5 ms·

I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades ch

I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. Meanwhile, Russia, a less prosperous nation with a history of muscular military engagement, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDP on military. Due to its regular shadow operations in other countries, Russia has a ready supply of veteran soldiers who could be drawn on in a hostile engagement. European nations could have used the ‘NATO’ Afghanistan invasion as an opportunity to develop a similar pool, but made only token efforts. Germany is even worse than Denmark. It is laughable for Merkel to make these comments. She has been in power for fifteen years. All through that time, Germany has been amongst the worst NATO members against it’s treaty obligations. Beyond the realities of military capability, there are the political problems. The European group have no history of coordinated executive action. Structurally, they are in a weaker position to coordinate a war even than the US was in its articles of confederation era.

coldtea 6y ago
>The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. That "treaty" was pushed to European nations, mafia style, and voted in by right-wing parties and politicians (sometimes right-wing to the point of dictatorship), in the Cold War era, as protection against USSR. It's still pushed now through diplomatic pressure, profitable handouts to vote in favor, etc., not because those nations really want it.
- lumberjack 6y ago
  Americans won't know this history. They also don't know that weak countries prefer to remain neutral rather than join NATO. Joining NATO also makes you a target. US tried hard to get everyone to join, including a fair bit of meddling in nation politics. Despite this neither Finland nor Sweden are in NATO.
  - jabl 6y ago
    Finland not being in NATO is more a result of it's successful strategy of surviving the cold war by sitting on the fence playing both sides [1]. Since the collapse of the USSR and Finland joining the EU the situation is quite different, but old habits, particularly successful ones, are hard to shake. [1] One can of course speculate what would have happened if the cold war would have turned hot. Would ostensibly neutral Finland have been left alone, or would both NATO and the Warsaw Pact have nuked it just to be sure. Or would the massive nuclear strikes on the nearby Murmansk and Leningrad areas have caused such massive fallout that it would have been a moot point anyway?
paganel 6y ago
The problem with an European Army is that the French or the Italians or even the Germans won't send their young men to die at the Eastern border in order to defend Poland or Romania, it's as simple as that (see also the "phoney war" that only ended when Nazi Germany actually decided to invade France and the Benelux). The Americans inspire a little more trust, even though they live half a world away (maybe because of that). Source: me, living in Romania.
- HatchedLake721 6y ago
  It’s the same thing with NATO. If Russia invades Baltic’s tomorrow, you think USA will send boots on the ground and all European NATO members will sit still?
- drran 6y ago
  USA did not send his young men to die at Easterner border, despite the guarantees of safety for Ukraine. Ukraine exchanged nuclear weapons for guarantees of safety (Budapest memorandum) by RF, GB, and USA, and then screwed.
- Bayart 6y ago
  >The problem with an European Army is that the French or the Italians or even the Germans won't send their young men to die at the Eastern border in order to defend Poland or Romania, it's as simple as that What makes you think that ? I often read those sorts of reactions from Eastern Europeans (yes, yes, I know Poland is in « Central Europe ») but that's just giving us intentions we don't have. One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry. Speaking from a French perspective, we'd be completely comfortable sending people fight for the sake of Poland, Romania or any EU member without too much of a second thought. We already send people to Africa all the time.
  - paganel 6y ago
    > What makes you think that ? Most recently Macron's overtures towards Russia, so much so that even the Financial Times [1] felt the need the to blame it in one of its opinion pieces, and that is saying something (they generally are pretty neutral to "liberal" European leaders like Macron, even more so when they happen to be former investment bankers). > One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry. That does indeed happen and it's an active concern, one of the scandals that is about to erupt here in Romania is of the Romanian Army buying military stuff without following proper procurement procedures directly from an US company (via some Swiss and Israeli intermediaries/shell companies, depending on how you look at them). The French are fuming because apparently they were in contention for that contract, too. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/168243c2-bac4-404c-843a-ca1f61196049 https://www.ft.com/content/168243c2-bac4-404c-843a-ca1f61196...
walkingolof 6y ago
>Meanwhile, Russia, a developing nation with a history of muscular military engagements in the region, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDB on military. The Russia GDP is less than 10% of the GDP of EU, or the same size as the Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries. Its population is shrinking rapidly due to low birth rates and very high death rates. Its ruled by a totalitarian dictator that regularly tries to murder his opponents. It seeks by all means to stir up unrest in its surroundings by misinformation. Its one of the most corrupt countries in the world. All of these are good reasons why the EU should rapidly invest in its own defense force. Putin will step-down one way or another the next 20 years and then it may get ugly, nobody knows who are waiting in the wings...
- cturner 6y ago
  Loosely I agree with commenters remarking that the Cold War is over. (Though not the disrespect for the Russian capability. That is a country that still knows how to fight a war.) But if not for Russia, why does Europe need a military? To get strategic independence from the US? In that case, where is the money? Why the howling about Trump wanting to reduce the US contribution? And how is the command going to work? These are rhetorical questions. I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience.
  - walkingolof 6y ago
    >why does Europe need a military? Why does the US need a military? Canada? Mexico? Its a global world, EU as one of the biggest blocks needs its own military for many reasons. Its time to cut the reliance of the US, but remain very close allies. If defense spending is done right, purchased locally by local companies, a lot of the money circles back into the economy.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - iguy 6y ago
    > But if not for Russia, why does Europe need a military? I guess Turkey is the obvious other candidate. Not so many nukes, of course, but invaded a now EU member in 1974. Plays games with the edges of Greek airspace every week or so? Officially still in NATO but who knows what that means. > I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience. Yes.
jabl 6y ago
> Meanwhile, Russia, a developing nation with a history of muscular military engagements in the region, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDB on military. Economically, Russia is a midget compared to the EU. They do have lots of nukes, though.
thefounder 6y ago
>> I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. You are not alone. That's why some EU countries prefer to buy US millitary equipment(often at inflated prices), support US's interests in the region and beyond(i.e Iraq invasion), accept US's interferences and be done with it. The EU army project is too risky politically and strategically. Things may change if US becomes too erratic(i.e think of a super Trump presidency)
- mola 6y ago
  Well, reality is not static, what's laughable today may be very reasonable tomorrow. EU generally would like to play ball with the US as long as the relationship is palatable predictable stable and generally cooperative. But a strong EU and an unpredictable, bullish and erratic behaviour by certain US presidents, might change this.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
morsch 6y ago
I'll vote to increase our defense spending to 2% once the US decreases its to 2%.
RobertoG 6y ago
>>"chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations [..]" This is a list of military spending by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... If you count only France and Germany they spend already more than Russia. The European Union together spend more money in defense that any other country in the world except the USA (and around the same that China). So, what's the reason for demanding more spending? Recently, there was a decision to increase spending at the European level, but the project was to spend it in local industry instead of buying the weapons to the Americans. The pentagon reacted really offended (1). This "you should spend more in defense" is not about defense, it's about money, and where that money goes. I think a better question that why the Europeans don't spend more in "defense", it's: why the Americans spend so much? (1) - https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/pentagon-nato-warn-european-union-about-defense-spending/ https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/pentagon-nato-warn-europ...
- cturner 6y ago
  Among reasons for the American spend (1) it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause, and has historically been used to dissuade Australia and Japan and South Korea and West Germany from creating their own nuclear weapons programs; (2) because the US has historically guaranteed northern Europe against a USSR tank invasion, though this may no longer be relevant; (3) the US is security guarantor for much of east Asia, including the Korean Peninsula. Asian nations currently have strong concern about the rise of wolf warrior China. If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated! If NATO is no longer relevant, then nations should drop out of it. There is a clear path to this. If they want to be members, they should honour their obligations.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    >>" it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause [..]" The non-proliferation cause it's another way of saying "we are the only one that should have nuclear capability". It doesn't look like to me that the USA is interested in a world without nuclear weapons (1), only in a world where the others don't have nuclear weapons. >>"If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!" If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead of "business", why being against spending the money in European military industry? I notice that you don't address the question that Europe already spend more than Russia. I think you forgot your links in your answer. (1) - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...
mrweasel 6y ago
I'm actually pretty disappointed with the Danish politicians answers as to why we're not at 2%. They try to put "cyber defense" in as a military expect, even if the job description suggests that it's actually just police work and therefor should count in the 2%. We also frequently claim that foreign aid should be counted as part of our NATO contribution, because it prevents war. While that may be true, Danish politicians should and do know that the 2% for defense was never meant as anything but pure military expenses. Claiming that we don't need to spend as much as 2% of GDP isn't the point, we promised our NATO partners that we would. If 2% is to much, then work to change the NATO rules, don't just ignore them. The US is absolutely right to be upset that it's NATO partners isn't fulfilling their part of the deal and instead rely on US tax payers for their defense.
thefounder 6y ago
When the U.S says that more should be spent on NATO that usually means to buy more U.S equipment at inflated prices rather than to make Europe's defense more effective and efficient. >> The European group have no history of coordinated executive action. Yeah, perhaps they should start working on a coordinated executive action(i.e an EU army) or...just accept US protection for a "fee". It's been a good trade so far anyway. The only issue is that recently US started to double guess its past agreements.

coldtea 6y ago

>The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. That "treaty" was pushed to European nations, mafia style, and voted in by right-wing parties and politicians (sometimes right-wing to the point of dictatorship), in the Cold War era, as protection against USSR. It's still pushed now through diplomatic pressure, profitable handouts to vote in favor, etc., not because those nations really want it.

lumberjack 6y ago
Americans won't know this history. They also don't know that weak countries prefer to remain neutral rather than join NATO. Joining NATO also makes you a target. US tried hard to get everyone to join, including a fair bit of meddling in nation politics. Despite this neither Finland nor Sweden are in NATO.
- jabl 6y ago
  Finland not being in NATO is more a result of it's successful strategy of surviving the cold war by sitting on the fence playing both sides [1]. Since the collapse of the USSR and Finland joining the EU the situation is quite different, but old habits, particularly successful ones, are hard to shake. [1] One can of course speculate what would have happened if the cold war would have turned hot. Would ostensibly neutral Finland have been left alone, or would both NATO and the Warsaw Pact have nuked it just to be sure. Or would the massive nuclear strikes on the nearby Murmansk and Leningrad areas have caused such massive fallout that it would have been a moot point anyway?

paganel 6y ago

The problem with an European Army is that the French or the Italians or even the Germans won't send their young men to die at the Eastern border in order to defend Poland or Romania, it's as simple as that (see also the "phoney war" that only ended when Nazi Germany actually decided to invade France and the Benelux). The Americans inspire a little more trust, even though they live half a world away (maybe because of that). Source: me, living in Romania.

HatchedLake721 6y ago
It’s the same thing with NATO. If Russia invades Baltic’s tomorrow, you think USA will send boots on the ground and all European NATO members will sit still?
drran 6y ago
USA did not send his young men to die at Easterner border, despite the guarantees of safety for Ukraine. Ukraine exchanged nuclear weapons for guarantees of safety (Budapest memorandum) by RF, GB, and USA, and then screwed.
Bayart 6y ago
>The problem with an European Army is that the French or the Italians or even the Germans won't send their young men to die at the Eastern border in order to defend Poland or Romania, it's as simple as that What makes you think that ? I often read those sorts of reactions from Eastern Europeans (yes, yes, I know Poland is in « Central Europe ») but that's just giving us intentions we don't have. One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry. Speaking from a French perspective, we'd be completely comfortable sending people fight for the sake of Poland, Romania or any EU member without too much of a second thought. We already send people to Africa all the time.
- paganel 6y ago
  > What makes you think that ? Most recently Macron's overtures towards Russia, so much so that even the Financial Times [1] felt the need the to blame it in one of its opinion pieces, and that is saying something (they generally are pretty neutral to "liberal" European leaders like Macron, even more so when they happen to be former investment bankers). > One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry. That does indeed happen and it's an active concern, one of the scandals that is about to erupt here in Romania is of the Romanian Army buying military stuff without following proper procurement procedures directly from an US company (via some Swiss and Israeli intermediaries/shell companies, depending on how you look at them). The French are fuming because apparently they were in contention for that contract, too. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/168243c2-bac4-404c-843a-ca1f61196049 https://www.ft.com/content/168243c2-bac4-404c-843a-ca1f61196...

walkingolof 6y ago

>Meanwhile, Russia, a developing nation with a history of muscular military engagements in the region, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDB on military. The Russia GDP is less than 10% of the GDP of EU, or the same size as the Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries. Its population is shrinking rapidly due to low birth rates and very high death rates. Its ruled by a totalitarian dictator that regularly tries to murder his opponents. It seeks by all means to stir up unrest in its surroundings by misinformation. Its one of the most corrupt countries in the world. All of these are good reasons why the EU should rapidly invest in its own defense force. Putin will step-down one way or another the next 20 years and then it may get ugly, nobody knows who are waiting in the wings...

cturner 6y ago
Loosely I agree with commenters remarking that the Cold War is over. (Though not the disrespect for the Russian capability. That is a country that still knows how to fight a war.) But if not for Russia, why does Europe need a military? To get strategic independence from the US? In that case, where is the money? Why the howling about Trump wanting to reduce the US contribution? And how is the command going to work? These are rhetorical questions. I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience.
- walkingolof 6y ago
  >why does Europe need a military? Why does the US need a military? Canada? Mexico? Its a global world, EU as one of the biggest blocks needs its own military for many reasons. Its time to cut the reliance of the US, but remain very close allies. If defense spending is done right, purchased locally by local companies, a lot of the money circles back into the economy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- iguy 6y ago
  > But if not for Russia, why does Europe need a military? I guess Turkey is the obvious other candidate. Not so many nukes, of course, but invaded a now EU member in 1974. Plays games with the edges of Greek airspace every week or so? Officially still in NATO but who knows what that means. > I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience. Yes.

jabl 6y ago

> Meanwhile, Russia, a developing nation with a history of muscular military engagements in the region, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDB on military. Economically, Russia is a midget compared to the EU. They do have lots of nukes, though.

thefounder 6y ago

>> I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. You are not alone. That's why some EU countries prefer to buy US millitary equipment(often at inflated prices), support US's interests in the region and beyond(i.e Iraq invasion), accept US's interferences and be done with it. The EU army project is too risky politically and strategically. Things may change if US becomes too erratic(i.e think of a super Trump presidency)

mola 6y ago
Well, reality is not static, what's laughable today may be very reasonable tomorrow. EU generally would like to play ball with the US as long as the relationship is palatable predictable stable and generally cooperative. But a strong EU and an unpredictable, bullish and erratic behaviour by certain US presidents, might change this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

morsch 6y ago

I'll vote to increase our defense spending to 2% once the US decreases its to 2%.

RobertoG 6y ago

>>"chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations [..]" This is a list of military spending by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... If you count only France and Germany they spend already more than Russia. The European Union together spend more money in defense that any other country in the world except the USA (and around the same that China). So, what's the reason for demanding more spending? Recently, there was a decision to increase spending at the European level, but the project was to spend it in local industry instead of buying the weapons to the Americans. The pentagon reacted really offended (1). This "you should spend more in defense" is not about defense, it's about money, and where that money goes. I think a better question that why the Europeans don't spend more in "defense", it's: why the Americans spend so much? (1) - https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/pentagon-nato-warn-european-union-about-defense-spending/ https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/pentagon-nato-warn-europ...

cturner 6y ago
Among reasons for the American spend (1) it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause, and has historically been used to dissuade Australia and Japan and South Korea and West Germany from creating their own nuclear weapons programs; (2) because the US has historically guaranteed northern Europe against a USSR tank invasion, though this may no longer be relevant; (3) the US is security guarantor for much of east Asia, including the Korean Peninsula. Asian nations currently have strong concern about the rise of wolf warrior China. If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated! If NATO is no longer relevant, then nations should drop out of it. There is a clear path to this. If they want to be members, they should honour their obligations.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  >>" it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause [..]" The non-proliferation cause it's another way of saying "we are the only one that should have nuclear capability". It doesn't look like to me that the USA is interested in a world without nuclear weapons (1), only in a world where the others don't have nuclear weapons. >>"If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!" If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead of "business", why being against spending the money in European military industry? I notice that you don't address the question that Europe already spend more than Russia. I think you forgot your links in your answer. (1) - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...

mrweasel 6y ago

I'm actually pretty disappointed with the Danish politicians answers as to why we're not at 2%. They try to put "cyber defense" in as a military expect, even if the job description suggests that it's actually just police work and therefor should count in the 2%. We also frequently claim that foreign aid should be counted as part of our NATO contribution, because it prevents war. While that may be true, Danish politicians should and do know that the 2% for defense was never meant as anything but pure military expenses. Claiming that we don't need to spend as much as 2% of GDP isn't the point, we promised our NATO partners that we would. If 2% is to much, then work to change the NATO rules, don't just ignore them. The US is absolutely right to be upset that it's NATO partners isn't fulfilling their part of the deal and instead rely on US tax payers for their defense.

thefounder 6y ago

When the U.S says that more should be spent on NATO that usually means to buy more U.S equipment at inflated prices rather than to make Europe's defense more effective and efficient. >> The European group have no history of coordinated executive action. Yeah, perhaps they should start working on a coordinated executive action(i.e an EU army) or...just accept US protection for a "fee". It's been a good trade so far anyway. The only issue is that recently US started to double guess its past agreements.