Posted on 03/03/2025 6:07:16 AM PST by marcusmaximus
European aerospace and defense stocks jumped by double-digit percentages as events in Washington DC signal deteriorating Western alliances.
US President Donald Trump’s acrimonious press conference with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday, which prompted a European scramble to offer Ukraine separate security assurances, has boosted the region’s weapons makers at Monday’s open.
Among defense majors, Germany’s Rheinmetall RHM and Italy’s Leonardo LDO had each jumped 11% by 10:30AM CET, while BAE Systems BA. was up 15%. France’s Thales HO rose 14% and aircraft makers Dassault Aviation AM and Saab SAAB rose 15% and 9%, respectively.
Among smaller companies in the sector, defense electronics group Hensoldt HAG rose 22%, while Kongsberg KOG rose 9%. Britain’s Chemring CHG traded 8% higher and QinetiQ QQ. was up 7%.
“European defense stocks continue to rally on the back of the latest developments including talks about a potential US pullback and increasing pressure from the US for Europe to boost defense budgets,” Morningstar aerospace and defense anlayst Loredana Muharremi said on Monday.
European Defense Stocks Continue to Outperform US Peers
At the same time, defense-exposed US stocks were little changed in pre-market trading, with Palantir PLTR up just over 2%. “Investors expect US support pullback and Europe to ramp up its defense spending prioritizing European companies,” Muharremi noted.
The region’s aerospace and defense sector has sharply outperformed broader markets since the beginning of the year, propelled by an emerging consensus that NATO’s decade-old defense spending target of 2% of GDP was inadequate and needed to be raised.
(Excerpt) Read more at morningstar.co.uk ...
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:
1. War is good for business.
2. Peace is good for business....................
“as events in Washington DC signal deteriorating Western alliances.”
I think he means, “as it appears that Europe will stop leeching off the Americans for their defense”
I mean if a relationship therapist were to observe, they woul label this as one-sided
When has NATO ever said a word about our foreign invesion or for that matter what have they done about Russia invading Ukraine
> I think he means, “as it appears that Europe will stop leeching off the Americans for their defense”<
The convoluted logic that follows is, we will tax more money out of the economy and spend it on military defense and that will strengthen the economy. ????
EC
Yes because the US is likely leaving NATO and Europe can protect itself.
There is an uncomfortable reality for most of FR unfolding.
It was peripherally possible to sort of forget Bernanke printing up trillions upon trillions of dollars — whimsically, out of nothingness — to save the global system of economics. We saw that and because people WANTED money to have meaning (not value, meaning) they just as quickly as they could, just forgot about it.
But now we have Europe needing to spend on the military. In huge numbers. Best to recall that they have their own Fed, led by their own Bernanke. The European Central Bank can also print trillions upon trillions whimsically out of nothingness to fund this sudden desire for weapons.
(You will find that wiki’s on this matter have been whitewashed, but reality is, this is how Hitler, amid the constraints of the WW I treaty, still managed to fund the build up of his military to continent conquering levels.)
Does this mean huge inflation? Well this is where money really loses meaning, because the answer can be no. Decree prices freeze and also decree production must continue even if there is a loss from inadequate pricing (just subsidize the loss). Or put people in a room and threaten them with death.
Money doesn’t HAVE to have meaning.
We’ll see if the Yurps actually come up with the money to start providing for their own defense. I’m extremely skeptical.
If they do, they’re not going to have much choice but to buy a lot of gear from US Defense Contractors. They are much bigger and have much more advanced systems and weapons than their European counterparts by and large because they’ve been so much better funded for so long.
Yep.
That was largely a PR exercise. America didn’t actually need military aid from Europe and there wasn’t much in fact. The only ones who did much real fighting at all were the Brits and theirs was limited. The rest - like the Germans for example - had to be kept in quiet out of the way places where they wouldn’t see any actual combat. Firstly as their own parliamentary report said:
www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/german-soldiers-too-fat-and-drunk-to-fight/#:~:text=This%20has%20prompted%20Reinhold%20Robbe,crack%20commando%20squad%2C%20the%20KSK.
Secondly, their gear was crap and the rules of engagement imposed on them by their government meant they could only fire back if somebody was actually shooting at them first. In short, they were pretty much useless.
That's always been an objective of the proxy war in Ukraine.
I’m curious here. If Europe puts bodies in The Ukraine, and Russia sees a way to stop them by attacking an individual Nato country, would America be obligated to defend that country with our men?
Unless we exit NATO first.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.