3 ms·

Europe easily outspends Russia in military investments. 287$ billion for Europe, 70$ for Russia in 2015 ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframal

Europe easily outspends Russia in military investments. 287$ billion for Europe, 70$ for Russia in 2015 ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ) So, I don't know where your opinion comes from. But I think you could be better informed ;) Ps. I do think we should buy less US and spend more European. Eg. The F-35 is a joke currently, considering the costs.

rb808 7y ago
I'm very sympathetic to the European view, but it was pretty disappointing to see Europeans forces do very little in Yugoslavian civil wars, Libya, Ukraine.
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  Europe invests in army, but it isn't a global military peace-keeper. It was/is ? actually a role that America tries to play for a long time. You already mention 3 countries. You are forgetting Georgia and a lot of other countries. Europe is a democracy and tries to influence with trade, not war. We do not force western opinions that much as America does. PS. I'm aware of Europe's history, but we live in the present. The EU is still young ( 1999 was the Euro ) and people seem to forget this all the time. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who reads this will be older.
sykick 7y ago
Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. I suggest that military spending is not an accurate enough indicator of relative strength. Defense spending alone is meaningless if there is not an accompanying ability/willingness to project power. Russia is certainly not shy about projecting it's power and European countries have been when it comes to Russia. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia certainly don't feel their security would be guaranteed in the absence of the United States being in NATO. Thanks to a successful Russian campaign to undermine confidence in the United States increasingly U.S. security guarantees are becoming less reliable. The shift to a multi-polar world has begun. Will European governments rise to the challenge?
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  > However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. x 4 doesn't justify "a bit of duplication" The difference is big enough. If we talk GDP, Europe is > ~13 times Russia. And don't forget, the size of their troops were x 5 during the USSR. Guess how much that helped. Propaganda vs reality ;) PS. https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to-the-streets-over-everyday-complaints-11577203354 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to... Quote: you are nothing with an army, if civilians aren't happy.
  - sykick 7y ago
    I don't understand your response. It seems like we are saying, at least to some extent, the same thing. Does this mean that you agree that a straight monetary comparison of spending is not adequate to give an accurate portrayal of relative military might? In case there is misunderstanding on what I meant by duplication let me be more specific. The UK and France both have similar military command structures. Thus collectively both militaries are paying for the bureaucratic overhead of maintaining of two militaries whereas Russia pays for only one. Both militaries have personnel dedicated to HR, admin, police and other ancillary costs for maintaining a military. Since there is no Euro wide military the collective spending on defense is inefficient. From my perspective The EU is militarily disjointed, fragmented, and overall weak. I'm speaking solely in terms of military might and force projection.
    - NicoJuicy 7y ago
      Fyi: The EU is 20 years old and police isn't in the defense budget. A budget 4 times as large makes a way bigger army. The USSR military wise, was 5 times as strong and still they collapsed. The Russian economy isn't strong enough to support a war this size in modern times and in the process losing their primary trade partner. The EU can easily spend more on financing a war than Russia, military spending is currently < 2%. What you mean by fragmented is actually being solved by Russian threats through joint exercises. A fragmented army ( multiple countries with different strategies) actually won in the past ( WW 2), so history doesn't seem to agree. You are also forgetting that attacking 1 country is now attacking a continent. You don't know what the response will be or where the threat will come from. The EU also has a lot of allies because of its economic power. While Russia would send it's army to the Western border, some other Asian countries with approval of the West ( and because they are under attack) would have no trouble seizing Russian land. I'm pretty sure that China would be quick to grab some too ( is the easiest quick win ever for them) and Russia wouldn't be able to stop them. Since their army would be in the West and immobile. Leaving the East open without much resistance or their army fragmented. Multiple countries ( eg. Poland for one) are already on high alert because of Russian threats. The power would actually be fragmentation. Russia is just one railroad to slow it's tanks ( transportation). European countries are only unsafe at the border of Russia and perhaps Turkey. Russia is one HQ ( Moscow) within 80 km from the European border, we have never been this close. I'm saying that if Russia would actually attack the EU ( which would be incredibly dumb). Russian infrastructure would be easily wiped out and their economy would probably collapse again. They would also lose a lot of land in the East. Since 47% of their trade is with the EU, it would cause further "unrest" among Russian population. Nobody would benefit. Facts differ from propaganda. I don't even think that actual war with 2 similar countries is possible anymore. The countries that are the most scared for actual war are the ones that censor things. Eg. Unrest in China about pork prices. Oh yeah, I forgot nuclear arms. Which would make an actual war very risky. Even with the EU's technical and numerical advantage ;)

rb808 7y ago

I'm very sympathetic to the European view, but it was pretty disappointing to see Europeans forces do very little in Yugoslavian civil wars, Libya, Ukraine.

NicoJuicy 7y ago
Europe invests in army, but it isn't a global military peace-keeper. It was/is ? actually a role that America tries to play for a long time. You already mention 3 countries. You are forgetting Georgia and a lot of other countries. Europe is a democracy and tries to influence with trade, not war. We do not force western opinions that much as America does. PS. I'm aware of Europe's history, but we live in the present. The EU is still young ( 1999 was the Euro ) and people seem to forget this all the time. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who reads this will be older.

sykick 7y ago

Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. I suggest that military spending is not an accurate enough indicator of relative strength. Defense spending alone is meaningless if there is not an accompanying ability/willingness to project power. Russia is certainly not shy about projecting it's power and European countries have been when it comes to Russia. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia certainly don't feel their security would be guaranteed in the absence of the United States being in NATO. Thanks to a successful Russian campaign to undermine confidence in the United States increasingly U.S. security guarantees are becoming less reliable. The shift to a multi-polar world has begun. Will European governments rise to the challenge?

NicoJuicy 7y ago
> However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. x 4 doesn't justify "a bit of duplication" The difference is big enough. If we talk GDP, Europe is > ~13 times Russia. And don't forget, the size of their troops were x 5 during the USSR. Guess how much that helped. Propaganda vs reality ;) PS. https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to-the-streets-over-everyday-complaints-11577203354 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to... Quote: you are nothing with an army, if civilians aren't happy.
- sykick 7y ago
  I don't understand your response. It seems like we are saying, at least to some extent, the same thing. Does this mean that you agree that a straight monetary comparison of spending is not adequate to give an accurate portrayal of relative military might? In case there is misunderstanding on what I meant by duplication let me be more specific. The UK and France both have similar military command structures. Thus collectively both militaries are paying for the bureaucratic overhead of maintaining of two militaries whereas Russia pays for only one. Both militaries have personnel dedicated to HR, admin, police and other ancillary costs for maintaining a military. Since there is no Euro wide military the collective spending on defense is inefficient. From my perspective The EU is militarily disjointed, fragmented, and overall weak. I'm speaking solely in terms of military might and force projection.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Fyi: The EU is 20 years old and police isn't in the defense budget. A budget 4 times as large makes a way bigger army. The USSR military wise, was 5 times as strong and still they collapsed. The Russian economy isn't strong enough to support a war this size in modern times and in the process losing their primary trade partner. The EU can easily spend more on financing a war than Russia, military spending is currently < 2%. What you mean by fragmented is actually being solved by Russian threats through joint exercises. A fragmented army ( multiple countries with different strategies) actually won in the past ( WW 2), so history doesn't seem to agree. You are also forgetting that attacking 1 country is now attacking a continent. You don't know what the response will be or where the threat will come from. The EU also has a lot of allies because of its economic power. While Russia would send it's army to the Western border, some other Asian countries with approval of the West ( and because they are under attack) would have no trouble seizing Russian land. I'm pretty sure that China would be quick to grab some too ( is the easiest quick win ever for them) and Russia wouldn't be able to stop them. Since their army would be in the West and immobile. Leaving the East open without much resistance or their army fragmented. Multiple countries ( eg. Poland for one) are already on high alert because of Russian threats. The power would actually be fragmentation. Russia is just one railroad to slow it's tanks ( transportation). European countries are only unsafe at the border of Russia and perhaps Turkey. Russia is one HQ ( Moscow) within 80 km from the European border, we have never been this close. I'm saying that if Russia would actually attack the EU ( which would be incredibly dumb). Russian infrastructure would be easily wiped out and their economy would probably collapse again. They would also lose a lot of land in the East. Since 47% of their trade is with the EU, it would cause further "unrest" among Russian population. Nobody would benefit. Facts differ from propaganda. I don't even think that actual war with 2 similar countries is possible anymore. The countries that are the most scared for actual war are the ones that censor things. Eg. Unrest in China about pork prices. Oh yeah, I forgot nuclear arms. Which would make an actual war very risky. Even with the EU's technical and numerical advantage ;)