Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

European Union common defense thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I assume Germany would the strongest supporter of such a move. I heard they are planning to double their tank force and service a whole platoon.

Spanish ships having trouble floating?  Sounds like they're keeping with the finest traditions of the Armada.

16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

That was one was too funny^^

 

They stole the design of DNCS's Scorpène but failed to calculate the mass properly so the Sub couldn't surface (it could sink very well though).

So they had to increase it's size to increase the buoyancy and they only discover now that it can't fit into the dock anymore xD

 

Stealing intellectual property is all nice and dandy until you realize that you are incapable of actually building what you got your hands on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

That was one was too funny^^

 

They stole the design of DNCS's Scorpène but failed to calculate the mass properly so the Sub couldn't surface (it could sink very well though).

So they had to increase it's size to increase the buoyancy and they only discover now that it can't fit into the dock anymore xD

 

Stealing intellectual property is all nice and dandy until you realize that you are incapable of actually building what you got your hands on.

 

Spanish ships having trouble floating?  Sounds like they're keeping with the finest traditions of the Armada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2018 at 6:47 AM, Collimatrix said:

t5KzBLK.png

 

The more I look at this, the angrier I get. 

 

Personally: I would rip out ~60% of US funding (leaving about $250 tril) and let NATO figure out how to pay their own bills. If they can’t, no skin off my back, and maybe that money could be used to pay for stuff over here. 

 

And, let’s be honest, it’s not like there’s anything threatening Europe that NATO couldn’t (theoretically) handle themselves: the Russians sure as hell cant afford a real fight with NATO, and Turkey isn’t a threat either. Hell, the biggest threat to the EU is themselves and their retarded immigration policies, but that’s nothing a little coup can’t change ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

The more I look at this, the angrier I get. 

 

Personally: I would rip out ~60% of US funding (leaving about $250 tril) and let NATO figure out how to pay their own bills. If they can’t, no skin off my back, and maybe that money could be used to pay for stuff over here. 

 

And, let’s be honest, it’s not like there’s anything threatening Europe that NATO couldn’t (theoretically) handle themselves: the Russians sure as hell cant afford a real fight with NATO, and Turkey isn’t a threat either. Hell, the biggest threat to the EU is themselves and their retarded immigration policies, but that’s nothing a little coup can’t change ;) 

 

I don't think gutting the US military would benefit us that much.

 

Even if all of NATO raised their defense spending to the same % as the US we would probably still outspend them combined due to the sheer size of the US economy.

 

Ywi4R8T.jpg

 

BTW Ukraine is spending something like 6% on defense.

Edited by Ramlaen
Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart is about percent of GDP spent in the military, not the NATO budget.

 

The US pay about 22,1% of the budget followed by Germany (14,6%) France (10,6) and the UK (9,8)

 

https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_80p/s3/nato-spend2.jpg

 

So while the US still ends up paying more, it is not as unbalanced as gross spending and GDP spending.

Besides NATO budget itself is ridiculously small.

 

The 2% target by 2024 is another matter as it aim to make sure that each member have a credible military (and that is even discutable given how the 2% are calculated) compared to their wealth.

And here it is true that most European country don't pay much compared to how much they could spend (even per capita it is true).

 

https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_80p/s3/nato-spend1.jpg

 

So reducing the 3,6% of GDP that the US spend on it's defence would only mean shrinking the US military, which would most likely impair it's ability to project force all over the world (which is why NATO is a credible alliance: because the US can send sizeable  contingent to help anywhere they want).

 

So it is true that NATO remain relevant almost solely thanks to the US ability to send massive amount of forces abroad, and while reducing US spending would force the other allies to take matters on their hands and spend more, it would also mean that the US influence over the world would be drastically reduced.

 

Alternatively the US could leave NATO, which would also force the allies to spend more but wouldn't save a penny to the US.

It would most likely be a net loss for the US since they would lose some "soft" power they had through NATO, wouldn't be able to set the STANAG in line with US tech any more and some countries (especially in eastern Europe)  would stop buying American weapons as a political token altogether

 

To sum up the US pulling out of NATO would be detrimental to everybody (US included) and would be an illogical move (though the trade war was also illogical and detrimental to everybody as well).

A better outcome for everybody would be for the allies (especially for EU countries) to step up in order to stand as equals in military worth, we would reach an equilibrium which would mean more stability (on a slight note it would mean a proportionally lower US influence over the world since it is a zero sum game to some extent).

Alternatively the US could reduce it's spending down to 2% of it's GDP which would mean a better balance as well, but given the current trend I think it is both unlikely and probably not a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I don't think gutting the US military would benefit us that much.

 

Even if all of NATO raised their defense spending to the same % as the US we would probably still outspend them combined due to the sheer size of the US economy.

 

Ywi4R8T.jpg

 

BTW Ukraine is spending something like 6% on defense.

 

Oh shit, I misread. I though this was a “who’s finding NATO”, not “general expenditures of countries in NATO”. Please disregard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Trump rips Macron for proposing new EU army to defend against US

 

https://nypost.com/2018/11/09/trump-rips-macron-for-proposing-new-eu-army-to-defend-against-us/

 

“We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America,” Macron said on French radio.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633

 

"Who is the main victim? Europe and its security. I want to build a real security dialogue with Russia, which is a country I respect, a European country - but we must have a Europe that can defend itself on its own without relying only on the United States."

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Donward said:

Trump rips Macron for proposing new EU army to defend against US

 

https://nypost.com/2018/11/09/trump-rips-macron-for-proposing-new-eu-army-to-defend-against-us/

 

“We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America,” Macron said on French radio.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633

 

"Who is the main victim? Europe and its security. I want to build a real security dialogue with Russia, which is a country I respect, a European country - but we must have a Europe that can defend itself on its own without relying only on the United States."

 

 

 

"Stop trying to wriggle out from under our thumb!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Boy, the EU can be an ungrateful dickhead. But I appreciate it. Go ahead, fuck off with NATO and make your own little pact with Russia. 

 

Can't wait to see what sort of military you build.

With few changes this is exactly what opinion was here about WarPact countries in early 1990s, AFAIK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

With few changes this is exactly what opinion was here about WarPact countries in early 1990s, AFAIK.

I don't know anything about the changes in the warsaw pact countries in the early 1990s. If you have time, can you elaborate and/or educate? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Loooser is talking about the Soviets pulling out of the Warsaw Pact countries a couple years before the whole Soviet Union broke up, implying that the US would break apart as a Federal republic after it leaves NATO.

 

@Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect

 

I’m not disparaging the notion of the country breaking apart. It was a fear of our Founding Fathers and almost happened a couple times in our history. But I doubt the political or economic downfall of the US will be brought about by asking that our NATO allies actually fulfill their treaty obligations by contributing to the alliance militarily or financially, a task they’ve shirked now for almost three decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually engaging with this thing for a bit, my take is that this is one of the situations where analogising nations as (utterly selfish) individuals works fine for understanding the dynamics at play.

 

What the US 'wants' is an opponent (Russia) contained, an ally (the EU) pliant and not to bear any burden for either. So the US is pushed towards the logical but mutually contradictory position of wanting NATO to up funding without giving up any control.

 

What France 'wants', by contrast, is a dangerous opponent (Russia) contained, political freedom of action and someone else (the US) paying for it all. Which is again mutually contradictory.

 

Both have a mutual goal (contain Russia) but both are pushed by their wants to act in mutually contradictory and opposed ways. So the spat spins out in a fairly game theory-esque manner as they haggle towards the impossible.

 

So I don't see either side as being illogical or acting stupidly here. They're being leaders in the intended sense of expressing their nation's desires and acting in it's self-interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Our good friends and Kremlin-controlled propaganda instruments independent journalists at Southfront have just produced a video about the developing situation in Moldova:


       
      Moldova is caught in the ongoing power struggle between Russia and the US-led West for control of the former Warsaw Pact.  The US took major strides in expanding its influence with the 1997 addition of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to NATO, followed seven years later by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bulgaria.  The expansion of NATO Eastward was particularly alarming to Russian leadership, and they claim violated an informal agreement they had with the United States that NATO would not expand.
       
      In the case of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, dissatisfaction with Russia was longstanding, and some Westward gravitation of certain former Warsaw Pact states was inevitable.  The situation in Moldova is more complicated, however, where there is a pro-EU government nominally in control of the government, but a breakway region called Transnistria on the Ukrainian border that prefers closer ties with Russia:
       

       
      (I will give Tied a moment or two to wipe away his tears of joy and nostalgia)
       
      The situation in Transnistria is complicated by the civil war in Ukraine.  Security in Transnistria is overseen by a joint force of Transnistrian, Russian and Moldovan forces.  But Russia is on the other side of Ukraine from Moldova, and Ukraine has disallowed the transit of Russian peacekeeping forces to and from Transnistria.  Additionally, the unclear legal status and porous border between Transnistria and Ukraine has made it an attractive base for gunrunners supplying weapons to the Ukrainian civil war.
       
      In the rest of Moldova things have not been going swimmingly either.  A gigantic fraud and money laundering scheme has siphoned at least $2 billion from the Moldovan economy over the last ten years, which is enormous in a country with a GDP of less than $8 billion:




      Other forms of corruption are rampant, and the economy remains extremely backward compared to the rest of Europe.  The GDP per capita of Moldova is less than half that of Albania's, for instance, and everyone knows how horrible and backwards Albania is.  It is easy to see why there would be widespread discontent. 
      The European Parliament has demanded that Russia cease its involvement in the growing Moldovan crisis, although exactly how this is supposed to work vis a vis Transnistria and what the hell they think they're going to do when the Russians do not listen is unclear.  The Russian government is following the situation, but it is unclear at this time what their response will be.

×
×
  • Create New...