3 ms·

In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when th

In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came. Germany's Army Chief straight up said the army wasn't capable of fulfilling its mission. (And yeah the US struggled with artillery shells too, the difference is that the US has so much airpower it had a legit reason to believe it wouldn't need them very much)

unnouinceput 3y ago
Military it's inter-dependency, that' why we're allies. The whole point of an ally is to be inter-dependency of one another. I, for one, as a citizen of a NATO country, I am very happy with this arrangement.
- bluGill 3y ago
  That only works if you are filling your side of the bargain. If you depend on the US and don't have your own army equipped, and the US depends on your army and isn't equipped to rescue you it all fails.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  The principle is interdependency, but in practice many European militaries don't have a ton to give. Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. There's renewed interest in taking the defense budget seriously.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. So did the US until the 2001 (and, actually, the free fall in US military spending relative to GDP started well before the end of the cold war), and by the 2010s it was back falling in the US, too. > Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. It actually changed since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 for the non-US members of NATO (which was also the trigger for the NATO defense spending target.) It changed for the US after the 2022 escalation (US defense spending as a share of GDP declined between 2014 and the 2022 escalation.)
    - TulliusCicero 3y ago
      Yeah, no. The US reduced spending, that's true, but it never dropped nearly as low as so many European countries. > by the 2010s it was back falling in the US, too. Because of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan winding down, no? > It actually changed since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 for the non-US members of NATO (which was also the trigger for the NATO defense spending target.) It changed for the US after the 2022 escalation (US defense spending as a share of GDP declined between 2014 and the 2022 escalation.) Not really, no. The US took Russia's 2014 invasion more seriously than most of Western Europe did.
    - secondary_op 3y ago
      [flagged]
piva00 3y ago
Militarily the USA has always had the need to keep stockpiles: it's been in many, many wars or performing larger military maneuvers for the past 70+ years. European militaries didn't have to consider a large production capacity, neither stockpiling weapons since mostly weren't involved in large military actions (exceptions probably are France and the UK). In terms of efficiency that is what is expected, why waste taxes for stockpiling unused weapons? Europe dropped the ball after 2014 on not taking note that Russia was going in a new direction, Georgia 2008 was an early warning but Ukraine 2014 should've been a massive alarm that at least some production capacity was needed. Still, it wasn't at all politically viable at the time, it'd be political suicide for any politician outside of Eastern Europe to spend more money on the military and its industry rather than education, healthcare, etc. Since 2022 everything has changed, the change is slow but steady and will only keep happening, Rheinmetall is steadily growing production, and many other military industries are expanding across the continent, Putin made politically viable for Europe to spend on its military again.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  You're just explaining why it got there, and you even acknowledge there should've been wake up calls in 2008 and 2014, but Europe collectively ignored them.
  - piva00 3y ago
    Of course I'm explaining it, because there's a reason why European countries haven't been stockpiling weapons for decades and have been dependent on the USA. You brought up the dependence on the USA first, I explained why that is: > In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came. Europe ignored it because it was politically untenable to push for military spending until 2022 when it became very clear there is a threat escalating conflicts in the continent. I really don't understand what else I should've done with my comment... Give a solution? What else did you expect?
    - 3y ago
hef19898 3y ago
The German armed forcea are really capabale of doing, or fielding, anything in meaningfull numbers ever since the end of the cold war. No big surprise here.

unnouinceput 3y ago

Military it's inter-dependency, that' why we're allies. The whole point of an ally is to be inter-dependency of one another. I, for one, as a citizen of a NATO country, I am very happy with this arrangement.

bluGill 3y ago
That only works if you are filling your side of the bargain. If you depend on the US and don't have your own army equipped, and the US depends on your army and isn't equipped to rescue you it all fails.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
The principle is interdependency, but in practice many European militaries don't have a ton to give. Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. There's renewed interest in taking the defense budget seriously.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. So did the US until the 2001 (and, actually, the free fall in US military spending relative to GDP started well before the end of the cold war), and by the 2010s it was back falling in the US, too. > Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. It actually changed since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 for the non-US members of NATO (which was also the trigger for the NATO defense spending target.) It changed for the US after the 2022 escalation (US defense spending as a share of GDP declined between 2014 and the 2022 escalation.)
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    Yeah, no. The US reduced spending, that's true, but it never dropped nearly as low as so many European countries. > by the 2010s it was back falling in the US, too. Because of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan winding down, no? > It actually changed since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 for the non-US members of NATO (which was also the trigger for the NATO defense spending target.) It changed for the US after the 2022 escalation (US defense spending as a share of GDP declined between 2014 and the 2022 escalation.) Not really, no. The US took Russia's 2014 invasion more seriously than most of Western Europe did.
  - secondary_op 3y ago
    [flagged]

piva00 3y ago

Militarily the USA has always had the need to keep stockpiles: it's been in many, many wars or performing larger military maneuvers for the past 70+ years. European militaries didn't have to consider a large production capacity, neither stockpiling weapons since mostly weren't involved in large military actions (exceptions probably are France and the UK). In terms of efficiency that is what is expected, why waste taxes for stockpiling unused weapons? Europe dropped the ball after 2014 on not taking note that Russia was going in a new direction, Georgia 2008 was an early warning but Ukraine 2014 should've been a massive alarm that at least some production capacity was needed. Still, it wasn't at all politically viable at the time, it'd be political suicide for any politician outside of Eastern Europe to spend more money on the military and its industry rather than education, healthcare, etc. Since 2022 everything has changed, the change is slow but steady and will only keep happening, Rheinmetall is steadily growing production, and many other military industries are expanding across the continent, Putin made politically viable for Europe to spend on its military again.

TulliusCicero 3y ago
You're just explaining why it got there, and you even acknowledge there should've been wake up calls in 2008 and 2014, but Europe collectively ignored them.
- piva00 3y ago
  Of course I'm explaining it, because there's a reason why European countries haven't been stockpiling weapons for decades and have been dependent on the USA. You brought up the dependence on the USA first, I explained why that is: > In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came. Europe ignored it because it was politically untenable to push for military spending until 2022 when it became very clear there is a threat escalating conflicts in the continent. I really don't understand what else I should've done with my comment... Give a solution? What else did you expect?
  - 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

The German armed forcea are really capabale of doing, or fielding, anything in meaningfull numbers ever since the end of the cold war. No big surprise here.