts. "We need to connect everything with a shared vision, loyal cooperation, political will, and generosity. And it must be an equation in which we all win. All member countries of the European Union must come out ahead," he summarized.
Furnells added that military superiority no longer depends solely on the degree of sophistication of the "hardware," since defense has shifted from "being dominated by hardware to being dominated by software." Now, he stressed, the decisive factor is the speed with which one can adapt, produce, repair, and deploy systems on the ground, as seen in the case of Ukraine.
SITUATION IN SPAIN
Regarding Spain, the president of Oesía defended that the national defense industry must be "ambitious" and have full awareness of its differential capabilities compared to other European countries, precisely reinforcing those areas in which it already stands out. "If we are capable of exporting 51% of everything we sell, we must have some good capabilities. Now, what do we have left? To believe it. We have to believe it, we have to get rid of this false modesty," he stated.
He described the Spanish sector in three levels: at the top he placed the "large platform companies," such as Airbus, Navantia, Santa Bárbara, or Indra, many of them with public participation. Next, he mentioned the specialized technology companies, among which are Oesía itself, ITP Aero, or Sener. Finally, he highlighted a third layer formed by about 500 fully private SMEs, with "very specific" functions, although "very important" for the supply chain and for medium and large companies to "function well."
For Furnells, this business framework, along with the knowledge ecosystem, places Spain in a relevant position within Europe. "Spain has the capabilities and is advancing in the direction that Europe needs. We also have a great ecosystem of our own, we have large companies, we have technology that is truly highly specialized. We have SMEs with very good territorial fabric. We have universities [...] Spain is called to be a key player in Europe," he concluded.