4 ms·

> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they co

> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term. The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with the possible exception of countries that actually border Russia/Belarus).

lispm 3y ago
The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. It's just very diverse. The US has one army and one commander. Europe has 20+ armies and as much commanders. Around 250 billion a year is for example a lot more than what Russia spends. There are France and UK with nuclear weapons. Each of them has their own nuclear weapons and their own technology. Their nuclear weapons are not EU weapons, they are not designed to defend the EU. The UK isn't even anymore in the EU. The Brexit was also fueled by the UK not wanting to be part of an EU Army. There is simply no EU army, the EU is not a nation, the EU is not a defense union. Several EU countries are neutral, several countries make their own military decisions, based on the constitutional law, etc. For most purposes, NATO is the main international military organization for European countries, not the EU.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. Not really. > The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. ... The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm While non-US allies in NATO doesn't cover every European country, it does cover most of them, particularly the large and wealthy ones.
  - lispm 3y ago
    Sure it is a lot. It is extremely much. Your mistake is to compare it to the US. The US spends more, but for its world-wide empire, much of which has nothing to do with defending Europe or even NATO. That's not what Europe needs do.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ardaoweo 3y ago
If Trump withdraws the US from NATO going back to the old ways is not an option, at least EU doesn't want to lose its Eastern half to Russia.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > If Trump withdraws the US from NATO going back to the old ways is not an option, at least EU doesn't want to lose its Eastern half to Russia. The tricky thing with politics is that there are always way more hungry stomachs than seats at the table. And people learned a long time ago to frame their pet issue as critical. And the trouble with military spending is that it's never critical. Until it is. But at that point, it's way too late. I just don't think that the Ukraine war is a big enough deal to act as a catalyst for permanent change. People have remarkably short memories when it comes to things like that - most European countries were on their way to completely normalized relations with Russia around 2020/2021; not that long after the annexation of Crimea. I don't expect the exact same thing to happen - trade with Russia will probably be severely restricted for a very long time. But it's really easy to chip away at the military budget in favor of social programs. Especially since the benefit of the latter is obvious and immediate. And those programs will always be strained.

lispm 3y ago

The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. It's just very diverse. The US has one army and one commander. Europe has 20+ armies and as much commanders. Around 250 billion a year is for example a lot more than what Russia spends. There are France and UK with nuclear weapons. Each of them has their own nuclear weapons and their own technology. Their nuclear weapons are not EU weapons, they are not designed to defend the EU. The UK isn't even anymore in the EU. The Brexit was also fueled by the UK not wanting to be part of an EU Army. There is simply no EU army, the EU is not a nation, the EU is not a defense union. Several EU countries are neutral, several countries make their own military decisions, based on the constitutional law, etc. For most purposes, NATO is the main international military organization for European countries, not the EU.

nordsieck 3y ago
> The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. Not really. > The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. ... The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm While non-US allies in NATO doesn't cover every European country, it does cover most of them, particularly the large and wealthy ones.
- lispm 3y ago
  Sure it is a lot. It is extremely much. Your mistake is to compare it to the US. The US spends more, but for its world-wide empire, much of which has nothing to do with defending Europe or even NATO. That's not what Europe needs do.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ardaoweo 3y ago

If Trump withdraws the US from NATO going back to the old ways is not an option, at least EU doesn't want to lose its Eastern half to Russia.

nordsieck 3y ago
> If Trump withdraws the US from NATO going back to the old ways is not an option, at least EU doesn't want to lose its Eastern half to Russia. The tricky thing with politics is that there are always way more hungry stomachs than seats at the table. And people learned a long time ago to frame their pet issue as critical. And the trouble with military spending is that it's never critical. Until it is. But at that point, it's way too late. I just don't think that the Ukraine war is a big enough deal to act as a catalyst for permanent change. People have remarkably short memories when it comes to things like that - most European countries were on their way to completely normalized relations with Russia around 2020/2021; not that long after the annexation of Crimea. I don't expect the exact same thing to happen - trade with Russia will probably be severely restricted for a very long time. But it's really easy to chip away at the military budget in favor of social programs. Especially since the benefit of the latter is obvious and immediate. And those programs will always be strained.