4 ms·
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 mu
by 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 agoSure 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.