Tbh the article is sus, the recommendation says we should get these "air defence system" from Turkey or Czech Republic. But why? it seems a nonsense that he goes on a great length to critically evaluate our air defence assets and laid out "technical specifications" for air defense assets that should be procured.
Only to determine suppliers based on political reasons?
"To depend on a purely US and EU origin product would pose issues as the matter of support for bilateral trade and export financing and the complexity of US-Indonesia and EU-Indonesia ties gets in the way."
"Procuring those systems purely from a US source would cause issues whenever Indonesia decides to take a stance against separatists and terrorists operating in regions like Papua."
"Both nations are independent, have a long history of maintaining large and active militaries and are known to have comprehensive civil-military technology clusters and they have reliable corporations that have served the needs of the domestic and foreign militaries."
Wtf bro, the most obvious choice, US and EU are simply taken out of the equation based on a vague hypothetical political scenario? the argument sounds weak to me.
Turkey still makes some sense as a supplier, as they can produce their own weapons in large numbers, but the Czechs aren't even producing their own air defense system themselves, and he recommends the Czechs? Something is wrong here, the author is sus. The journal is a social science journal, yet the writer seems to be weak in terms of social science, overemphasizing technical specifications but cannot present a strong correlation between his main argument and recommendation.
He also lumps together "EU" into a single actor, when it is obvious different EU members have different interests and attitudes. France is probably the more independent EU and NATO member and has consistently been willing to supply weapons to countries even fighting against their own western allies. He ignored France, but focus on the Czech Republic? wth? Czech Republic is a member of EU and NATO. I don't know what the guy is thinking in his recommendation section, he seems very weak in his argumentation, obviously not an expert in social science (politics and international relations).
Is he some kind of sales/ contractor? this article doesn't sound neutral to me.
