What's Happening?
Elina Ribakova, a Non-resident Fellow at Bruegel, argues that economists and military specialists must collaborate more closely to ensure success in prolonged conflicts, particularly in an era of 'long wars' or 'wars of attrition.' Ribakova highlights
that productive capacity and economic management are critical factors shaping war outcomes, often overlooked in traditional military strategies. She points out that the 2026 National Defense Strategy under President Trump's administration, while noting the economic scale of non-U.S. NATO allies compared to Russia, can be misleading without considering purchasing power parity. The analysis suggests that economic power does not automatically translate into military success, citing examples like Ukraine's resilience against a larger Russian economy and Iran's ability to challenge U.S. forces despite its smaller economy. A new research agenda is proposed, focusing on four building blocks: generating resources, converting resources into military capabilities, denying resources to adversaries, and maintaining political stability.
Why It's Important?
This analysis is highly important for U.S. national security and economic policy, particularly given ongoing geopolitical tensions and the potential for protracted conflicts. The U.S. commits trillions to military capabilities, but Ribakova's argument suggests that simply increasing defense spending or relying on aggregate GDP is insufficient. Instead, a deeper integration of economic expertise into defense planning is needed to ensure that resources are effectively mobilized and converted into sustained fighting power. This perspective challenges the traditional separation of military and economic strategy, advocating for a holistic approach that considers war finance, industrial policy for defense, labor mobilization, and economic warfare. For U.S. industries, this could mean a renewed focus on defense industrial policy, potentially shifting production priorities and fostering innovation in areas like cost-effective military equipment. The emphasis on denying resources to adversaries through economic warfare, such as sanctions, also highlights the critical role of financial and trade policies in national defense, impacting various U.S. economic sectors and international relations.
What's Next?
The call for a new research agenda on the economics of war suggests a future shift in how defense and economic policies are formulated. This could lead to increased collaboration between U.S. defense institutions, economic think tanks, and academic researchers to develop common frameworks for understanding and managing the economic dimensions of conflict. Policymakers may explore new strategies for war finance, including taxation, debt management, and external financing, while also considering the trade-offs between military and domestic economic needs. The emphasis on industrial policy for defense could prompt investments in specific technologies and production capabilities, potentially creating new opportunities or challenges for U.S. manufacturers. Furthermore, the insights on economic warfare and sanctions may influence future U.S. foreign policy decisions, particularly in managing relations with geopolitical rivals. The ongoing re-evaluation of how economic power translates into military success will likely shape long-term strategic planning and resource allocation within the U.S. government and its allied partners.
Beyond the Headlines
The article's insights extend beyond immediate military and economic concerns, touching upon the fundamental nature of modern conflict and the role of societal resilience. The concept of 'long wars' implies a sustained drain on national resources and public will, making the ability to maintain domestic support and manage economic consequences paramount. The discussion of 'coup-proofing' and patronage within states highlights how internal political dynamics can undermine a nation's ability to convert economic power into military strength, suggesting that good governance and societal cohesion are indirect but vital components of national defense. Moreover, the observation that civilian technology is increasingly being pulled into military use, rather than the reverse, points to a broader integration of technological innovation across society with defense needs. This could lead to ethical and legal debates regarding the dual-use nature of technologies and the balance between civilian and military applications. Ultimately, the article suggests that success in future conflicts will depend not just on military might, but on a nation's comprehensive ability to mobilize, manage, and sustain its economic, technological, and social resources over extended periods.
