Contents
The army can pay all the bills and has not ordered more armaments material than it can pay for: Federal President Viola Amherd tried to smooth things over today. And it has one success to show: it brought new arms purchases through the Federal Council for 490 million francs. But the explanations given by those responsible about the liquidity bottleneck are vague and sometimes contradictory.
Wcontradictions in procurement
Over the next three years, a total of 1.4 billion francs will be missing to procure armaments projects within the planned time frame. Federal President Amherd and her defense department are now emphasizing that around 70 percent of the planned investments amounting to 1.4 billion francs “to improve defense capability” are not yet contractually obligated, and delays are not a problem. There are currently no discussions with suppliers to postpone or cancel contractually agreed purchases.
But immediately after the liquidity bottleneck became known, things sounded different: two weeks ago, Army Chief Thomas Süssli could not rule out cancellations of procurement projects. His head of finance, Gerhard Jakob, said at the time: They were checking with the Federal Armaments Office to see where payments could be postponed. Specifically, he was concerned with the F-35 fighter jet and the Patriot air defense system, for which purchase contracts exist: “We are looking with the US government for ways to make payment tranches more flexible.”
Despite putting things into perspective, there is a risk of skills gaps
Now the DDPS and its leader present a different picture. The army only needs to adjust its planning, not its payments. At best, only arms procurement for which there are no purchase contracts with suppliers yet would have to be pushed back. This is a contradiction to previous statements.
But the new presentation also underlines the problem: the army cannot make arms purchases approved by Parliament as quickly as planned. The delays have consequences for the army: the planning cannot be implemented as planned, said armaments chief Urs Loher: “This may result in capability gaps.” Those involved explained the contradictions by saying that not everyone understood the same thing when it came to terms such as “liquidity bottleneck” or “negotiations”.
No more army? Amherd contradicts army chief
Also after the liquidity problems became known, army chief Süssli roused the public with the warning: The army would lose its army if the army budget did not increase more. This is because replacements cannot be procured in time – for example for the aging artillery and old armored personnel carriers.
His boss Amherd distanced herself from this drastic warning today: “The army will continue to exist in the future. There may be temporary gaps in performance, but we have that in different areas of the Army.”
The army chief’s warning could still have helped the defense minister: the entire Federal Council not only supported additional arms purchases, but also spared the army from cuts compared to previous financial planning. It is quite possible that the discussions about the liquidity bottleneck contributed to this. But the problem remains: the army has had parliament approve armaments that it cannot procure as quickly as planned due to liquidity problems.