# COLUMN: Hanwha squeezed out of NATO contracts — European protectionism disguised as collective rearmament

> Europe is rearming. That much is clear and welcome. NATO members are increasing defence budgets. Parliaments are passing emergency procurement legislation. Defence industry stocks have soared. The rhetoric of collective security and industrial sovereignty fills every summit commu

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Column
- Published: 2026-06-27
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/hanwha-evincee-des-contrats-otan-le-protectionnisme-europeen-deguise-en-rearmeme

## Introduction: The rearmament that protects only European factories

### A continent rearming — but on whose terms?

Europe is rearming. That much is clear and welcome. **NATO** members are increasing defence budgets. Parliaments are passing emergency procurement legislation. Defence industry stocks have soared. The rhetoric of collective security and industrial sovereignty fills every summit communiqué. But there is another story running beneath the headlines of European rearmament — a story about **who gets the contracts, and who gets squeezed out**.

The answer, increasingly, is that European rearmament is being structured to benefit **European defence industrial champions** at the expense of non-European alternatives — even when those alternatives are cheaper, already combat-proven, and backed by allies whose troops are fighting alongside **NATO** forces. The victim of this trend in 2025-2026 is **Hanwha Aerospace and its South Korean defence industrial partners**.

### Hanwha's track record and the contract they didn't win

South Korea's **Hanwha Aerospace** has sold more **K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers** in Europe than any other single system — **698 units ordered across European countries**, making it the continent's dominant artillery platform by volume. Its **K239 Chunmoo** MLRS has been purchased by more than eleven European countries, with Poland alone committing over **€10.2 billion** to Korean defence systems. South Korean defence exports to Europe are not a marginal phenomenon. They are a defining feature of post-2022 European rearmament.

Yet **Hanwha lost the Romania**n IFV contract — offering 298 units of its **Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle** against Rheinmetall's 232 units of the **Lynx**, with Hanwha's bid reportedly **14% cheaper** and offering higher local production content. It lost. The Rheinmetall Lynx won. The explanation offered was industrial partnership and European procurement frameworks. The reality, less diplomatically stated, is **European industrial protectionism exercised through procurement decisions**.

*I want to be direct about what happened in **Romania**, because the diplomatic language used to describe it obscures the actual decision. A cheaper, combat-relevant, locally supportable IFV lost a contract because European governments have decided, either explicitly or implicitly, that European rearmament means European procurement — regardless of best value. I understand the industrial policy logic. I also think it should be named honestly rather than dressed up as neutral evaluation.*

## The Romanian IFV decision — 14% cheaper and still lost

### Redback vs Lynx — the technical comparison

The **Hanwha AS21 Redback** is a modern IFV that has been through extensive evaluation, including an intense Australian defence competition where it was a finalist against the Rheinmetall **KF41** **Lynx**. Its characteristics — protection level, firepower, electronic architecture, and logistics support — are comparable to or competitive with the Lynx across most assessment categories. Hanwha proposed **298 units to Romania**, significantly more than Rheinmetall's 232-unit offer.

Hanwha's Romanian bid also included a commitment to **80% local production content** — meaning most of the manufacturing value would flow into the Romanian industrial base. This is precisely the local industrial development benefit that European procurement frameworks rhetorically prioritise. On price, quantity, local content, and technical capability, the Hanwha offer was objectively competitive. It lost anyway.

### The real reasons — unstated but legible

The **Rheinmetall Lynx**'s victory in Romania reflects several factors that official procurement language does not state explicitly. Rheinmetall is a German company — the EU's largest economy and a country with enormous influence over European procurement policy. The **SAFE programme and EU defence financing mechanisms** are more easily accessed for European-origin systems. Political relationships between defence ministries tend to favour established European suppliers. And there is an explicit **EU industrial policy preference** for building European defence industrial capacity rather than Asian supply dependency.

None of these factors are illegitimate in isolation. The problem is that they are applied selectively and inconsistently — in ways that welcome South Korean systems when European alternatives are unavailable or too expensive, and exclude them when European industrial interests are at stake. That is not a principled procurement policy. It is **industrial protectionism with NATO** branding.

*Let me be precise about the protectionism charge. I'm not saying European procurement is rigged in a corrupt sense. I'm saying it systematically weights industrial and political factors over pure military capability and value. That is a legitimate policy choice. But it has consequences — it means European rearmament is slower and more expensive than it needs to be, and it imposes real costs on allied countries that are building the systems Europe needs.*

## France's LRU contract — Sundart over Hanwha

### The MLRS competition France decided differently

France's **LRU (Lance-Roquettes Unitaire)** contract — for a wheeled MLRS system to replace aging artillery — was awarded to **Sundart**, a consortium involving **MBDA** and **Safran**, over Hanwha's competing offer. The decision preserved French industrial content in a programme financed partly through French defence budget and EU mechanisms. The result is a system that serves French industrial interests but that was not necessarily the **best available option on military terms**.

The French decision follows a consistent pattern in French defence procurement: France builds what France can build, buys what France must buy elsewhere, and consistently priorities domestic industrial content over alliance interoperability or cost efficiency. This is a legitimate sovereign choice. It is not cost-free: **French taxpayers pay more, French forces sometimes get less capability per euro**, and allied systems that proved their worth in Ukraine are excluded from French procurement.

### Poland's different calculation

The contrast with Poland is instructive. Poland, facing a direct Russian threat and prioritising rapid rearmament over industrial politics, has become **Hanwha's largest European customer**. The **€10.2 billion commitment to Korean defence systems** — K2 tanks, K9 howitzers, **Chunmoo** MLRS, FA-50 fighters — reflects a procurement strategy that explicitly prioritises **capability, speed of delivery, and combat relevance** over European industrial solidarity.

Poland has made a different bet: that the security environment is too urgent for industrial politics to drive procurement decisions. Warsaw has also calculated that Korean systems, **proven in actual conflict through South Korea's extended experience** and built with Ukraine war lessons incorporated, represent better value for a country that genuinely faces the threat **NATO** is supposed to deter. The Polish calculation may be correct. It is certainly rational. And it is being watched closely by every European defence ministry wondering which approach to follow.

*Poland's procurement strategy is the most interesting test case in European rearmament right now. It has chosen capability and speed over industrial politics. It has committed €10.2 billion to Korean systems. And it is being watched with a mixture of admiration by countries that face real threats and irritation by France and Germany who see European industrial policy being bypassed. The debate about what "European rearmament" should mean — industrial sovereignty or military capability — is being played out in real time, and Poland has placed a very clear bet.*

## The SAFE programme — designed with European winners in mind

### €150 billion with built-in exclusions

The EU's **SAFE programme** — a €150 billion defence investment framework — was designed with procurement rules that effectively **exclude non-EU defence industrial base products from subsidised purchase**. Systems built by South Korean, American, or other non-EU manufacturers cannot be funded through SAFE loans and grants on equal terms with European-origin systems, even when those systems are already in service with EU member state militaries.

The result is a perverse procurement dynamic: a **NATO** ally facing the Russian threat can buy K9 howitzers and **Chunmoo** MLRS — proven systems, faster to deliver, competitively priced — but if it wants EU financing support through SAFE, it faces pressure to choose a European alternative that may be slower, more expensive, and less combat-validated. **SAFE financing functions as a procurement incentive for European industrial champions**, regardless of what the threat environment actually requires.

### The engaged rate — 1% of 150 billion

SAFE has engaged approximately **€1.4 billion** of its €150 billion announced total — a rate of less than 1% — with only 9 of 19 eligible members participating. The slow implementation reflects the genuine difficulty of coordinating European defence procurement under unanimity constraints, but it also reflects the **practical limitation of a system that excludes the most available, combat-proven systems** from its procurement incentives. If SAFE's industrial policy criteria exclude the systems most rapidly available at competitive prices, SAFE's implementation will be slow almost by design.

Canada's accession to SAFE in **June 2026** expanded the programme's political coalition without resolving its structural procurement problems. A broader coalition financing a restrictive industrial policy framework **does not solve the speed-versus-sovereignty tension**. It just enlarges the debate.

*The SAFE implementation numbers tell a story that the announcement headlines do not. One percent engaged. Nine of nineteen participating. These are not signs of a programme accelerating European rearmament at the pace the threat requires. They are signs of a programme that has correctly identified the goal — collective European defence investment — and incorrectly designed the mechanism by prioritising industrial politics over military urgency. The threat does not wait for the industrial policy debates to be resolved.*

## Rheinmetall's F126 cancellation — when European industrial policy fails itself

### Eight **Meko A-200** frigates instead

The irony in European defence industrial politics was sharpened when **Rheinmetall's F126 programme — the German naval build** — was cancelled, causing **Rheinmetall stock to drop 19%** in a single session. The German navy opted instead for **eight Meko A-200** frigates — a more conventional approach to the frigate capability requirement. The cancellation demonstrated that even the champion of European industrial protectionism — Rheinmetall, whose **Lynx** defeated Hanwha's **Redback** — is not immune to procurement reversals.

The F126 cancellation is relevant to the Hanwha story because it illustrates the **risks of industrial policy-driven procurement**: ambitious programmes designed to develop national industrial capability can fail to deliver, leaving capability gaps and shareholder losses. Hanwha's **Redback**, by contrast, is in production, has been through rigorous evaluation, and is available for delivery. The contrast between available proven capability and ambitious programmes that collapse is not abstract — it is a defence planning problem that European governments must resolve.

### The Rheinmetall paradox

Rheinmetall is genuinely one of Europe's most capable defence industrial companies. Its **KF41** **Lynx**, its Boxer modular vehicle, its ammunition production capacity are real assets for European rearmament. The company has been a primary beneficiary of European rearmament politically and financially. But the F126 cancellation is a reminder that even established European champions are not infallible — and that the assumption that European industrial champions automatically provide superior outcomes is not always warranted by the evidence.

The **sustainable answer** is not to choose between European champions and Korean alternatives, but to build procurement frameworks that allow genuine competition on merit — with industrial **co-production** arrangements that build European capacity over time without sacrificing near-term capability and cost efficiency. That framework does not currently exist.

*Rheinmetall's F126 cancellation the same week Hanwha lost Romania is the juxtaposition that crystallises this issue for me. The European company whose Lynx won the Romanian IFV contract just watched its flagship naval programme collapse. The Korean company that lost Romania has a product that is in production, evaluated, and available. That is not an argument against European industrial development. It is an argument for procurement frameworks that do not assume European industrial champions automatically deliver.*

## The Poland submarine programme — another Korean loss

### Saab wins over Hanwha Ocean

In **November 2025**, Poland awarded its submarine acquisition contract to **Saab** — the Swedish company — over **Hanwha Ocean's** competing bid. Poland is seeking to acquire **up to twelve submarines**, a programme of enormous strategic significance for a country now positioned as **NATO**'s eastern frontline. The Saab victory was framed partly in terms of European industrial solidarity — Sweden is an EU member state and a new NATO member, and Polish-Swedish defence industrial cooperation fits neatly into European procurement frameworks.

The Hanwha Ocean bid was competitive on technical and cost grounds. The Korean submarine industry, which has built dozens of submarines for the Republic of Korea Navy, has a proven industrial track record. The loss in Poland — following the losses in Romania and France — is part of a pattern that Hanwha and Korean defence analysts have explicitly documented: **systematic exclusion from European programmes through procurement rules rather than competitive evaluation**.

### Canada's 12 submarine programme

Canada is evaluating bids for **twelve new submarines** — a programme that has been discussed for years and is now approaching actual procurement decisions. **Hanwha Ocean** is a serious contender, competing against **TKMS** (German) and other bidders. Canada's decision will be watched closely as a test case for whether non-European allies apply the same industrial protectionism as the EU or whether they evaluate bids on competitive merit.

Canada has already joined SAFE, which creates some pressure to align procurement with European industrial preferences. But Canada also has a direct security interest in acquiring submarines as quickly as possible, and its relationship with South Korea is strong. The Canadian decision will help answer the question of whether **European industrial protectionism is a European phenomenon or a broader Western trend**.

*The Canadian submarine decision is the one I'm watching most carefully in the broader Hanwha story. Canada is simultaneously a new SAFE member, a close American ally, and a country with real and urgent defence capability gaps. How it balances European industrial solidarity against competitive procurement merit — and against the urgent security timeline — will say something important about whether European industrial protectionism is being exported to the broader Western alliance or whether it remains a European-specific phenomenon.*

## Joint ventures as adaptation — Hanwha's response

### **LIG** D&A and Rheinmetall — competing and cooperating

Korean defence industry has begun adapting to European industrial preferences through **joint ventures and partnership arrangements** designed to embed Korean technological capability in European corporate structures. **LIG** Defence and Aerospace (LIG D&A) has entered a partnership with **Rheinmetall** that simultaneously makes the two companies competitors in some markets and partners in others. The partnership allows Rheinmetall to benefit from Korean engineering capability while Korean industry gains access to European procurement networks.

The joint venture approach is pragmatic but not without tensions. **Technology transfer through partnership** carries risks for the Korean partner: capabilities shared in a joint venture can be reproduced by the European partner for future competitions where the Korean company is excluded. Intellectual property protections in defence joint ventures are imperfect, and the track record of junior partners in asymmetric technology alliances suggests caution about how much is shared and under what conditions.

### Hanwha Systems and Diehl Defence radar cooperation

**Hanwha Systems** has also entered a cooperation arrangement with **Diehl Defence** on radar systems — another example of Korean defence industry seeking to embed itself in European industrial structures rather than competing externally. The Diehl arrangement focuses on radar and electronic warfare systems, where Korean technology development has been significant but European market access has been limited by procurement preferences.

These partnership strategies reflect a mature corporate response to a structural market access problem. They do not eliminate the fundamental tension between European industrial protectionism and alliance-wide procurement efficiency. They manage it, through a gradual process of **Korean industrial capability integration into European corporate structures** — an approach that benefits both sides over time but resolves neither the near-term procurement efficiency problem nor the underlying policy issue.

*The joint venture approach is essentially Korean defence industry saying: if you won't let us compete on our merits, we'll embed our capabilities inside your structures. It is a reasonable corporate adaptation to an unreasonable procurement environment. But it doesn't address the policy problem — it works around it. The policy problem remains: European rearmament is being designed in ways that systematically exclude proven, competitive, allied systems. That has real costs for European security.*

## K9 Thunder — the European dominant platform nobody discusses

### 698 units and still not "European enough"

The **K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzer** is, by unit count, **the dominant artillery platform** in the European rearmament cycle. With **698 systems ordered across European countries** — including Poland, **Norway**, **Finland**, **Estonia**, and others — the K9 has become the de facto standard for European heavy artillery despite being produced by a South Korean company. Its European market penetration has been achieved through competitive pricing, established production capacity, and proven performance.

The K9's European dominance is an anomaly in the industrial policy narrative: a Korean system that has successfully become the European artillery standard precisely because it was ordered before the current SAFE and EU industrial framework was fully operationalised. Countries that bought K9s before the industrial protectionism framework was built got proven systems quickly at competitive prices. Countries making procurement decisions under the current framework face more pressure toward European alternatives.

### The Chunmoo's eleven-country footprint

Similarly, the **Chunmoo MLRS has been purchased by more than eleven European countries**, providing a platform interoperability baseline that makes continued Korean system procurement logistically rational. Countries that have Chunmoo systems, K9 howitzers, and associated logistics chains have a natural industrial continuity argument for continued Korean procurement — their training pipelines, spare parts infrastructure, and technical expertise are already calibrated to Korean platforms.

The industrial logic argues against European protectionism in artillery and MLRS precisely because **European militaries are already deeply integrated with Korean systems**. Forcing a transition to European alternatives would impose **retraining costs, logistics restructuring, and readiness gaps** that would actually reduce European military capability during the transition period. This argument has not yet prevailed in procurement policy. But it is a real one.

*The K9 and Chunmoo numbers are the ones that make the European industrial protectionism narrative most difficult to sustain coherently. Europe's dominant artillery platform is Korean. More than eleven European countries use Korean MLRS systems. The integration is already deep. The argument for excluding Korean systems from new procurement on industrial sovereignty grounds has to somehow reconcile itself with the fact that European militaries are already extensively dependent on Korean industrial support. That reconciliation is not straightforward.*

## The R&D funding gap — 49% vs 40-45% vs 5-10%

### Who invests in the underlying technology

A structural dimension of the Korean defence export challenge involves **research and development funding allocation**. European and American defence procurement typically requires significant **offset and local R&D content** — demanding that suppliers invest a percentage of contract value in local research, technology transfer, or industrial partnership. The approximate allocation for major contracts runs: **approximately 49%** local content requirement, 40-45% direct procurement, and 5-10% for R&D transfer.

Korean defence companies, whose **home market R&D is funded substantially by the South Korean government**, can offer lower prices partly because their development costs are partially socialised. European industrial policy sees this as unfair competition — state-supported Korean systems competing against commercially funded European alternatives. The argument has merit in a purely commercial sense. It ignores the reality that **European defence companies also receive substantial state support** through guaranteed national procurement, research grants, and industrial policy incentives.

### The civil-military integration gap

South Korean defence industry benefits from a **tight civil-military integration** — technology developed for commercial electronics, shipbuilding, and automotive sectors flows into defence applications with relatively low additional R&D cost. Samsung's electronics technology informs Hanwha's guidance systems. Hyundai's manufacturing technology informs Korean military vehicle production. This integration creates a **structural competitive advantage** that is difficult for European defence industry to replicate quickly.

European defence companies have historically operated in more **segmented industrial environments**, with defence and commercial technology development kept separate by export controls, classification requirements, and corporate structure. The gap is closing — European companies are investing in dual-use technology development — but it represents a genuine productivity disadvantage in cost-competitive procurement contexts.

*The civil-military integration advantage South Korean industry has is real and significant. When Samsung's chip technology informs Hanwha's guidance systems, the R&D economics are fundamentally different from a pure defence company funding the same development independently. European industrial policy can try to replicate that integration. It cannot do so overnight. In the interim, the competitive gap is real, and pretending it doesn't exist by excluding Korean bids from procurement competitions doesn't make European systems better — it just makes them more protected.*

## Ukraine's experience as the decisive validation

### Combat-proven on the most demanding battlefield

The **Ukraine conflict has provided the most demanding real-world test** of military equipment since the Second World War for European defence industry. Systems that perform well in Ukraine — in terms of durability, logistics, ammunition supply, and combat effectiveness — are being validated as the gold standard for European rearmament. Systems that have not been tested in high-intensity conflict face questions about their real-world performance.

Korean systems — K9 howitzers, **Chunmoo** MLRS — have been purchased extensively by Ukraine's direct neighbours and integrated into their defence planning precisely because they are **proven, available, and manufacturable at scale**. The combat validation argument works against systems that have not been stress-tested in high-intensity warfare. Korean systems, while not directly employed in Ukraine, have been purchased and deployed by the countries most directly threatened by the same adversary.

### The transformation argument

Korea's **Ukraine battlefield experience** has been transformative not as a direct participant but as a close observer and system supplier. Battlefield feedback from Ukrainian and allied users of Korean systems has been incorporated into **rapid development cycles** — updating systems with lessons from actual high-intensity warfare on European soil. This feedback loop, combined with the existing industrial integration of Korean systems into European militaries, represents a **genuine military capability advantage** that procurement policy should incorporate rather than exclude.

The argument for Korean systems in European procurement is not about replacing European industrial development. It is about acknowledging that **allied democracies with proven, combat-relevant systems deserve fair procurement consideration** — not systematic exclusion through industrial policy frameworks that prioritise European corporate interests over collective defence capability.

*The Ukraine battlefield feedback loop is the most compelling argument for continued Korean system integration in European rearmament. This is a war being fought with the kinds of systems that European militaries are trying to build. Korean manufacturers are getting feedback from the most demanding combat environment available and incorporating it rapidly. That is a capability advantage that no procurement policy framework should casually exclude.*

## What European rearmament should actually look like

### The case for merit-based procurement with co-production

The sustainable framework for European rearmament is not one that excludes allies but one that **combines merit-based competitive procurement with mandated co-production** arrangements. A Korean company winning a European contract should be required to establish significant European manufacturing content — creating the industrial jobs and capability that European procurement policy legitimately seeks, without sacrificing the competitive evaluation that produces best-value systems.

This model already exists in some form — Polish procurement of Korean systems has involved **significant local production transfer**, with K2 tanks being produced in Poland under license and K9 howitzers assembled with increasing domestic content. The Polish model shows that it is possible to simultaneously get the capability, the price, and the industrial development — if procurement frameworks are designed to enable that outcome rather than to default to European corporate preferences.

### The alliance cohesion cost

There is a final dimension to the Hanwha procurement story that transcends industrial economics. South Korea has been a steadfast partner in the collective Western response to Russian aggression — providing artillery ammunition, systems, and technical support to countries directly supporting Ukraine. Systematically excluding South Korean defence industry from European procurement while benefiting from Korean industrial output is **not a sustainable alliance dynamic**.

Alliance cohesion requires that burden-sharing be recognised and reciprocated. If South Korea contributes to European security and is excluded from European procurement markets in return, the incentive to continue contributing diminishes. The **transactional logic of alliance maintenance** suggests that European procurement policy should acknowledge the Korean contribution — not as charity, but as the rational recognition of alliance reciprocity.

*The alliance reciprocity argument is the one I find most persuasive and most underused in the Hanwha debate. South Korea is an allied democracy that has contributed substantially to the Western response to Russian aggression. Excluding it from European procurement markets while welcoming its systems when European alternatives don't exist is a form of alliance behaviour that the Korean side will eventually price into its strategic calculus. That's not a threat — it's just how alliances work over time.*

## Hanwha's European future — adapt or be excluded

### The company's strategic response

Hanwha's corporate response to European procurement exclusions has been to **accelerate Europeanisation** — establishing European subsidiaries, entering joint ventures, seeking European industrial partnerships, and building local production capacity in European countries. **Hanwha Aerospace Europe** and related entities are designed to make Korean capabilities legally accessible through European corporate structures that satisfy local content requirements.

This Europeanisation strategy is expensive and time-consuming, but it reflects a realistic assessment of the political constraints. A company that wants European contracts in the current framework must become, in relevant legal and industrial senses, **European enough** to satisfy the procurement rules. Whether the full cost of Europeanisation preserves the cost advantage that made Korean systems attractive in the first place is a genuine question that Hanwha's financial planners are actively working through.

### The long-term trajectory

The long-term trajectory of Korean defence industry in Europe is likely to be one of **progressive integration** — joint ventures, **co-production** arrangements, European subsidiaries — that blur the line between Korean and European defence industry over time. The K9 will eventually be produced substantially in European factories. The **Chunmoo** will have European components. The distinction that current procurement policy treats as a disqualifying barrier will become commercially and industrially moot.

That trajectory is good for European military capability and for alliance cohesion. The problem is the **transition period** — the years during which European procurement policy excludes proven Korean systems in favour of European alternatives that are slower, more expensive, or less combat-validated. During those years, European militaries pay a capability cost. The June 25 Korean weapons tests are a reminder that the threat environment is not waiting for the transition to complete.

*The integration trajectory I'm describing — Korean companies becoming effectively European through joint ventures and co-production — is the right long-term answer. But the transition period matters enormously, and it's happening right now, while Europe is rearming and while North Korea and Russia are demonstrating the direction of travel in precision warfare. The abstract long-term correctness of the trajectory provides no comfort to European militaries that need capable systems now, not in a decade.*

## The broader protectionism problem in allied defence

### A pattern beyond Hanwha

The Hanwha story is the most visible current example of a broader pattern: **allied industrial protectionism distorting collective defence procurement**. American "Buy American" provisions have historically excluded allied systems from US procurement even when allied systems were superior and cheaper. EU "Buy European" frameworks replicate the same logic with the same adverse consequences for collective security efficiency.

The **ideal collective defence procurement system** would allow any democratic ally to compete fairly for contracts from any other democratic ally, with transparent evaluation criteria, mandatory **co-production** requirements proportional to contract size, and industrial policy goals pursued through technology transfer rather than market exclusion. That system does not exist. Building it would require **political will that no current government has demonstrated**.

### What collective rearmament should mean

Collective rearmament, properly understood, means rearming collectively — meaning together, with the best available systems from across the democratic alliance, structured to build shared industrial capability over time. It does not mean each country rearming separately while **using collective financing frameworks to advantage national industrial champions**. That is domestic industrial policy dressed up as collective security.

Europe needs to choose: does collective rearmament mean **collective capability, collectively built**, or does it mean individual capability funded through collective mechanisms? The Hanwha story suggests Europe is currently choosing the latter. That choice has costs — in capability, in cost-efficiency, and in the alliance relationships that ultimately determine whether democratic solidarity holds under pressure.

*The title of this column is European protectionism disguised as collective rearmament. I chose that framing carefully, because I think it accurately describes what is happening. Europe is absolutely rearming. The money is real. The will is increasing. But the procurement frameworks being built around that rearmament are designed to benefit European corporations first and European security second. That ordering matters. It matters for cost. It matters for capability. And it matters for the alliances that the rearmament is supposed to serve.*

## Strategic implications and the long view

### The structural shift beneath the surface events

The events analysed in this article are not isolated incidents. They represent a **structural shift in the strategic environment** that has been building across years of incremental change. Understanding any single event in isolation misses the larger pattern — the convergence of pressures, the evolution of doctrines, and the gradual transformation of balances that underlie the headline developments.

That structural shift demands not only tactical responses but a **reassessment of fundamental strategic assumptions**. The alliances, institutions, and frameworks built in a different era are being tested against a reality they were not fully designed to manage. Meeting that test requires both the clarity to see the structural change clearly and the political will to respond proportionately.

### The choices that remain available

This analysis would be incomplete without acknowledging that the choices described are not predetermined outcomes. **Political will, sustained institutional commitment, and the decisions of individual leaders** still shape how these structural forces resolve. Determinism about geopolitical outcomes is intellectually lazy and practically dangerous — it gives permission to passivity when action is available.

The situations described in this article are serious. They are not hopeless. The democracies, the institutions, and the alliances that constitute the **rules-based order** have **demonstrated resilience and adaptability** at critical moments before. Whether they do so again depends on choices that have not yet been made. That is what makes analysis — and the public understanding it aims to foster — worth the effort.

## Conclusion: The cost of the wrong answer to European rearmament

### What is being sacrificed for industrial politics

The cost of European industrial protectionism in defence procurement is not theoretical. It is the **14% price premium paid for the Romanian Lynx** over the **Redback**. It is the slower delivery timeline for systems designed from scratch rather than already in production. It is the **K9 and Chunmoo** integration already embedded in European militaries being disrupted by procurement decisions that favour European corporate interests over military continuity. It is the **alliance relationship with South Korea** being slowly strained by systematic exclusion.

These costs do not appear in a single line item. They accumulate across hundreds of procurement decisions, across years of capability development, across the gradual erosion of alliance trust. They are real costs — paid in reduced military capability, higher defence budgets, and slower rearmament pace — even if they are invisible in any individual contract award announcement.

### The alliance question

The ultimate question raised by the Hanwha story is about the nature of democratic alliance. A democratic alliance that systematically advantages its own industrial interests over its allies' industrial contributions is not fully living up to its stated values of reciprocity, solidarity, and collective purpose. **South Korea is a democracy. It is an ally. Its defence companies are competitive, proven, and combat-relevant.** Treating them as a threat to European industrial sovereignty rather than a resource for European security is a category error.

The correction does not require abandoning European industrial development. It requires building procurement frameworks honest enough to acknowledge that **the best collective defence sometimes means buying the best available system, wherever it comes from** — while building the **co-production** arrangements that develop European capability in parallel. That is not protectionism. That is what an actual alliance looks like.

*The facts presented in this analysis have been drawn from primary sources and cross-referenced with published reporting. Where uncertainty exists about specific figures or assessments, it has been flagged. The analytical conclusions are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of any institution or alliance.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [Chosun English — Hanwha defence industry European contract losses — June 24, 2026](https://www.chosun.com/english/industry-en/2026/06/24/WQ7YUK5M3RDU7HBBPXN36GPSWM/)

- [EU Perspectives — SAFE but slow: why defence loans miss the target — June 2026](https://euperspectives.eu/2026/06/safe-but-slow-why-defence-loans-miss-target/)

- [Nate News — Korean defence companies accelerate overseas production — June 22, 2026](https://news.nate.com/view/20260622n27977)

### Secondary sources

- [CNBC — Rheinmetall defence stocks and F126 programme cancellation — June 25, 2026](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/25/rheinmetall-defense-stocks-germany-f126.html)

- [Seoul Economic Daily — Korea defence firms accelerate overseas production to win contracts — June 24, 2026](https://en.sedaily.com/finance/2026/06/24/korea-defense-firms-accelerate-overseas-production-to-win)

- [EU Perspectives — Paris saw the future of defence: can Europe keep pace? — June 2026](https://euperspectives.eu/2026/06/paris-saw-the-future-of-defence-can-europe-keep-pace/)

-

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/hanwha-evincee-des-contrats-otan-le-protectionnisme-europeen-deguise-en-rearmeme