This weekend's headlines announce that the UK government is preparing the country for war, which is the sort of sentence that once would have belonged to the archival past tense but has now returned to the present with a straight face and a briefing note, accompanied by earnest talk of resilience, mobilisation and national readiness, as if modern conflict were something you could prepare for with a laminated checklist and a stern reminder to pull together.
The tone is serious enough, yet one cannot help noticing that when Britain speaks of preparedness it often does so with an institutional memory that drifts unhelpfully toward Dad’s Army, a world of improvised courage, borrowed kit and the comforting assumption that enthusiasm will substitute for industrial depth. This is charming on television and catastrophic in reality, especially when the conflicts being gestured at are defined less by moustaches and morale than by munitions throughput, energy intensity and semiconductor supply chains.
This is where the market’s recent behaviour becomes faintly absurd. European armaments stocks have pulled back on the back of peace headlines and diplomatic choreography, as if the mere suggestion of talks were sufficient to reverse a decade long repricing of European vulnerability, even though the political language has hardened, the spending commitments have broadened and the industrial machinery is only just being rebuilt after years of strategic neglect disguised as efficiency.
This is temporal dissonance again, the same old habit of compressing short term political theatre into long term economic conclusions, a reflex that flatters the trader’s sense of agility while quietly ignoring the stubborn physical reality that shells, explosives, missiles and air defence systems do not appear because sentiment improves and do not disappear because a framework is floated over coffee.
If Europe and the UK are serious about readiness, then the awkward truth is that the hardest parts of rearmament are not rhetorical but industrial and they collide directly with other fashionable policy commitments that markets have not yet reconciled. Explosives and propellants are energy intensive to manufacture, which would be an unremarkable observation were it not for the fact that net zero policies have pushed European energy costs to levels that make domestic production structurally expensive before a single safety audit or planning inquiry is even completed. You cannot will cheap munitions into existence while simultaneously pricing energy as though heavy industry were an optional vice rather than the foundation of sovereignty.
Then there is the small matter of inputs. Europe lacks meaningful domestic production of many of the metals and specialist materials that modern weapons systems depend on, from rare earths for guidance and sensors to high grade alloys for propulsion and armour, while the technology stack that binds it all together, semiconductors, optics, electronics, remains globally fragmented and strategically exposed. Preparing for war while importing the ingredients from jurisdictions you do not fully control is less a strategy than a hope dressed up in uniform.
This is why the market’s recent pullback in defence stocks is more interesting than alarming. It does not reflect a collapse in demand or a reversal of policy but rather the familiar urge to find narrative closure, to treat peace talk as policy unwind and to take profits without admitting that valuation and crowding had become uncomfortable. Markets enjoy endings, preferably moral ones, and they enjoy them even more when those endings justify doing nothing further.
The error is to imagine that investing in armaments is a bet on endless conflict. It is not. It is a bet on governments having crossed a threshold where the cost of being under prepared now exceeds the political discomfort of spending too much later, a threshold that once crossed is rarely receded from because no minister enjoys explaining why savings were prioritised over readiness.
If today’s preparation risks resembling Dad’s Army, the lesson is not that the threat is imaginary but that the gap between rhetoric and capacity remains wide and closing that gap requires precisely the sort of long dated industrial investment that markets habitually undervalue when distracted by short term headlines.
Peace may come, pauses may occur and negotiations may multiply, yet none of that removes the fact that Europe has repriced its own fragility and discovered that it outsourced too much, stocked too little and assumed too much about continuity. When defence stocks fall because the market pretends that lesson can be unlearned quickly, the humour is dry, the irony is thick and the opportunity is structural.
No comments:
Post a Comment