3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

by sykick 7y ago

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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]