We all love a good prediction, don’t we? From weather forecasts to stock market trends, there’s a comforting sense of control that comes with thinking we know what tomorrow holds. But when it comes to something as complex and volatile as war, our crystal ball tends to shatter. I’ve been diving deep into the concept of a ‘war economy’ lately, and what’s become incredibly clear is that relying on precise forecasts in times of conflict is a fool’s errand. Instead, the real strategic plan must be about robust preparedness.
The Mirage of Forecasting in Conflict
The Core Distinction: Forecasting Versus Preparedness
Let’s be honest, our natural human inclination is to try and predict everything. In economic and military circles, that often means detailed forecasting: attempting to pinpoint specific future events, set exact timelines, and calculate precise resource needs. We crave certainty.
However, when we talk about a war economy, a vastly different concept takes center stage: preparedness. This isn’t about predicting *what* will happen, but about building systemic resilience, adaptive capabilities, and robust capacities to respond effectively to a wide range of unforeseen challenges. Traditional economic and military forecasting, with its reliance on models and historical data, often simply breaks down in the chaotic, dynamic environment of conflict zones. The variables are too numerous, too fluid.
Unpredictable Variables and Radical Uncertainty
War, by its very nature, is a living, evolving entity. We’re talking about a dynamic landscape where unforeseen technological advancements emerge, adversary strategies shift overnight, and geopolitical alliances can change on a dime. All of this renders specific predictions unreliable, even dangerous. It’s not just about quantifiable risks, which we can calculate and manage, but about truly unknowable “radical uncertainties” – events that are literally beyond our current imagination or data sets.
Think about the real-world examples we’ve seen: rapid innovations in battlefield technology like drones, unexpected disruptions to global supply chains (remember the Red Sea?), or sudden shifts in international alliance dynamics. These aren’t just minor adjustments; they’re game-changers that traditional economic models can’t adequately account for.
The Peril of Overconfidence Bias
It’s a common human tendency to overestimate our ability to predict complex future scenarios. We saw this play out dramatically in the post-Cold War era. Many European nations, operating under a flawed prediction of prolonged peace, allowed their defense spending to decline significantly. This led to a drastic reduction in industrial capacity.
The consequences? Inadequate strategic reserves, a painfully slow industrial ramp-up when conflict flared, and reactive, rather than proactive, policy-making. This historical context serves as a stark reminder: overconfidence in our ability to predict can leave us dangerously exposed, especially when the cost of being wrong is so high.
Building an Adaptable War Economy: A Framework for Resilience
Understanding the “Wartime Economy” Spectrum
The term “wartime economy” isn’t a single, monolithic concept. It’s more of a political expression that encompasses a range of policies with varying intensity and objectives, not just active conflict. I find it helpful to think about it in four conceptual phases:
- War Support Economy: This involves long-term assistance to allies, like providing equipment, intelligence, and financial aid.
- War Prevention Economy: Here, the focus is on adapting defense architecture to perceived threats. This could include deterrence, promoting the defense industry, increasing personnel, and conducting exercises.
- War Preparation Economy: This is a significant step up, strengthening the state and civil society for potential conflict. We’re talking about stock building, civilian mobilization, and other deep preparation efforts.
- Economy in War: The most extreme phase, characterized by total state control, with all resources focused on survival and victory.
In the current European context, many nations are aiming to move from prevention to robust preparation, acknowledging the significant challenges involved in this shift.
Addressing Supply-Side Vulnerabilities
One of the biggest hurdles we face today is the fragility of our supply chains. There’s a heavy reliance on global sources for critical components like electronic components, semiconductors, and raw materials. This creates vulnerability.
Then there’s the limited industrial capacity. Defense has become a niche sector, and subcontractors often struggle to scale production without sustained orders. Labor shortages are a critical issue too, with a distinct lack of specialized skills and long training periods required for defense industry roles. We’ve seen reports of thousands of vacancies in France and engineer shortages in the UK. Add to this the extended production lead times due to high R&D intensity and complex manufacturing processes, and you start to see why rapid adaptation is so difficult.
Navigating Demand-Side Dilemmas
On the demand side, governments face their own set of challenges. The defense industry is heavily reliant on consistent public procurement to justify investment and maintain production lines. However, this is often complicated by regulatory burdens. Social, environmental, and safety regulations, alongside military-specific standards, all increase costs and delivery times.
This leads to the “Time-Sovereignty Trade-off.” Do you acquire immediate “off-the-shelf” solutions (which might be foreign) to meet urgent needs, or do you prioritize fostering long-term domestic industrial sovereignty, even if it means longer initial delivery times? The emerging consensus, I believe, is the “Best Short Term is the Long Term” paradigm: prioritizing European domestic production, even if initial delivery times are longer, to build sustainable wartime capacity.
Strategic Stockpiling and Risk Sharing
To cushion the first shock of a conflict, building strategic reserves is absolutely vital. This means stockpiling raw materials, components, and finished consumable products. Governments might even act as a “wholesaler,” holding and distributing strategic stocks to reduce industry costs and incentivize production.
Balancing risk between the state and industry is also key. This could involve state investment in infrastructure (like reserve plants), offering loan guarantees, and implementing tailored fiscal incentives for defense companies. Think of these as a national emergency fund, but for industrial capacity.
Policies for Adaptability and Preparedness
Differentiated Procurement and Innovation Integration
To truly adapt, we need a new strategy for procurement. This means segmenting needs and developing distinct acquisition pathways. For “historical” high-technology, long-development systems, one pathway. For “emerging,” consumable, rapid-adaptation, dual-use markets (like drones and ammunition), another, much faster pathway. This “accelerated acquisition” involves streamlining processes for high-volume, rapidly evolving items. We also need to get better at leveraging civilian innovation, integrating commercially available technologies and R&D into defense applications – think of how AI is being used in mini-drones. Finally, continuous testing by armed forces is crucial to refine requirements and accelerate technology maturity.
Human Capital Development
Our greatest asset is our people. Developing human capital for the defense industry requires inter-ministerial policies to boost the sector’s appeal, guide youth, and create specialized training programs. Technology can also play a huge role: using AI and simulation tools to speed up skill acquisition and enable workforce mobility. And let’s not forget “industrial reserves” – mapping critical civilian skills and establishing reserve systems to mobilize non-defense personnel for industrial support during crises.
Regulatory Streamlining and Normative Leverage
Bureaucracy can be a silent enemy. Simplifying requirements, especially for consumable equipment, means reducing overly stringent military specifications to enable faster mass production. Harmonizing standards across European and NATO allies can significantly improve interoperability and reduce delivery times. We also need adaptive regulations, examining and adjusting environmental and other rules for defense-specific activities, potentially through exemptions. Finally, anticipatory state powers are essential: pre-establishing legal frameworks for state intervention (like order prioritization, requisition, or mandatory stock building) to be activated rapidly in escalating crises.
Enhancing Resilience and Military Mobility
Resilience is key. This means designing equipment for forward maintenance and repair, allowing for easy repair and upgrade near operational theaters, leveraging technologies like additive manufacturing (3D printing). Secure and localized supply is about relocating critical production chains to Europe, understanding supply chain vulnerabilities, and securing key transport routes. Investment in infrastructure adaptation for military mobility – upgrading transport networks, rail connections – is also vital for rapid movement of personnel and materiel. And let’s not overlook robust energy and communications: ensuring energy sovereignty, redundancy in power networks, and secure hybridization of civilian and military communication systems.
Mobilizing the Civilian Sector
A true war economy isn’t just about the military; it’s a whole-of-society effort. This involves industrial mapping to identify civilian industrial capacities that can be repurposed for military production. Conducting civil-military exercises – stress tests and crisis management exercises involving both government and industry – helps gauge and improve readiness. Finally, European coordination is essential, harmonizing efforts across interconnected European industrial fabrics for collective strength.
The Imperative of Embracing Radical Uncertainty
Beyond “Knowing” the Future
The fundamental failure of prediction in wartime isn’t a weakness; it’s a call to action. It demands a profound shift in mindset – from foreseeing to forearming. We must focus on building flexible, robust, and adaptable economic and industrial systems rather than rigid plans based on uncertain forecasts. The future is inherently uncertain, so our systems must be inherently adaptable.
The “Borrowed Time” of Wartime Economies
Take Russia’s war economy as a case study. While it’s shown short-term resilience, fueled by prior reserves and diversified exports, it’s operating on “borrowed time”. Mounting pressures from labor shortages, technological limits due to sanctions, and increased tax burdens illustrate the long-term unsustainability of such an approach. This example drives home the point: constant adaptation and deep resilience are the only constants that matter.
Collaborative Future: European Unity in Wartime Economy
Towards a Consolidated European Defence Industrial Base
For European nations, the path forward is clear: unity. Industrial consolidation, perhaps merging European defense industrial groups, is necessary to achieve greater scale and efficiency. Joint procurement leverages collective purchasing power, placing larger, more consistent orders that incentivize manufacturers. EU funding mechanisms, like those from the European Investment Bank or potentially new defense-specific banks, can inject much-needed capital. The debate around strategic specialization – whether states should focus on specific industrial competencies to avoid fragmentation – continues, balancing national interests with the need for a cohesive, powerful European defense industrial base.
Ultimately, preparing for the unknown in wartime means shifting our focus from flawed predictions to unwavering preparedness. It’s about building resilient, adaptive systems and fostering a collaborative spirit, especially across Europe. The best plan for the future isn’t a forecast, but a framework for enduring any storm.
Spend some time for your future.
To deepen your understanding of today’s evolving financial landscape, we recommend exploring the following articles:
War Economy Chapter 2: Why Economic Models Break Down During War
Common Investment Risks Explained (Beginner-Friendly Guide)
What Your CFO Isn’t Telling You About 2026 Layoffs and Raises
Explore these articles to get a grasp on the new changes in the financial world.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for informational and educational purposes only and is not designed to provide specific financial, strategic, or investment advice. The content discussed is based on publicly available information and expert analyses of geopolitical and economic trends related to war economies. Readers should not rely on this information as a substitute for professional advice tailored to their individual circumstances. Geopolitical and economic situations are highly complex and can change rapidly. Always consult with qualified professionals for advice pertaining to your specific situation.
References
- M. Cordet, “WHAT DOES ‘WARTIME ECONOMY’ STAND FOR,” IRIS – Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ProgDSA_2025_10_Wartime-economy_Note_EN.pdf
- Y. Tokbolat, “Russia’s war economy is not collapsing, but neither is it stable,” Asia Times, Dec. 12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://asiatimes.com/2025/12/russias-war-economy-is-not-collapsing-but-neither-is-it-stable
- Y. Tokbolat, “Russia’s war economy is not collapsing, but neither is it stable,” Yahoo Finance, Dec. 12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-war-economy-not-collapsing-173448192.html
