Connect with us

Europe

Israeli defence firms expand German manufacturing footprint

Published

on

Defence industry companies linked to Israel are steadily expanding their operations in Germany and plan to establish a rapidly growing number of arms factories across the country.

According to an analysis published by German Foreign Policy, these new arms factories contribute, on the one hand, to the swift rearmament of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr). On the other hand, should the war in the Near and Middle East escalate further, they allow Israeli companies to manufacture the weapons required by the Israeli armed forces from a safe distance.

This provides a safety net, for instance, in the event of another war of aggression against Iran.

This new form of defence cooperation between Germany and Israel builds on a partnership between arms manufacturers in both countries that has evolved since the mid-1950s.

For Germany, this cooperation offers access, at the very least, to the high-tech capabilities of Israel’s formidable and battle-tested military-industrial complex.

Export dependence of the Israeli defence industry

In the early 2020s, experts estimated the number of companies in Israel producing defence equipment wholly or at least partially at between 600 and 700.

At that time, these companies employed a total of around 100,000 workers; this figure accounted for slightly less than a quarter of all employees in Israeli manufacturing.

The three largest among them were the private firm Elbit, with an annual turnover of approximately $8 billion, alongside the state-owned companies Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), with a turnover of $7.4 billion, and Rafael, with $6.8 billion (2025 figures).

By way of comparison, Germany’s largest defence industry company, Rheinmetall, recorded revenue of approximately €10 billion in 2025.

In order to generate attractive profits, the Israeli defence industry as a whole remains heavily reliant on exports, despite the sustained attrition suffered by the Israeli armed forces as a result of war.

Indeed, in recent years, exports have consistently accounted for 75% of its revenue; in total, approximately 7.5% of all Israeli exports originate from the defence sector.

According to experts, this state of affairs has expanded Israel’s sector to eight times the global average.

The “allure” of Israeli weapons systems

Industry insiders attribute the success of the Israeli defence sector and its allure for arms purchasers worldwide to several factors.

Israel’s drive to remain continuously better equipped and technologically superior to the region’s Arab states, Iran, and Türkiye is frequently cited.

Moreover, it is widely argued that the intimate ties between defence contractors and the Israeli armed forces contribute directly to the optimisation of Israeli weapons systems.

Reference is frequently made to a highly sophisticated culture of technological innovation. The foremost example of this is “Unit 8200,” which is attached to the military intelligence service and specialises in all forms of electronic reconnaissance and cyber operations.

Soldiers who leave the unit after three to five years of service are regarded as exceptionally qualified; these veterans enter the world of Israeli technology start-ups, which some have even likened to Silicon Valley.

Furthermore, Israeli weapons systems are routinely combat-tested. For instance, in late 2025, government officials from various countries, including Germany, were shown videos at a conference sponsored by the Israeli Ministry of Defence depicting drones striking a building in the Gaza Strip.

The objective was to encourage those nations to procure the drones.

The Bundeswehr’s quest for high-tech weaponry

German defence companies have collaborated with Israeli arms manufacturers for decades.

In addition to the regular bilateral arms trade that gathered momentum from the mid-1950s onwards, dedicated cooperation on high-tech weapons systems has been under way since at least the 1970s.

During that period, the Federal Republic of Germany commissioned Israel to develop a radar jammer for the Tornado fighter jet.

This equipment was tested by the Israeli Air Force during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and proved exceptionally successful.

According to a study on German-Israeli defence cooperation, “electronic warfare” remained “a sector characterized by exceptionally close ties between Germany and Israel.”

Even in subsequent years, the Bundeswehr repeatedly procured high-tech weaponry from Israeli enterprises.

For example, the Heron 1 systems, the Bundeswehr’s first large unmanned aerial vehicles deployed to Afghanistan, were sourced from IAI. The Israeli enterprise worked in close cooperation with Rheinmetall on both delivery and operations.

The advanced Arrow 3 air defence system, which Germany is currently in the process of procuring, is likewise of Israeli origin.

This system is manufactured by IAI in collaboration with the US company Boeing.

German-Israeli joint defence ventures

Since the 1990s in particular, German and Israeli companies have also collaborated directly in the manufacture of military hardware.

In 1996, for instance, Rheinmetall and Israel Military Industries (a company subsequently acquired by Elbit) established a joint venture to develop ammunition.

Other joint ventures served primarily to market Israeli weapons systems across Europe.

In 1998, for example, EuroSpike, established in Germany by Rheinmetall (40%), Diehl Defence (40%), and Rafael (20%), facilitated the sale of anti-tank weapons produced by Rafael within Europe.

EL/M-2084 radar systems produced by IAI are marketed jointly by the Israeli holding company and Rheinmetall Canada. Sales were concluded with the Canadian armed forces in 2015 and with the Hungarian armed forces in 2020.

Rheinmetall Italia, meanwhile, manufactures Hero loitering munitions in partnership with the Israeli firm UVision.

At the end of 2025, both companies signed a contract worth hundreds of millions of euros to produce a substantial number of Hero drones for a NATO member state.

Eight new Israeli facilities in Germany

Israeli defence companies are currently taking the next step: beyond exporting weapons systems to Germany and conducting joint production with German arms manufacturers, they are expanding their own manufacturing footprints inside Germany.

The background to this development lies in the surging demand for military hardware not only in Israel, but particularly across European nations.

To meet this demand despite limited domestic manufacturing capacity, Israeli defence contractors are now establishing factories, primarily in Germany.

At the former Volkswagen plant in Osnabrück, for instance, Rafael will produce components and assemblies for air defence systems.

To this end, Volkswagen will sell the facility to the investor Aurelius Capital and the federal state of Lower Saxony.

Rafael is renowned for Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system, which it developed and produces in collaboration with IAI.

Elbit, meanwhile, plans to establish “up to eight new facilities” in Germany over the next few years to accommodate “well over 1,000” employees, as confirmed by Marian Rachow, the head of Elbit Germany and a former Airbus executive.

Protests have already begun mounting against one of these planned sites, situated in Sangerhausen, west of Halle.

Bilateral cooperation deepens

When asked why Israeli defence companies are presently prioritising investments in Germany, a former chief financial officer of the Israel Defense Forces was recently quoted as saying:

“Germany is the most important industrial hub in Europe and maintains close ties with Israel. That makes it a partner with whom we can formulate long-term plans.”

Furthermore, the German government is allocating colossal sums to military expansion.

CDU lawmaker Bastian Ernst, a member of the Bundestag Defence Committee who worked first at Rheinmetall and subsequently at Dynamit Nobel Defence, which is now owned by Rafael, before entering parliament in 2025, describes the establishment of factories in Germany by Israeli defence conglomerates as a “two-way safety net”:

“For Israel, this offers the security of having a production site capable of supplying them should they become embroiled in a conflict.”

He believes the Bundeswehr would benefit “if this technology is located in Germany and can be harnessed.”

Consequently, this appears to represent close collaboration designed to enhance the combat capabilities of both parties.

Europe

EU divisions deepen over who should negotiate with Vladimir Putin

Published

on

As the US continues to mediate talks between Ukraine and Russia, the debate within the EU over who will sit at the table is intensifying.

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine scheduled for next week in Abu Dhabi, mediated by the US, will take place without European participation.

There are currently no expectations of a breakthrough, but this has not prevented infighting within the EU over representation.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni added fresh friction to the debate yesterday, 5 November, stating that the EU gives “the impression of a Europe moving in different directions.”

In a letter to European Council President António Costa, she argued that the 27 EU leaders must unite behind a single representative before the end of the year.

According to Rapporteur, an “alphabet soup” of diplomatic formats, such as the E2, E3, E5, or the CoW (Coalition of the Willing), is competing to take centre stage in discussions concerning the future of Ukraine.

Facing elections next year, Meloni has long pushed back against the assertive stance adopted by the E3 format, which brings together the UK, France, and Germany, in their efforts to represent European interests in ending the war and shaping the continent’s future security architecture.

Last month, the Italian leader said:

“If France, Germany, and Great Britain believe that within that renowned E3 format they can achieve more alone than we can all achieve together, then they should at least do so in the name of everyone, with an official mandate from all parties.”

An EU diplomat remarked: “When we speak of the E3, we are talking about geopolitical influence, military strength, and financial power. This does not mean Italy is excluded, but Rome clearly believes it must have a seat at the table.”

Meloni has the backing of Poland, another major military power and the only other large EU country sharing a border with Ukraine.

However, her counterpart Donald Tusk has been less explicit about seeking a direct role in top-level talks.

“As you know, we have many different formats,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw on Thursday. “We have a clear position as the EU and as the Coalition of the Willing. I am fully engaged in these processes.”

Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, however, proved considerably more outspoken. “The last thing we want is Western Europe dealing with Russia while bypassing Eastern Europeans,” Sikorski said, drawing parallels to the 1930s and the 1945 Yalta Conference:

“You cannot exclude Eastern Europe and Scandinavia from these talks. We are roughly 120 million people. Finland borders Russia, Norway borders Russia, the Baltic states border Russia, and Poland borders both Russia and Ukraine.”

Berlin argues that the E3 remains the natural representative group, given that Germany, France, and the UK are the three strongest military powers capable of underwriting future security guarantees for Ukraine.

Like Italy, Poland favours the E5 configuration, which would allow Warsaw and Rome to take part.

Yet Sikorski also floated another leadership lineup to meet Putin: António Costa, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, and UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Sikorski argued that under EU treaties, the Costa-Kallas pairing holds the legal authority to represent the bloc.

Speaking to journalists in Lisbon on Thursday, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said: “I agree with Prime Minister Meloni; we must not speak with different voices. We must remain united in stating that these matters sought by Russia require Europe’s decision as well.”

Meloni is not alone in pointing out cracks in the EU’s posture. Last week, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a close ally of Meloni on the European Council, questioned a phone call made to Putin by the leaders of Finland and Norway, asking what they truly hoped to achieve.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre defended the conversation as a useful step taken in full coordination with Kyiv.

According to an EU official, the pair would be “more than happy” to discuss appointing a special envoy for Ukraine.

The official stressed, however, that the call was not “a bid” to position Stubb and Støre for the role.

Regardless, the war is unlikely to end this winter, even as Europeans explore fresh mechanisms to finance Ukraine.

“We must be realistic about peace talks and extremely cautious regarding Russia’s true intentions,” Donald Tusk said. “During the winter months, Putin may have less motivation to reach an agreement.”

Continue Reading

Europe

EU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises

Published

on

European Union citizens should be prepared to meet their basic needs independently for the first 72 hours of an emergency until public services can organize relief, according to new guidelines.

Hadja Lahbib, the European Commissioner for Equality, Crisis Management and Preparedness, presented the non-binding advisory guidance at the European Civil Protection Forum.

In her remarks on the initiative, Lahbib said: “When a disaster strikes, the first hours can be vital. Every European must know what to do, how to protect their family and how to help others. Preparedness begins in our homes, our schools and our communities.”

The Brussels leadership explained that the new measures are prompted by Europe facing increasingly frequent and complex crises.

Under the recommendations, the European Commission advised citizens to stockpile essential supplies and keep pre-packed emergency grab bags ready.

These steps aim to ensure that individuals can address their primary necessities independently during the first three days of a crisis, before state aid is mobilized.

The guidelines also encompass three additional priority areas: preparing children for emergency situations, making safety measures accessible to individuals with disabilities, and ensuring the public is better informed about potential threats.

Citing the 2001 founding anniversary of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the European Commission also proposed designating 23 October as “EU Preparedness Day” each year starting in 2027.

EU member states are preparing for an extensive hybrid attack scenario that could result in casualties, according to a Politico report citing European diplomats and officials.

The report noted that divisions have emerged within the EU over the bloc’s security role and whether its initiatives duplicate the functions of NATO.

According to the same report, ambassadors from the 27 EU member states held closed-door meetings focusing on deploying emergency response teams and allocating resources from EU funds to an affected country.

Following the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine in 2022, both the EU and NATO intensified their preparations for a potential military confrontation with Russia.

In its “White Paper on European Defence – Preparedness 2030”, presented in March 2025, the European Commission identified Russia as one of the primary threats to European security.

The document outlines plans to boost defence production and improve air and missile defence, unmanned systems, and military mobility.

Meanwhile, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have begun drafting contingency action plans for a potential Russian attack, including measures for the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The three Baltic states decided in May 2025 to cooperate in the field of civil defence.

Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, head of the German Army, also stated that Berlin must be prepared for a Russian attack by 2029 or earlier.

On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in a statement in September that Moscow is not preparing for war with Europe.

Putin stated that Moscow has no such plans and that there are no justifications or real reasons to escalate the situation with Europe.

Criticising the European stance, Putin described rhetoric from European nations regarding a Russian threat and the necessity of preparing for war as a “provocation” and a “deliberate incitement of the situation.”

The Kremlin also noted that the EU is turning into a “military-political-economic bloc” by spending vast budgets to weaponize its economies.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that statements by EU nations regarding the risk of war with Russia are driving European rearmament, which could ultimately become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

In earlier remarks, Lavrov assessed that “if Europe attacks the Russian Federation, it will be a completely different war, and it will be over very quickly.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Paris meeting between Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage unscheduled

Published

on

Plans for a meeting in Paris between Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and French far-right National Rally (RN) figurehead Marine Le Pen remain uncertain.

Farage’s planned visit to France, which he announced for October as part of an effort to establish ties with figures on the European right before the end of the year, has yet to be officially scheduled by Le Pen’s camp.

Speaking to Politico on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive inter-party relations, four National Rally officials familiar with Le Pen’s schedule said no visit to the party leader had been planned.

Multiple party figures said they saw no urgency in drawing media attention to relations with Reform UK or to the migration pact signed in September.

One official noted that the “costs and benefits” of holding a meeting with Farage needed to be weighed.

Political circumstances for both parties have shifted markedly since the prospect of a meeting with Le Pen, widely viewed as the candidate most likely to win the first round of the 2027 French presidential election, was first mooted.

Jordan Bardella, the National Rally’s second-in-command, attended Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham in early September as guest of honour.

Bardella and Farage announced an agreement proposing the return to France of all migrants reaching the UK through unauthorised Channel crossings in small boats.

The proposal triggered a backlash across different political factions in France, where critics questioned why the country should accept the return of asylum seekers.

Internal problems also emerged within Reform UK during the Birmingham conference.

Reform UK, which had maintained its polling lead over the Labour Party led by Andy Burnham, who took over as prime minister from Keir Starmer, was shaken by an undercover investigation published on the eve of the conference.

The development, which raised fresh questions over the party’s financial structure, led to the resignation of Farage’s two most senior aides.

Labour subsequently recovered in the polls, while a rise in the Conservative Party’s share of the vote began to challenge Reform UK’s second-place standing.

The initial announcement that Farage would travel to France to meet Le Pen before the end of October was also made at the Birmingham conference in early September.

Referring to a trip to Paris after Bardella delivered a speech in English, Farage said: “The only downside is I think they’re going to invite me to Paris, and I will have to speak French, but never mind, we’ll get round it.”

However, no official invitation has been confirmed.

As October drew to a close and it became clear that Farage would not pay a return visit to the National Rally’s conference in Orleans, a senior Reform UK official maintained that the meeting was on the calendar for this year.

The leadership in Paris does not confirm that schedule.

The four officials familiar with Le Pen’s plans said they were unaware of any scheduled visit for Farage before Christmas. One of Le Pen’s advisers suggested that a meeting could instead be offered with Bardella, whose standing inside the party has weakened in recent months.

Questioning the merits of the party leader appearing alongside Farage, another adviser to Le Pen said: “We need a bit more time to think through the costs and benefits.”

Thibaut Francois, an official with the National Rally’s European Parliament delegation, said that “regular contacts” with Reform UK continued and that the two parties would meet “very soon”, though he did not clarify whether that would take place this year.

A senior Reform UK official said: “Reform’s primary objective is to become battle-ready for British elections; parading on the international stage right now would add nothing to the UK message.”

Charles-Henri Gallois, an economic adviser to Bardella, argued that there was no need for further contact between the two parties, asserting that the migration agreement was “ready and waiting to be implemented” should both parties come to power.

“There is no need to discuss this further,” Gallois told Politico. “Critics of the agreement do not understand migration flows. This agreement is entirely in France’s interest.”

With French voters wary of a UK-style exit, Le Pen has long distanced herself from efforts to pull France out of the European Union.

Jean-Yves Camus, a far-right specialist at the Jean-Jaures Foundation think-tank, said: “Farage still supports Brexit, whereas Le Pen abandoned the idea [of Frexit] because it was too frightening for French voters. Donald Trump’s defeat in the midterms will also reinforce Le Pen’s distrust of Trumpism and its European counterparts.”

The level of internal support within the National Rally for the migration deal signed by Bardella and Farage was a subject of debate even as it was being concluded.

Since the party conference in September, Bardella’s position has continued to weaken following antisemitism allegations, which he has firmly denied.

Before reaching the agreement with Bardella, Farage had proposed launching “the largest military operation in the Channel since the Second World War” to push small boats back to the French coast.

A figure close to Le Pen told Politico at the time: “Why would we take [them] back to France if they are not French?”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey