3 ms·

Europe's weakness is mostly in their heads. The US is the most powerful military in the world, but the second most powerful military is NATO without the US. If

by mcv 7mo ago

Europe's weakness is mostly in their heads. The US is the most powerful military in the world, but the second most powerful military is NATO without the US. If the rest of NATO pulls together and reorganises into an effective military that doesn't depend on the US, it would be a force to be reckoned with. Europe could easily defeat Russia without outside help (look at how well Ukraine is doing with far less!), but we still fear Russia because that's what we're used to. That's what we were told to do and what we have embraced. We need to grow out of that and stand on our own feet again.

red-iron-pine 7mo ago
> Europe could easily defeat Russia without outside help (look at how well Ukraine is doing with far less!) Ukraine has received unbelieviable levels of aid from NATO, esp. the US. 10000+ Javelin missiles, WW3 levels of cluster munitions that were slated to be decommissioned in the US, multiple factories in the EU making shells that go straight to the AFU (e.g. Bulgarian 152mm), etc. there is no way they'd have made it 6+ months let alone 4 years without the US' heavy backing.
- mcv 7mo ago
  Much of their support has also come from the EU, and the EU has a lot more than that. The EU has more fighters and ships, more tanks, more soldiers. It is true that the EU didn't and still doesn't have deep ammo reserves, though. But it has far more capacity to ramp up production of these than Russia has; the Russian economy is about the size of that of the Benelux.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    > It is true that the EU didn't and still doesn't have deep ammo reserves, though Indeed it is true. But it is also changing, the stockpiles are growing.
    - mcv 7mo ago
      Absolutely. The EU is now finally but rapidly adapting to these geopolitical changes. Defense budgets are now far higher than the 2% that used to be the goal that nobody met. In the 1990s everybody was eager to believe that war was finally and forever over. Some held on to that delusion for a bit too long, but not anymore.
      - jacquesm 7mo ago
        Merkel has a lot to answer for. Handel durch wandel... pull the other one. After Grozny there should have been absolutely no doubt.
        mcv 7mo ago
        Eastern European countries warned us, but western Europe, Germany in particular, but other western European countries too, assumed Russia was now a normal country we could just trade with. Under Yeltsin we might have been heading in that direction, but Chechnya should have been a warning. Putin's comment about "countries that don't matter" was a warning. Russia taking chunks out of Georgia should have been the alarm. We continued trading even after he took Crimea and Donbas. We have been way too naive.
        jacquesm 7mo ago
        Politically, absolutely. Fortunately the intelligence communities are not as stupid as the politicians they serve.
      - closewith 7mo ago
        That's not true. Even including military aid to Ukraine, EU average defence spending remains at 1.9%. It's also the most expensive region in the world to raise a military.
        jacquesm 7mo ago
        That was the 2024 figure. In 2025 it rose to 2.1% and this year it is expected to rise further. And that's just the direct allocation, not the under water part including venture funding of some of the defense industry (obvious overlap: anything including AI & drones, it's pure VC bait).
FpUser 7mo ago
>"but the second most powerful military is NATO without the US" I am curious how much of NATO's hardware originate from the / depends on the US and and what will suddenly stop working if the US decides to break military alliance.
- Starman_Jones 7mo ago
  Short answer is: a LOT, but that's a two way street. BAE, for example, builds America's tanks (or at least their armored infantry fighting vehicles).
  - closewith 7mo ago
    BAE Systems Inc, a US-based subsidiary that operates entirely in the US and whose leadership operates under an SAA which means they report to the US Government and the parent in the UK.
- mcv 7mo ago
  It's not like they will suddenly stop working completely, but some do depend on US data, which could be cut off. No idea if they have a fall back solution for that, but I'm sure they're working on that.

by mcv 7mo ago

red-iron-pine 7mo ago

> Europe could easily defeat Russia without outside help (look at how well Ukraine is doing with far less!) Ukraine has received unbelieviable levels of aid from NATO, esp. the US. 10000+ Javelin missiles, WW3 levels of cluster munitions that were slated to be decommissioned in the US, multiple factories in the EU making shells that go straight to the AFU (e.g. Bulgarian 152mm), etc. there is no way they'd have made it 6+ months let alone 4 years without the US' heavy backing.

mcv 7mo ago
Much of their support has also come from the EU, and the EU has a lot more than that. The EU has more fighters and ships, more tanks, more soldiers. It is true that the EU didn't and still doesn't have deep ammo reserves, though. But it has far more capacity to ramp up production of these than Russia has; the Russian economy is about the size of that of the Benelux.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  > It is true that the EU didn't and still doesn't have deep ammo reserves, though Indeed it is true. But it is also changing, the stockpiles are growing.
  - mcv 7mo ago
    Absolutely. The EU is now finally but rapidly adapting to these geopolitical changes. Defense budgets are now far higher than the 2% that used to be the goal that nobody met. In the 1990s everybody was eager to believe that war was finally and forever over. Some held on to that delusion for a bit too long, but not anymore.
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      Merkel has a lot to answer for. Handel durch wandel... pull the other one. After Grozny there should have been absolutely no doubt.
      - mcv 7mo ago
        Eastern European countries warned us, but western Europe, Germany in particular, but other western European countries too, assumed Russia was now a normal country we could just trade with. Under Yeltsin we might have been heading in that direction, but Chechnya should have been a warning. Putin's comment about "countries that don't matter" was a warning. Russia taking chunks out of Georgia should have been the alarm. We continued trading even after he took Crimea and Donbas. We have been way too naive.
        jacquesm 7mo ago
        Politically, absolutely. Fortunately the intelligence communities are not as stupid as the politicians they serve.
    - closewith 7mo ago
      That's not true. Even including military aid to Ukraine, EU average defence spending remains at 1.9%. It's also the most expensive region in the world to raise a military.
      - jacquesm 7mo ago
        That was the 2024 figure. In 2025 it rose to 2.1% and this year it is expected to rise further. And that's just the direct allocation, not the under water part including venture funding of some of the defense industry (obvious overlap: anything including AI & drones, it's pure VC bait).

FpUser 7mo ago

>"but the second most powerful military is NATO without the US" I am curious how much of NATO's hardware originate from the / depends on the US and and what will suddenly stop working if the US decides to break military alliance.

Starman_Jones 7mo ago
Short answer is: a LOT, but that's a two way street. BAE, for example, builds America's tanks (or at least their armored infantry fighting vehicles).
- closewith 7mo ago
  BAE Systems Inc, a US-based subsidiary that operates entirely in the US and whose leadership operates under an SAA which means they report to the US Government and the parent in the UK.
mcv 7mo ago
It's not like they will suddenly stop working completely, but some do depend on US data, which could be cut off. No idea if they have a fall back solution for that, but I'm sure they're working on that.