Why Can't Europe Defend Europe

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
56,428

The Russian Military Looks Like A Joke. Why Can’t Europe Defend Europe?

Harrison-Kass.jpeg

By
Harrison Kass

One of the more frustrating aspects of U.S. foreign policy is the ritual hand-holding of Europe. Since the end of World War II, through the Cold War, and continuing in the decades after the Cold War, the U.S. has been Europe’s primary defender. Such a fact should register as deeply strange – shouldn’t Europe be the primary defender of Europe? – yet it has been accepted as a routine and necessary facet of the U.S. defense posture.

Russia’s Paltry Military Budget

The U.S. has the largest defense budget in world history. Last year, the U.S. military budget was $778 billion. China registered a distant second, spending $252 billion. Meanwhile Russia spent just $61 billion on their military – less than one-tenth of U.S. expenditures.

Russia’s defense budget should raise several questions – questions such as, how much of a threat do they really pose? Are we overspending on NATO? Does the U.S. really need to be so involved in Europe? After all, Western Europe’s three most powerful states – the UK, Germany, and France, NATO members all – spend $59 billion, $52 billion, and $52 billion on their militaries respectively. One might expect that when the defense spending of just three NATO members roughly triples the defense spending of Russia, the United States need not be so heavily invested.

Instead, the U.S. has pressured its European allies to increase their defense spending. That pressure did not start with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – it has been going on for a long time. Nor has it ever really been suggested that the U.S. draw down their spending in Europe – only that European countries match the U.S. contribution to European defense.

Seeing the Light

U.S. presidents dating back to Eisenhower have scolded Europe for not properly contributing to the defense of Europe, and for overburdening America with the task. Donald Trump made waves during the 2016 campaign because he was so openly critical of how blatantly NATO took advantage of the U.S. Trump angered our allies when he threatened not to honor Article 5 unless the nation in need had reached a threshold military contribution relative to their GDP. Trump was wrong to propose conditioning Article 5 on a spending benchmark – but he was correct in asserting that Europe should be defending Europe. What Trump never proposed, however, what never found its way into the conversation, was that perhaps the U.S. should be spending less on European defense.

More here: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/europe-should-defend-europe/
 
It can. And it can defend better with it's allies, which is the reason they have them and why we are one.
 
Sorry to tell you dipshits, but society is a cooperative endeavor. Good things exist because we work together to create them.

If you want to exist on an island without anyone, then fucking move somewhere else and give it a shot
 
If Europe only defends Europe, why did we and they send so many to Iraq and Afghanistan to die in American wars?

Being a NATO ally is a two-way street. We help you; you potentially help us.
 
If Europe only defends Europe, why did we and they send so many to Iraq and Afghanistan to die in American wars?

Being a NATO ally is a two-way street. We help you; you potentially help us.
These idiots want the US to just ignore the world unless we need to blow shit up. That's their entire foreign policy.
 
Billion dollar planes that can't be used in combat are toys, not warplanes. We have corporate welfare and something we pretend is a military force.

The Afghans kicked the asses of many empires with not much more than thrown rocks.
 
politically they are mired in the same way the us is becoming caught between two forces nationalism and socialism

one faction is wiling to defend themselves understanding the lessons of the past century but the other faction sees this as the big lie because they lie under a nuclear umbrella and lie about the efficacy of treaties

that latter faction sees every military dollar spent as robbing from the relief of the poor and various other welfare supplicants and again I am not singling out Europe per se but the west in general

instead of talking about Russia the conversation in this century should be centered on china
russia is now just a vassal state and Iran is patiently awaiting conflict and anticipating a regional vacuum that they can feel

they share in common the belief that the nuclear umbrella is a joke because the us lacks the will to employ it they only deploy it as window dressing

Europe defend itself
what a joke
they're so focused of the green energy initiatives that they cannot even provide their own energy let alone their own defense
 
"Europe defend itself
what a joke
they're so focused of the green energy initiatives that they cannot even provide their own energy let alone their own defense"

You are well out of date. Since Putin started playing about with oil and gas supplies to Europe, many counties have reactivated or extended the life of their nuclear plants, are even using more coal, and the UK is considering fracking.

As for defence? The NATO parts of Europe including the UK and France with nuclear capacity, could probably walk over Russia's forces all the way to Moscow and beyond. We might not have as many aircraft, tanks etc as Russia but what we do know is that they will work, while most of Russia's, not already destroyed by Ukraine, probably won't. What use is a tank that won't start, or will break down in the first few miles?
 
Europe can defend itself but only by working together. As individual nations they are relatively weak and that is by design.

The history of Europe is a history of ever changing alliances invading one another and often on the flimsiest of notions. Sometimes over nothing more than someone's feelings got hurt. The US managed to stay out of their family feuds until WWI. When that one was over we figured, "OK, we're done with them now." That notion just barely made it over 20 years.

With the end of WWII Europe was in tatters. Those nations that weren't virtually destroyed were bankrupted. So the US called them in for the Breton Woods Accords which led to the establishment of NATO. The deal, in a nutshell, was that we'll help them rebuild (IMF & IBRD) and we'll secure all the trades routes. In return those that signed on agreed to spend 3% of their GDP on defense. That 3% number was calculated to be a number whereby the European nations could collectively, along with help from the US, defend against the Warsaw Pact. But would also insure that the individual nations would remain to weak to be tempted to invade one another.

With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact many of those nations started to renege on the 3% deal. (Happy days are here again.) Now they're having to play catch-up under less than ideal conditions.

Meanwhile the US is being pressured by the "woke generation" to subsidize their lives from cradle to grave so they can sit in a corner, play with their crayons, and not be bothered by any of the obstacles and tragedies, large and small, that life throws at all of us.

Forcing the Europeans to bootstrap their military beyond a certain point is a prescription for disaster in the long run. The formation of the EU notwithstanding, they still don't really like each other and they have a way of letting petty squabbles escalate.
 
If Europe only defends Europe, why did we and they send so many to Iraq and Afghanistan to die in American wars?

Being a NATO ally is a two-way street. We help you; you potentially help us.
We're happy to help but ours shouldn't be the biggest contribution, especially now that Russia's land army has been proven to be a paper tiger. Europe won't be there when we have to take on China in the Pacific in the next few months.
 
We're happy to help but ours shouldn't be the biggest contribution, especially now that Russia's land army has been proven to be a paper tiger. Europe won't be there when we have to take on China in the Pacific in the next few months.
You're not happy that we're helping.

You've demonstrated that multiple times
 
in the long run.
Europe becomes dirt poor and mostly ignored in geopolitics for the next few centuries, maybe a millennium. It still has water, so regional powers in Africa and the mideast may take some bits or use gunboat diplomacy in trade negotiations.
 
We're happy to help but ours shouldn't be the biggest contribution, especially now that Russia's land army has been proven to be a paper tiger. Europe won't be there when we have to take on China in the Pacific in the next few months.
And why wouldn't Europe be there?

We were there in Korea, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and the Australians helped you in Vietnam.

That's what Allies do.
 
Europe becomes dirt poor and mostly ignored in geopolitics for the next few centuries, maybe a millennium. It still has water, so regional powers in Africa and the mideast may take some bits or use gunboat diplomacy in trade negotiations.
You cannot be serious.

Look at the imbalance of power between the European navies and those of Africa and the Middle East.

Apart from the temporary blip caused by Putin stopping oil and gas supplies, Europe is still rich in resources and industrial might.

It is more likely that the US will become dirt poor as climate change wrecks your agriculture.
 
You cannot be serious.

Look at the imbalance of power between the European navies and those of Africa and the Middle East.

Apart from the temporary blip caused by Putin stopping oil and gas supplies, Europe is still rich in resources and industrial might.
I'm in Europe now, watching inflation take a growing bite of my travel budget. Turkey is starting to take control of the eastern Med.
 
Back
Top