12 ms·

True. TBH it's not clear if the U.S itself is to be relied on. Europe should probably stop outsourcing defense and get it's act together.

umvi 6y ago
Once you've outsourced it's hard to bring it back because it's very expensive in the short term. Where would the EU countries' defense budget come from without increasing taxes or cutting social programs? It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China.
- detritus 6y ago
  The UK and France already have considerable military budgets and capabilities to add to the EU pool. A shame one of them had to fuck everything up.
  - petre 6y ago
    They're still both part of NATO. The UK will not be a bystander if France or another NATO member is attacked, as they have already proven it time and time again. This is regardless of participation in the EU. The UK should have probably been at least part of the EEA. And yes, it's too bad they screwed it up.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Unless if they will. There was little action by the UK during the annexation of Crimea (they even went on to participate in a major sporting event hosted by the invading nation; so little did the UK care about another European nation being attacked). The UK has also walked the line of invading another NATO member because they wanted to fish in another sovereign nations waters.
      - nradov 6y ago
        Ukraine wasn't a NATO or EU member and the UK had no obligation to defend Crimea. What point are you trying to make?
        runarberg 6y ago
        The point is that the UK didn’t care about the rights of another nation’s to their borders. Not even so little that they were willing to sacrifice a little football for it. They also didn’t support Iceland’s rights to their own fisheries when a foreign nation tried to fish in their waters. Iceland was, and still is a NATO member. My point is that the UK doesn’t care about other nations, and I can see numerous situations where they will fail to act if a fellow NATO member is attacked.
        nradov 6y ago
        Why should the UK (or any country) care about defending another country which isn't a treaty ally? So far the only time when a NATO member actually invoked Article 5, the UK did fulfill their obligations.
        runarberg 6y ago
        Because the UK is a part of an international society of nations that share a common planet on which all humans live. Event though the two nations are not in a direct military alliance, the UK interest lie directly with Ukraine when it comes to protecting Ukraine from a foreign invasion (unless the invading army was the UK army). The UK trades with Ukraine, they share values (or at least so they say), tourists visit between the two places, and workers seek job in each others country. The UK didn’t need to send an army to Ukraine to protect them from the Russian invasion, but they should have at least sent a strong message to Russia that this would not be tolerated. A perfect opportunity for such a message was presented when Russia hosted the World Cup the following year... The message: “We are just gonna say this is not OK, but really Russia can do whatever they want”.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  While the peacetime ROI is shit, it's still stimulus of after a fashion. Hopefully the EU is somewhat over it's bad austerity ideas from 2008. NATO absolutely should go. > It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China. I don't really think so, because in that case there is/was wage arbitrage. Yes the US is subsidizing on an ongoing basis, but that doesn't quite feel the same for reasons I cannot articulate.
  - greedo 6y ago
    Defense spending isn't really an effective stimulus since the end result is primarily a jobs program. Any materiel purchases just sit there, not generating revenue (as a factory would).
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      I do agree, but it's not a 0 stimulus, because basically the supply chain can be multi-purpose. I would never choose military spending as a stimulus, that's basically fascist, but as a slight silver lining to make ditching NATO more palatable I would definitely want to bring it up.
      - greedo 6y ago
        That's why I said "effective." The military supply chain really isn't multi-purpose, at least in the US and Western Europe. The technology, while having come similarity with consumer goods really is in a different class. As a jobs program, it's fine; kind of like how NASA treats the space program.
jopsen 6y ago
Even if you beef up budgets on around Europe, which many countries do. We still need standardization, exercises, and common command structures. If you build that outside the NATO framework collaboration with the US in future minor peace keeping deployments will likely be harder.
nabla9 6y ago
Defence has to match the threat, no more. Russia is the only threat. EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare. Even limited involvement in Syria is wearing down their aircraft. European defence has structural problem: scattering military resources all over the Europe. Spain, France and Belgium should keep most of their main battle tanks in Poland and send troops to train there. Russian amphibious attack from the North Atlantic is not a threat.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare They are creating plenty of pain with low intensity tactics.
  - khuey 6y ago
    The Russian strategy of low-grade asymmetric conflict with strategic assets like nuclear weapons and a real air force to deter any serious consequences works remarkably well.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Low intensity tactics can't be used in high intensity warfare. If Russian green men cross into Poland, Poland is not responding with low intensity. They mobilize the whole country to fight to fight high intensity warfare until Russians are thrown out.
- Someone 6y ago
  Does Belgium still have battle tanks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_c...: “Belgium retired its last operational Leopard 1 MBTs in 2014. Some were kept in inventory for training and research purposes.”
- baybal2 6y ago
  > EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. And Russia gets 30 trained soldiers for the price of 1 NATO soldier Feel the difference > Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare You are saying this about a country with the biggest tank armies anywhere in the world. What you are saying is laughable to anybody with a dime of military education.

umvi 6y ago

Once you've outsourced it's hard to bring it back because it's very expensive in the short term. Where would the EU countries' defense budget come from without increasing taxes or cutting social programs? It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China.

detritus 6y ago
The UK and France already have considerable military budgets and capabilities to add to the EU pool. A shame one of them had to fuck everything up.
- petre 6y ago
  They're still both part of NATO. The UK will not be a bystander if France or another NATO member is attacked, as they have already proven it time and time again. This is regardless of participation in the EU. The UK should have probably been at least part of the EEA. And yes, it's too bad they screwed it up.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Unless if they will. There was little action by the UK during the annexation of Crimea (they even went on to participate in a major sporting event hosted by the invading nation; so little did the UK care about another European nation being attacked). The UK has also walked the line of invading another NATO member because they wanted to fish in another sovereign nations waters.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Ukraine wasn't a NATO or EU member and the UK had no obligation to defend Crimea. What point are you trying to make?
      - runarberg 6y ago
        The point is that the UK didn’t care about the rights of another nation’s to their borders. Not even so little that they were willing to sacrifice a little football for it. They also didn’t support Iceland’s rights to their own fisheries when a foreign nation tried to fish in their waters. Iceland was, and still is a NATO member. My point is that the UK doesn’t care about other nations, and I can see numerous situations where they will fail to act if a fellow NATO member is attacked.
        nradov 6y ago
        Why should the UK (or any country) care about defending another country which isn't a treaty ally? So far the only time when a NATO member actually invoked Article 5, the UK did fulfill their obligations.
        runarberg 6y ago
        Because the UK is a part of an international society of nations that share a common planet on which all humans live. Event though the two nations are not in a direct military alliance, the UK interest lie directly with Ukraine when it comes to protecting Ukraine from a foreign invasion (unless the invading army was the UK army). The UK trades with Ukraine, they share values (or at least so they say), tourists visit between the two places, and workers seek job in each others country. The UK didn’t need to send an army to Ukraine to protect them from the Russian invasion, but they should have at least sent a strong message to Russia that this would not be tolerated. A perfect opportunity for such a message was presented when Russia hosted the World Cup the following year... The message: “We are just gonna say this is not OK, but really Russia can do whatever they want”.
Ericson2314 6y ago
While the peacetime ROI is shit, it's still stimulus of after a fashion. Hopefully the EU is somewhat over it's bad austerity ideas from 2008. NATO absolutely should go. > It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China. I don't really think so, because in that case there is/was wage arbitrage. Yes the US is subsidizing on an ongoing basis, but that doesn't quite feel the same for reasons I cannot articulate.
- greedo 6y ago
  Defense spending isn't really an effective stimulus since the end result is primarily a jobs program. Any materiel purchases just sit there, not generating revenue (as a factory would).
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    I do agree, but it's not a 0 stimulus, because basically the supply chain can be multi-purpose. I would never choose military spending as a stimulus, that's basically fascist, but as a slight silver lining to make ditching NATO more palatable I would definitely want to bring it up.
    - greedo 6y ago
      That's why I said "effective." The military supply chain really isn't multi-purpose, at least in the US and Western Europe. The technology, while having come similarity with consumer goods really is in a different class. As a jobs program, it's fine; kind of like how NASA treats the space program.

jopsen 6y ago

Even if you beef up budgets on around Europe, which many countries do. We still need standardization, exercises, and common command structures. If you build that outside the NATO framework collaboration with the US in future minor peace keeping deployments will likely be harder.

nabla9 6y ago

Defence has to match the threat, no more. Russia is the only threat. EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare. Even limited involvement in Syria is wearing down their aircraft. European defence has structural problem: scattering military resources all over the Europe. Spain, France and Belgium should keep most of their main battle tanks in Poland and send troops to train there. Russian amphibious attack from the North Atlantic is not a threat.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare They are creating plenty of pain with low intensity tactics.
- khuey 6y ago
  The Russian strategy of low-grade asymmetric conflict with strategic assets like nuclear weapons and a real air force to deter any serious consequences works remarkably well.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Low intensity tactics can't be used in high intensity warfare. If Russian green men cross into Poland, Poland is not responding with low intensity. They mobilize the whole country to fight to fight high intensity warfare until Russians are thrown out.
Someone 6y ago
Does Belgium still have battle tanks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_c...: “Belgium retired its last operational Leopard 1 MBTs in 2014. Some were kept in inventory for training and research purposes.”
baybal2 6y ago
> EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. And Russia gets 30 trained soldiers for the price of 1 NATO soldier Feel the difference > Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare You are saying this about a country with the biggest tank armies anywhere in the world. What you are saying is laughable to anybody with a dime of military education.