EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'(reuters.com)
reuters.com
EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-aims-shift-european-arms-industry-war-economy-mode-2024-03-04/
145 comments
That's not complacency, that's a feature. The key to peace in Europe is the unified free trade zone on one hand, but on the other it's also disarmament while relying on NATO. Besides putting territorial questions aside, one of the main requirements of joining NATO was to discontinue the draft!
The entire security failure is by design, one that has been made a long time ago when the US force was way more capable and threatening in their stance. The annexation of Crimea was in a way calling that stance a bluff, and now everybody is juggling the question of rearmament like a hot potato.
Because we were all calm when the saying was that no two countries which had McDonalds would go to war against one another - and then they did, and now we all have McDonalds but we don't have standing combat capable armies besides NATO operable specialized arms for a good reason.
Are you sure? Estonia still has compulsory defense forces draft of 8 or 11 months for young men.
AFAIK small states are treated as exceptions because the conscription leaves you with the same amount of men as professional armies of bigger countries. But there has been a lot of talk in the past few years of changing this, but politically it would be immensely unpopular.
Turkey has the second largest standing military in NATO and still has conscription.
The majority of NATO members had conscription at the time they joined NATO. Also, the United States has been pressuring NATO members to increase defense spending for decades; Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO were a hardball negotiating tactic towards this longstanding foreign policy goal.
Actually, it should have ended even earlier, after Russian aggression on Georgia in 2008.
Was that when the Georgians caught the Russians by surprise by attacking Russia's protectorates?
Took the Russians quite a while to get their act together.
Are the aggressors usually caught on the hop?
Took the Russians quite a while to get their act together.
Are the aggressors usually caught on the hop?
Sure. But the fundamental problem seem to be for the political gaist to be "defence friendly" while also not war mongering. The same few collegues I have that don't trust the politicians, the gov, collective endouvers etc with anything seem hell bent to project "we" want to die for them. It is beyond insane. If people want to lie in a trench led by Ursula ... well. Have fun.
Being "defence friendly" means also cultivating the mentality that lying in the trenches for your country/culture/values might be necessary.
Forget arms industry or military budget as a percent of GDP. The main problem is that Europe lacks the fighting spirit (with some exceptions like Poland). Countries like Germany will fold / capitulate to any demands if they suffer thousands of casualties.
Forget arms industry or military budget as a percent of GDP. The main problem is that Europe lacks the fighting spirit (with some exceptions like Poland). Countries like Germany will fold / capitulate to any demands if they suffer thousands of casualties.
I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. For example, the UK citizenry was almost completely pacifist two years before world war II, much more than Germany is now, and for stronger reasons; having lost a huge number of men during world war I. It didn't take the population very long at all to change its ideas once it was clear what was going to happen.
People make shallow remarks. You can't use that to predict what they will do when the chips are down.
Nobody wants to lie in the trenches to protect other people's wealth, but that's what usually happens. The poor are sent to fight and die, or to return home to poverty and disability if they survive.
I'm amazed anyone is willing to sign up to risk their life for $2K/month, even here in the US where military service has long been glorified.
I'm amazed anyone is willing to sign up to risk their life for $2K/month, even here in the US where military service has long been glorified.
This is why you need various manipulation* techniques: religion (to decrease the fear of death), patriotism, anger, glorification of war and heroism... I sometimes wonder if maybe the poor state of modern education is not just incompetence or a result of a cynical idea "stupid society is easier to control", but instead someone analyzed that an intelligent society would become atheist/cynical/pragmatic etc. resulting in severly decreased motivation to fight for the government.
* I think the word "manipulation" implies an intent to mislead someone, while some techniques influencing others are used by people unaware of the effects or (in)correctness of the propaganda; maybe rather than "manipulation" I should say "indoctrination".
* I think the word "manipulation" implies an intent to mislead someone, while some techniques influencing others are used by people unaware of the effects or (in)correctness of the propaganda; maybe rather than "manipulation" I should say "indoctrination".
If you look back at history mankind seems quite naturally inclined towards fighting wars. The manipulation techniques are more needed to maintain peace.
Indeed if you look at our closest animal relatives, the chimps, they are quite inclined to wipe out their neighbours without needing religion or cash payment.
Indeed if you look at our closest animal relatives, the chimps, they are quite inclined to wipe out their neighbours without needing religion or cash payment.
Your speech targeted at young men with no family and children, so they may think that they protect "wealth".
As with many things Gen Z is leading the way in breaking the mold (in a good way in my opinion)
[1]:https://www.wavy.com/news/military/u-s-military-sees-record-...
[1]:https://www.wavy.com/news/military/u-s-military-sees-record-...
I think it's seldom to protect other peoples wealth. I'm trying to think of an example where that was the case. More typically, as a Brit our last big war was fighting Hitler as we didn't like fascism and that. It was very costly for us wealth wise compared with say making a pact with him as he would have liked.
It s not that european nations arent aggressive (unfortunately nationalism is only sleeping in Europe, not dead). But the idea of collective european nation only appeals to the 3-4 core countries. Most eu nations have a different notion of national interests. Even with Ukraine which is supported by all, the level of support and expectations vary very widely
> cultivating the mentality that lying in the trenches for your country/culture/values might be necessary.
That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform, because that's not something anyone is willing to die for. It means cultivating the dreaded nationalism.
That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform, because that's not something anyone is willing to die for. It means cultivating the dreaded nationalism.
> That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform
Is it just that, or does it perhaps protect also other rights? Is the economic prosperity the only reason one might prefer living in Germany over Russia?
Is it just that, or does it perhaps protect also other rights? Is the economic prosperity the only reason one might prefer living in Germany over Russia?
Point taken. But what about in Germany over Canada? Or Italy? Or Spain, or Australia, or the US, or New Zealand, or UK, or Iceland, or Taiwan, or Japan or... there are lots of mostly free countries (so long as you don't engage in the growing category of hate-speech) one can run to, once freed from the concepts of homeland and nation.
Will your whole family and friends run too? Will you move your whole social life with you or are you ready to accept your life will be torn apart?
Once Germany gets submitted without a fight, how long will it take until Italy is attacked? I mean, with this "running away" philosophy it's pretty easy to take countries without facing a resistance now.
Once Germany gets submitted without a fight, how long will it take until Italy is attacked? I mean, with this "running away" philosophy it's pretty easy to take countries without facing a resistance now.
> Will you move your whole social life with you
A small price compared to dying in war. I'm not saying it's the right choice, but if you have no attachment to your country and people beyond it being a comfortable place to live, that's the choice most will make.
A small price compared to dying in war. I'm not saying it's the right choice, but if you have no attachment to your country and people beyond it being a comfortable place to live, that's the choice most will make.
Let me present you an alternative. Europe can build up a credible defense capability which will provide a strong deterrence to Russia. In that case you don't have to die in the trenches and you don't have to spend your life running away from the aggressor.
Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, USSR did not invade Finland (after suffering horrible losses in the Winter war), even though both had their own claims on them, because the costs of such an adventure were considered too high. A big part of this deterrence was a population willing to fight to defend their homeland.
Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, USSR did not invade Finland (after suffering horrible losses in the Winter war), even though both had their own claims on them, because the costs of such an adventure were considered too high. A big part of this deterrence was a population willing to fight to defend their homeland.
> Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, USSR did not invade Finland
To be fair these aren't exactly the most relevant examples. On paper the balance of power economically (and military to a somewhat lesser degree) is certainly on the side of the EU/NATO. It would be relative pretty cheap to invest enough just to deter a second rate country (besides nukes) like Russia.
To be fair these aren't exactly the most relevant examples. On paper the balance of power economically (and military to a somewhat lesser degree) is certainly on the side of the EU/NATO. It would be relative pretty cheap to invest enough just to deter a second rate country (besides nukes) like Russia.
it's a bit more nuanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
Is Italy threatening to nuke or invade Germany because the Germans won't let them annex Austria? I don't think so..
Or are you suggesting that people can just move to another place when their home country gets taken over by fascist imperialists? Because that doesn't really scale that well...
Or are you suggesting that people can just move to another place when their home country gets taken over by fascist imperialists? Because that doesn't really scale that well...
I lack fighting spirit, don't want to spend money for weapons and I'm not afraid of Russia (live in Germany).
There is a lot of fear mongering.
Ukraine should make a deal instead of sacrificing people without limits. So many people died, for loosing later. If they wait too long there won't be any deal.
There is a lot of fear mongering.
Ukraine should make a deal instead of sacrificing people without limits. So many people died, for loosing later. If they wait too long there won't be any deal.
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for people to tell an invaded nation, with countless atrocities commited against them, to just give up and move on.
It's incredibly patronizing. Those silly Ukrainians don't know what they're doing, let me explain them what they should do. What's so wrong living under Russian yoke anyway? Russian ballet looks nice, it can't be that bad.
Fighting to the last Ukrainian is even more patronizing.
Parroting Kremlin propaganda, nice.
It's the same spirit, Ukrainians don't know what they're doing, they just mindlessly obey orders to die for their NATO overlords.
It's the same spirit, Ukrainians don't know what they're doing, they just mindlessly obey orders to die for their NATO overlords.
Real patronizing is not helping your friends with weapons after you promised to do so
Plenty of countries have surrendered in the past. Like telling the Japanese they should surrender is so patronizing.
To be clear, are you equating WW2 Japan to Ukraine here?
Don't you see some major differences between the role of the two in their respective wars?
Don't you see some major differences between the role of the two in their respective wars?
You are now moving the discussion from practicality to idealism. Doesn't really matter what ideals they have when they have to consider getting destroyed or not.
The side with no idealism is bound to lose, because for individuals it's better to run than to fight. Tragedy of the commons.
But what you're doing is a category error. It's a completely different thing to ask your enemy to surrender from asking your ally (in a loose sense) to surrender.
But what you're doing is a category error. It's a completely different thing to ask your enemy to surrender from asking your ally (in a loose sense) to surrender.
> Ukraine should make a deal instead of sacrificing people without limits.
Imagine you're an Ukrainian. Is there a deal which you would not accept and rather continue fighting or would you accept literally any deal (including unconditional surrender)?
Imagine you're an Ukrainian. Is there a deal which you would not accept and rather continue fighting or would you accept literally any deal (including unconditional surrender)?
I find it interesting that it is always Ukraine that should surrender and not sacrifice their people. When Russia is sacrificing its people in pointless invasion that has been stuck in stalemate for a year.
They could end the war, and their suffering, tomorrow. They probably could even negotiate keeping Crimea.
They could end the war, and their suffering, tomorrow. They probably could even negotiate keeping Crimea.
I would have been the first to leave Ukraine. (I dodged the draft in Germany)
And I'm fine with all the Ukrainians in Germany who do not want to fight.
(and I would welcome Russians who do not want to fight)
Ukraine has no good options. Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine.
And I'm fine with all the Ukrainians in Germany who do not want to fight.
(and I would welcome Russians who do not want to fight)
Ukraine has no good options. Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine.
> Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine.
Losing 40% is much better than losing 100%.
(Also it's Mearsheimer, what a joke)
Losing 40% is much better than losing 100%.
(Also it's Mearsheimer, what a joke)
> Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine.
many predicted Kyiv will fall in 3 days in 2022.
many predicted Kyiv will fall in 3 days in 2022.
garaetjjte(2)
> I lack fighting spirit, don't want to spend money for weapons and I'm not afraid of Russia (live in Germany).
Aren't those statements contradicting as at least two separate sets of ideas?
If you lack fighting spirit, you don't want to fight. So you should want more money spent on weapons, so that you don't have to fight. Aristotle said "if you want peace, prepare for war".
If you don't want to fight, you should be afraid of everyone who does: e.g. russia.
putin clearly said he wants to restore the old ussr borders. This means eventually taking eastern Germany. And then you just have to naively assume if he succeeds at that, he will stop at that. I mean, let's be honest, he can't possibly live that long to see his plan fully completed, but let's say he has successors continuing his work.
I know that there is this comfortable seemingly impenetrable boundary of NATO alliance: but recently Trump said he would invite putin to attack on NATO members that don't put enough GDP % into military spending (e.g. Germany), and new Slovakian government is significantly more prorussian (meeting with russia and Hungary).
In January 2022 experts almost unanimously said it would be ridiculous for russia to attack Ukraine.
Don't be afraid of russia, but also act to actually support your peace of mind.
Aren't those statements contradicting as at least two separate sets of ideas?
If you lack fighting spirit, you don't want to fight. So you should want more money spent on weapons, so that you don't have to fight. Aristotle said "if you want peace, prepare for war".
If you don't want to fight, you should be afraid of everyone who does: e.g. russia.
putin clearly said he wants to restore the old ussr borders. This means eventually taking eastern Germany. And then you just have to naively assume if he succeeds at that, he will stop at that. I mean, let's be honest, he can't possibly live that long to see his plan fully completed, but let's say he has successors continuing his work.
I know that there is this comfortable seemingly impenetrable boundary of NATO alliance: but recently Trump said he would invite putin to attack on NATO members that don't put enough GDP % into military spending (e.g. Germany), and new Slovakian government is significantly more prorussian (meeting with russia and Hungary).
In January 2022 experts almost unanimously said it would be ridiculous for russia to attack Ukraine.
Don't be afraid of russia, but also act to actually support your peace of mind.
> Ukraine should make a deal instead of sacrificing people without limits
Ukraine made lots of deals with Russia about all kinds of cease fires since 2014, they didn't help with anything.
Putin will collect more strength, and grab whatever he decide and will be allowed to grab.
Ukraine made lots of deals with Russia about all kinds of cease fires since 2014, they didn't help with anything.
Putin will collect more strength, and grab whatever he decide and will be allowed to grab.
> If they wait too long there won't be any deal.
There is no deal on the table, there never was. Putin wants them to surrender and more or less dissolve the army so he can take the rest without the fight.
There is no deal on the table, there never was. Putin wants them to surrender and more or less dissolve the army so he can take the rest without the fight.
> (live in Germany)
East or West? :)
East or West? :)
Lived all my live in the West and West Berlin, worked a few years in East Berlin.
But you have a point. East Germans are much more sceptical of supporting the war. They are tired of propaganda.
(it seems to be different in Poland: Sikorski is a crazy war hawk, don't know about ordinary polish people)
But you have a point. East Germans are much more sceptical of supporting the war. They are tired of propaganda.
(it seems to be different in Poland: Sikorski is a crazy war hawk, don't know about ordinary polish people)
we are all tired of propaganda, especially from the Tagesschau
Losing the UK's Royal Navy, special forces, and nuke force due to Brexit was also a strategic mistake, due to peacetime conplacency. It would have made more sense to be a bit more flexible with Britain.
It wasn't lost though. Collective defense commitments are much stronger in NATO, which UK is still a part of, than they are in EU.
Good point. I think, however, that there is still some validity in differentiating the two. Some NATO countries are outside the EU, and vice vetsa. Also, the US dominates NATO, and not the EU.
I don't agree with your comment. Unpreparedness is one thing, but you paint a picture of weakness and reliance. Why are there no Dutch F-35s or French warships in Ukraine? Where are the British special forces? Let alone the non-NATO countries of Switzerland Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. Some NATO members have huge militaries, albeit with many NATO commitments, i.e. not even close to being utilized to their full potential. Others like Ireland have enough resources to fund those of close allies. Think of all those taxes paid over decades into defense. Together we could have stealth bombers in Moscow within minutes and helicopters and troops soon after. Wagner could have done it by themselves had they had the self-confidence. But no one is doing anything at all, simply because Putin has threatened to nuke us all.
Incredibly out of touch comment.
Dutch have contributed massively relative to gdp. The British special forces trained Ukraines special forces after the war started. Sweden is in NATO. And you can't bomb a nuclear state.
Dutch have contributed massively relative to gdp. The British special forces trained Ukraines special forces after the war started. Sweden is in NATO. And you can't bomb a nuclear state.
The NL have contributed massively. I never meant that they didn't, I was selecting some powerful, random countries with still untapped resources to counter your comment that implied weakness. It was not at all my intention to diminish their contributions (consider that I didn't even mention those of Poland and the Baltics; even though I hate using GDP for this, but that is another discussion...): Again, my point was that, relative to what I imagine Europe's real military might is, it has not even really gotten started compared to what we could be doing, if only we weren't so scared of nukes. Just think of how we could have annihilated the soft target that was the disorganized 64 km Kyiv convoy, back in 2022. A quick search yielded that we have 1703 fighter jets in the EU-28, let alone the large warships, and who knows how many other assets. If we declared war (I'm not a lawyer, but it would easy to prove casus belli, and have jus ad bellum, given Russia's literal aggression and genocide). We could be attacking them along their entire (gigantic) border all the way to the east that they couldn't possibly hope to defend being so spread out. It would look totally different than the "weak" image we are projecting now because we aren't at war.
Sweden is not yet in NATO. They are on the verge of it, with Orban signing approval today, but Hungary has not yet formally submitted their instrument of ratification. Details matter when correcting people.
Sweden is not yet in NATO. They are on the verge of it, with Orban signing approval today, but Hungary has not yet formally submitted their instrument of ratification. Details matter when correcting people.
Well, the nuclear threat is no small threat. It's possibly humanity-ending. Specifically the nuclear winter.
It's amazing and I attribute it largely to American intelligence, how much russia was damaged with "only" a 10s advance on the Doomsday Clock (we're at 23:58:30 now).
It's amazing and I attribute it largely to American intelligence, how much russia was damaged with "only" a 10s advance on the Doomsday Clock (we're at 23:58:30 now).
Absolutely. But it is responsible for our weak response, not our weak/undprepared militaries.
[deleted]
> There was an incredibly stubborn post-Cold War "end of history"
It's hard to tell whether all these comments are part of online propaganda or people regurgitating propaganda they watched on youtube. Like clockwork, the same talking points with the same key words.
> What's been starkly revealed since is that Europe is woefully unprepared to respond to any kind of aggression
Europe is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world. Maintains the largest armed forces in the world. And is one of the biggest aggressors in the world. Ask the north africans, middle easterners and sub saharan africans, etc.
> wholly reliant on America.
It's either be reliant on america or become our competitor. Besides, what's your point here? That europe wants a nuclear war with russia?
> At some point you have to get serious and live in the real world where threats still exist.
Europe is the threat. It's funny how the war in ukraine is between european military powers and yet you claim europe is unprepared for aggression. Most of europe is part of NATO, the biggest source of violence and aggression in the world.
It's hard to tell whether all these comments are part of online propaganda or people regurgitating propaganda they watched on youtube. Like clockwork, the same talking points with the same key words.
> What's been starkly revealed since is that Europe is woefully unprepared to respond to any kind of aggression
Europe is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world. Maintains the largest armed forces in the world. And is one of the biggest aggressors in the world. Ask the north africans, middle easterners and sub saharan africans, etc.
> wholly reliant on America.
It's either be reliant on america or become our competitor. Besides, what's your point here? That europe wants a nuclear war with russia?
> At some point you have to get serious and live in the real world where threats still exist.
Europe is the threat. It's funny how the war in ukraine is between european military powers and yet you claim europe is unprepared for aggression. Most of europe is part of NATO, the biggest source of violence and aggression in the world.
Lol, what ended exactly?
Sure, we will hire a few thousand contractors to form a network of committees and prepare multiple sustainability plans and guidelines for the next seven years. We will also declare war illegal and fine violators with 70% of their gdp.
Whoever dares to challenge european sovereignty will be met with the collective wrath of our cookie prompts
The EU is not only materially incapable of war mode (too many second rate career politicians) but also strategically unaligned. One of its members is occupied by a nato country, and hasn't been supported when threatened. Eastern countries, particularly poland are understandably pushing hard for armament but they will be sorely disappointed when national vetoes start arriving
Whoever dares to challenge european sovereignty will be met with the collective wrath of our cookie prompts
The EU is not only materially incapable of war mode (too many second rate career politicians) but also strategically unaligned. One of its members is occupied by a nato country, and hasn't been supported when threatened. Eastern countries, particularly poland are understandably pushing hard for armament but they will be sorely disappointed when national vetoes start arriving
On the other hand, when Albania was attacked by Iran in 2022 their prime minister didn't invoke Article 5 because he has "too much respect for our friends and our allies to tell them what they should do."
NATO is just as seemingly unfair to its smaller members as is the EU. This is not because of any incompetence per se but rather just a phenomenon in any organization with differently powerful members. Places like US, Germany and Albania will never really be equal due to their respective bargaining powers - no matter what a charta says.
NATO is just as seemingly unfair to its smaller members as is the EU. This is not because of any incompetence per se but rather just a phenomenon in any organization with differently powerful members. Places like US, Germany and Albania will never really be equal due to their respective bargaining powers - no matter what a charta says.
>materially incapable of war mode
I think it's more reluctant to go into war mode. Europe did plenty of war in the not too distant past.
It was interesting doing a tour of Ypres where my grandad did artillery in WW1. It was really rather similar to the current war in Ukriane - largely static trenches with people lobbing shells at each other. Bigger though - approx 1bn shells fired and 14 million dead.
No one really wants to repeat that expect perhaps Putin. I suspect the current slowness in making 1/1000th as many shells is more down to a lack of enthusiasm for the whole business than being less capeable than a century ago. Indeed I thought we were over that stuff but I guess if Putin wants to go retro and roll tanks into the neighbours territories we are forced to respond.
I think it's more reluctant to go into war mode. Europe did plenty of war in the not too distant past.
It was interesting doing a tour of Ypres where my grandad did artillery in WW1. It was really rather similar to the current war in Ukriane - largely static trenches with people lobbing shells at each other. Bigger though - approx 1bn shells fired and 14 million dead.
No one really wants to repeat that expect perhaps Putin. I suspect the current slowness in making 1/1000th as many shells is more down to a lack of enthusiasm for the whole business than being less capeable than a century ago. Indeed I thought we were over that stuff but I guess if Putin wants to go retro and roll tanks into the neighbours territories we are forced to respond.
>One of its members is occupied by a nato country, and hasn't been supported when threatened.
Can you explain?
Can you explain?
The difference between now and then is that you're reading this on a screen instead of on paper. That, and it's gonna be different factions fighting. But the ramp-up was in the news for several years then, too. I never thought I'd live to see this, I thought this only happened in history books.
> I thought this only happened in history books.
Just like western EU governments apparently. It turns out governing a country isn't just about balancing an excel spreadsheet of incomes and spendings, which seems to be the only thing our elites have bee trained for in the last 40 years
Just like western EU governments apparently. It turns out governing a country isn't just about balancing an excel spreadsheet of incomes and spendings, which seems to be the only thing our elites have bee trained for in the last 40 years
> balancing an excel spreadsheet of incomes and spendings, which seems to be the only thing our elites have bee trained for in the last 40 years
And they seem quite bad at it, considering the state of the various balances they are supposed to maintain (or at least those in France where I live)
And they seem quite bad at it, considering the state of the various balances they are supposed to maintain (or at least those in France where I live)
I thought we were better. But it seems to me like people has been swapped out. I dunno if I am psychotic or "everyone" else is. But then again, stuff like this have a higher risk of happening with bad and impopular leaders I guess.
Too late to buy EU defence stocks, too late to buy real estate, too late to simply stop getting intimate with Russia (are Germans still smirking?), with current economy nobody is getting a new job either. What have you done, Europe.
> What have you done, Europe
Making crass jokes about school shootings, alienating regional powers (Israel, Turkey, Australia, most of the Sahel), and ignoring the first conventional war on the continent this century.
Making crass jokes about school shootings, alienating regional powers (Israel, Turkey, Australia, most of the Sahel), and ignoring the first conventional war on the continent this century.
Turkey and Israel alienated themselves. There was way too much will towards Turkey, and they kept blowing it every single time. And Israel.. well.. is Israel.
I live close to the border with Ukraine and I have no idea what you're talking about. Beyond it being a little harder to get an apartament due to the influx of Ukrainian migrants, it's business as usual. And I've not heard of any job market woes. The worst thing right now, and since a while, is farmers getting shafted by cheap grain imports from Ukraine due to lax control at the border, no tracking, and no punishments for buyers.
> is farmers getting shafted by cheap grain imports from Ukraine due to lax control at the border, no tracking, and no punishments for buyers.
they say that and yet much larger traffic of grain from Russia somehow doesn't hurt those farmers?! maybe it's because a lot of it is stolen Ukrainian grain so everyone should be hush shush about it
they say that and yet much larger traffic of grain from Russia somehow doesn't hurt those farmers?! maybe it's because a lot of it is stolen Ukrainian grain so everyone should be hush shush about it
Several of the farmers protesting at the Polish botder are borderline state actors on Russian behalf, with connections to government officials being proven. Make of that what you will.
The amount of people that know nothing about Europe but still give their opinion on the matter is genuinely sad
Maybe now some of our European friends will start pulling their weight with respect to funding NATO.
This is an outdated statistic. The EU as a whole is spending above the 2% and if you include broader items like railway improvements to facilitate moving US tanks, the number more than doubles. Some EU countries have given more than 2% to Ukraine on top of this
The Data on NATO Responsibility Sharing - CSIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YihXoQjnYc
The Data on NATO Responsibility Sharing - CSIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YihXoQjnYc
You can play games with numbers all you want to make things look less bad, but many of the major EU economies have significantly neglected military spending. Not only is there a huge lack of munitions across the continent, there's a huge lack of ability to make any. Sure the invasion of Ukraine made these countries scramble to start fixing decades of neglect, but the damage has already been done.
What's your point or counter point?
The numbers are about where the EU is now, not where it was 2+ years ago. The EU has increased spending and is increasing production capacity. They are doing something about it. The US seems unable to do anything right now because of politics
The EU has had a very significant change in attitude
- 2 years ago about defense spending
- 2 months about defense independence, after hearing Trump's comments about NATO and House Republicans unwillingness to pass foreign defense aid
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have taken note as well
The numbers are about where the EU is now, not where it was 2+ years ago. The EU has increased spending and is increasing production capacity. They are doing something about it. The US seems unable to do anything right now because of politics
The EU has had a very significant change in attitude
- 2 years ago about defense spending
- 2 months about defense independence, after hearing Trump's comments about NATO and House Republicans unwillingness to pass foreign defense aid
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have taken note as well
While this might be true now, this has not always been the case.
And there are still some individual NATO members that want to make excuses instead of pay their fair share for the nuclear umbrella we are providing them, among many other things.
And there are still some individual NATO members that want to make excuses instead of pay their fair share for the nuclear umbrella we are providing them, among many other things.
Here is a timestamped link for convenience
https://www.youtube.com/live/6YihXoQjnYc?t=488
The vast majority of NATO countries are now above 3%
14 countries are above 4%
11 countries are between 3-4%
4 countries are between 2-3%
The countries under the 2% mark
1. Iceland - 1.72
2. Montenegro - 1.57 (incomplete data)
3. N. Macedonia - 1.66 (incomplete data)
https://www.youtube.com/live/6YihXoQjnYc?t=488
The vast majority of NATO countries are now above 3%
14 countries are above 4%
11 countries are between 3-4%
4 countries are between 2-3%
The countries under the 2% mark
1. Iceland - 1.72
2. Montenegro - 1.57 (incomplete data)
3. N. Macedonia - 1.66 (incomplete data)
NATO funding is in the realm of a few million per year for administrative costs, and all members make these payments.
Perhaps you are referring to the requirement for NATO members to spend minimum 2% GDP on their own Military? In which case other responses explain that, on average, this is already occuring.
Further to that, percentage of GDP is a problematic metric to measure spending, as a member could in fact increase their military spending year on year, but if their spending increase doesn't keep up with their GDP increases then it can appear that they are spending less.
Perhaps you are referring to the requirement for NATO members to spend minimum 2% GDP on their own Military? In which case other responses explain that, on average, this is already occuring.
Further to that, percentage of GDP is a problematic metric to measure spending, as a member could in fact increase their military spending year on year, but if their spending increase doesn't keep up with their GDP increases then it can appear that they are spending less.
Maybe they will build out their own military industry causing the US to no longer have a much larger technological capability than it actually pays for from its own GDP and face more competition in weapon sales.
This is already happening. Poland & South Korea entered into a significant deal last year. SK is working with Poland to build SK mil hardware in Poland, which iirc, is a first for them. There are speculations that this is SK breaking into the EU market for tanks & spg.
Drones are reshaping conventional war at unprecedented speeds. Many things need to be rethought. Big ticket items and air defense are notable examples.
Porcupine defense is likely the best strategy for deterrence. Taiwan and her allies should take note of what Ukraine has accomplished in the Black Sea.
Drones are reshaping conventional war at unprecedented speeds. Many things need to be rethought. Big ticket items and air defense are notable examples.
Porcupine defense is likely the best strategy for deterrence. Taiwan and her allies should take note of what Ukraine has accomplished in the Black Sea.
Here's a new video from CSIS on this very topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8kJrQ8TO2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8kJrQ8TO2g
Your comment is probably sarcastic, but I think this new world disorder we slipping into will necessitate a more muscular Europe working in tandem with the US to counter our common enemies.
I would welcome a Europe that takes what is going on more seriously instead of hoping another pansy-ass raft of sanctions will make Putin or Xi shudder in fear.
I would welcome a Europe that takes what is going on more seriously instead of hoping another pansy-ass raft of sanctions will make Putin or Xi shudder in fear.
What's been starkly revealed since is that Europe is woefully unprepared to respond to any kind of aggression, and aside from France's nuclear weapons, wholly reliant on America. At some point you have to get serious and live in the real world where threats still exist.