> only in a world where the others don't > have nuclear weapons It's a world where only Russia, (mainland) China, the US, France and the UK have nuclear we

> only in a world where the others don't > have nuclear weapons It's a world where only Russia, (mainland) China, the US, France and the UK have nuclear weapons, in pursuit of a strategic balance. > If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead > of "business", why being against spending the money > in European military industry? Yeah, it doesn't surprise me to hear the pentagon whinge about people spending money with other vendors. On this theme - there was an interesting Foreign Policy paper arguing that the F35 program serves as a US version of the belt-and-roads initiative. Still, it must be half-decent or countries would not buy it. e.g. Australia is licensing its recent sub design from France. But, it is buying the F-35, despite the lock-in problems. Israel produces an astonishing amount of its own tech but, likewise, is buying the F-35. > I notice that you don't address the question > that Europe already spend more than Russia. I thought my comments about the relevance of NATO to be a response to this. It is or it isn't, countries should decide. There are non-NATO European countries that spend less than 2%. My themes in the original comment was the notion of the European military on two grounds. (1) If military goals were important, nations would/should have been lifting their weight in NATO. (2) There are obstacles to creating a command structure for a European military, which is a very weak federation.