5 ms·

Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straig

by 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 ;)
    - sykick 7y ago
      There are examples of a fragmented coalition winning a war. There are also examples of losing a war. I believe you view is antiquated and not rooted in the present reality of the world. There will be no conventional war with the EU. The war is a cyber one and one of swaying public opinion and one of sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion. At least as I see things. I'm by no means an expert but what is happening in the UK with it leaving the EU (supposedly!) and in the U.S. makes it clear that at present Russia is winning by fracturing the West. It remains to be seen if the EU can come together and form a cohesive alliance or if it will be fractured further with more states seeking to leave the EU.
imtringued 7y ago
The duplication is beneficial for defense. Once the first line is penetrated, defense becomes very difficult. More countries mean more first lines of defense.
- sykick 7y ago
  There can be advantages for coalitions in a war. There are also disadvantages. However, this is not the point I made. The only point I made is that $x spent by say 15 countries on defense is not at all equivalent to $x spent by a single country on defense in terms of military power, force projection, etc. due to the aforementioned duplication of HR, admin and other ancillary roles in supporting a military force.

by sykick 7y ago

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 ;)
  - sykick 7y ago
    There are examples of a fragmented coalition winning a war. There are also examples of losing a war. I believe you view is antiquated and not rooted in the present reality of the world. There will be no conventional war with the EU. The war is a cyber one and one of swaying public opinion and one of sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion. At least as I see things. I'm by no means an expert but what is happening in the UK with it leaving the EU (supposedly!) and in the U.S. makes it clear that at present Russia is winning by fracturing the West. It remains to be seen if the EU can come together and form a cohesive alliance or if it will be fractured further with more states seeking to leave the EU.

imtringued 7y ago

The duplication is beneficial for defense. Once the first line is penetrated, defense becomes very difficult. More countries mean more first lines of defense.

sykick 7y ago
There can be advantages for coalitions in a war. There are also disadvantages. However, this is not the point I made. The only point I made is that $x spent by say 15 countries on defense is not at all equivalent to $x spent by a single country on defense in terms of military power, force projection, etc. due to the aforementioned duplication of HR, admin and other ancillary roles in supporting a military force.