To secure peace, a strong deterrent is a good way to go. Even the old Romans knew this. "Si vis pacem, parabellum".

 

For 30 years, Europe has abandoned this principle. To bring up our military capabilities up to par will cost astronomical amounts of money and can easily take up to 10 years.

 

Problem: Some legislative "dept ceilings" are in place. Other European countries have "maxed-out" their credit cards already. Tax increases? No way!

 

So, I would just like to know how the future peace in Europe can be financed.

 

Of course, if the US should pull out of NATO (even a limited pull-out), we would not have to bother with our European military build up anymore.  Rather should we start teaching our kids Russian as a second language, replacing English.

 

9 minutes ago, swissie said:

To secure peace, a strong deterrent is a good way to go. Even the old Romans knew this. "Si vis pacem, parabellum".

 

For 30 years, Europe has abandoned this principle. To bring up our military capabilities up to par will cost astronomical amounts of money and can easily take up to 10 years.

 

Problem: Some legislative "dept ceilings" are in place. Other European countries have "maxed-out" their credit cards already. Tax increases? No way!

 

So, I would just like to know how the future peace in Europe can be financed.

 

Of course, if the US should pull out of NATO (even a limited pull-out), we would not have to bother with our European military build up anymore.  Rather should we start teaching our kids Russian as a second language, replacing English.

 

(Preliminary comment for posters who may not be aware of it. The EU has no defense prerogative, according to the treaties signed)

 

Spending more is necessary, but it's not the main issue.

 

Currently, the aggregated budget of European countries is far from being ridiculous. In PPP it's the equivalent of the current Russian military budget, which is at his maximum, and in nominal value it's 3 times higher than Russia.

 

The problem is the coordination and optimisation at the European level. Each country spends to defend its own country, not to defend the whole of Europe. And they are far from being able to agree on a common project.

 

For example, if Spain increases its spending to better protect its borders, it will have no impact on defending Europe from an invasion coming from Russia. A coordinated military spending would mean that countries such as Spain, France or UK would spend money to improve the protection of Finland, the Baltic States or Poland.

 

There is probably a lot of unnecessary duplicated spending in the different countries, while there is not enough coordinated spending for common purposes. For example, European countries don't have enough logistical means without the U.S.. it can only be solved by a common European logistical force project. It's the same for Strategic stocks. Strategic stocks of weapons and equipment must be optimised and managed at the European level.

 

Not to mention the lack of industrial policy to build an independent base of European production of weapons and equipment.

 

Currently, European countries are unable to agree on a common project. At best, there may be a possibility of a few countries agreeing on some common projects, for a start.

The invasion of Ukraine should have been a walk up call.   

27 minutes ago, candide said:

(Preliminary comment for posters who may not be aware of it. The EU has no defense prerogative, according to the treaties signed)

 

Spending more is necessary, but it's not the main issue.

 

Currently, the aggregated budget of European countries is far from being ridiculous. In PPP it's the equivalent of the current Russian military budget, which is at his maximum, and in nominal value it's 3 times higher than Russia.

 

The problem is the coordination and optimisation at the European level. Each country spends to defend its own country, not to defend the whole of Europe. And they are far from being able to agree on a common project.

 

For example, if Spain increases its spending to better protect its borders, it will have no impact on defending Europe from an invasion coming from Russia. A coordinated military spending would mean that countries such as Spain, France or UK would spend money to improve the protection of Finland, the Baltic States or Poland.

 

There is probably a lot of unnecessary duplicated spending in the different countries, while there is not enough coordinated spending for common purposes. For example, European countries don't have enough logistical means without the U.S.. it can only be solved by a common European logistical force project. It's the same for Strategic stocks. Strategic stocks of weapons and equipment must be optimised and managed at the European level.

 

Not to mention the lack of industrial policy to build an independent base of European production of weapons and equipment.

 

Currently, European countries are unable to agree on a common project. At best, there may be a possibility of a few countries agreeing on some common projects, for a start.

You make fair points from a strategic and Command/Control perspective. To use a possibly silly analogy, "too many cooks spoil the broth". You also mentioned a vital but often overlooked problem- that of 'projecting power'. The US is really the only country with strategic airlift and sealift capacity, long range strike aircraft, etc.  

 

But Europe has been hiding behind Uncle Sugar for decades. I just watched an interesting documentary on Deutche Weille (spelling probably terrible) TV about who can lead Europe, and why it isn't Germany.  

 

The collective GDP of Europe is more than 10 times that of Russia. It should be easy to put together a strong and unified defence. But 30 years of foot dragging will be hard to overcome in the short term.

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The US is really the only country with strategic airlift and sealift capacity, long range strike aircraft, etc.  

It does not have a viable sealift capability and has not had one for many years!

Strategic Sealift is Broken: Which Direction Are We Headed? | Center for International Maritime Security

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It does not have a viable sealift capability and has not had one for many years!

Strategic Sealift is Broken: Which Direction Are We Headed? | Center for International Maritime Security

Definitely in decline, but also pretty much the only fleet to even try in NATO.

52 minutes ago, candide said:

(Preliminary comment for posters who may not be aware of it. The EU has no defense prerogative, according to the treaties signed)

 

Spending more is necessary, but it's not the main issue.

 

Currently, the aggregated budget of European countries is far from being ridiculous. In PPP it's the equivalent of the current Russian military budget, which is at his maximum, and in nominal value it's 3 times higher than Russia.

 

The problem is the coordination and optimisation at the European level. Each country spends to defend its own country, not to defend the whole of Europe. And they are far from being able to agree on a common project.

 

For example, if Spain increases its spending to better protect its borders, it will have no impact on defending Europe from an invasion coming from Russia. A coordinated military spending would mean that countries such as Spain, France or UK would spend money to improve the protection of Finland, the Baltic States or Poland.

 

There is probably a lot of unnecessary duplicated spending in the different countries, while there is not enough coordinated spending for common purposes. For example, European countries don't have enough logistical means without the U.S.. it can only be solved by a common European logistical force project. It's the same for Strategic stocks. Strategic stocks of weapons and equipment must be optimised and managed at the European level.

 

Not to mention the lack of industrial policy to build an independent base of European production of weapons and equipment.

 

Currently, European countries are unable to agree on a common project. At best, there may be a possibility of a few countries agreeing on some common projects, for a start.

European countries are "out of money". So again, who is going to be the "financier" of future European military capabilities? To look at the "balance-sheet" of most European countries will confirm that we simply don't have the money for something like that.

 

7 minutes ago, swissie said:

European countries are "out of money". So again, who is going to be the "financier" of future European military capabilities? To look at the "balance-sheet" of most European countries will confirm that we simply don't have the money for something like that.

 

The West built bloated social welfare states, and now, they can’t afford anything. Toss in the issue of an aging population and low birth rates. The West is in decline. 

12 minutes ago, TedG said:

The West built bloated social welfare states, and now, they can’t afford anything. Toss in the issue of an aging population and low birth rates. The West is in decline. 

Agree. I support a welfare state, giving shelter, food and heating. Very basic stuff.  Dozends of welfare programs in Germany. Welfare overkill.

 

AMAZINGLY: Still, most beneficiaries are hovering near the "financial existential minimum". I suppose a good part of the money finds it's way into the administrative djungle. Good salaried "social workers" and so many more that would be out of their jobs if it wasent for the growing army of "unemployable people".

1 hour ago, swissie said:

European countries are "out of money". So again, who is going to be the "financier" of future European military capabilities? To look at the "balance-sheet" of most European countries will confirm that we simply don't have the money for something like that.

 

It's more a question of political will.

 

As I have explained, even the current level is not ridiculous. It's now close to 2% of GDP, and an increase to 3% of GDP is enough if invested on common European projects. It"s not huge. And that would put Europe at 50% more than the current Russian war economy budget in PPP, and 4 to 5 more in nominal value.

 

Some budget choices need to be made , of course.

 

It's quite feasible but the political will to do it is currently lacking.

 

Another decision which requires political will is nuclear proliferation.

Give nuclear weapon technology to Poland, Germany  Finland, etc..

2 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

The invasion of Ukraine should have been a walk up call.   

Having invited millions and millions of people of a hostile violent ideology into peaceful European nations, we now have the fox inside the henhouse. Makes no difference now how the fence is strengthened, we are cooked from within. Lots of cities like London and Paris have already fallen to the invaders, all will eventually succumb, it's basic demographics.

 No point thinking about Russia or Ukraine. Interestingly enough Russia did not try replacing Russians with "guests on welfare" so they will survive as a nation. As will China. As will Thailand. As will Japan. Well done the 4 nations.

An argument can be made that with multiple countries developing multiple systems provides more and better solutions. Let countries do what they are good at. 

 

 

53 minutes ago, candide said:

It's more a question of political will.

 

As I have explained, even the current level is not ridiculous. It's now close to 2% of GDP, and an increase to 3% of GDP is enough if invested on common European projects. It"s not huge. And that would put Europe at 50% more than the current Russian war economy budget in PPP, and 4 to 5 more in nominal value.

 

Some budget choices need to be made , of course.

 

It's quite feasible but the political will to do it is currently lacking.

 

Another decision which requires political will is nuclear proliferation.

Give nuclear weapon technology to Poland, Germany  Finland, etc..

The PPP of Russia is not known to us. The "shadow-fleet" of Russian ships exporting their oil, and thus replenishing their "war chest" has only be discovered recently, (3 years going into the war). One must conclude, that all the western intelligence agencies were asleep during the last 3 years.

If the EU increases the defense budget from 2% to 3%, according to your pocket calculator, how much more in monetary terms would that be? You will be amazed. Not to speak of Donalds request of 5%? We simply dont't have the money for this and the European "borrowing-power" has reached it's limits.

 

10 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Having invited millions and millions of people of a hostile violent ideology into peaceful European nations, we now have the fox inside the henhouse. Makes no difference now how the fence is strengthened, we are cooked from within. Lots of cities like London and Paris have already fallen to the invaders, all will eventually succumb, it's basic demographics.

 No point thinking about Russia or Ukraine. Interestingly enough Russia did not try replacing Russians with "guests on welfare" so they will survive as a nation. As will China. As will Thailand. As will Japan. Well done the 4 nations.

 

When Western Europe does eventually fall, it won't be to the Hammer and Sickle.  It'll be to the Star and Crescent.  And the Euros will only have their feckless leaders to blame. 

 

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

When Western Europe does eventually fall, it won't be to the Hammer and Sickle.  It'll be to the Star and Crescent.  And the Euros will only have their feckless leaders to blame. 

 

Just look at Japan and Europe in the late 1800s, and how that ended up. 

13 hours ago, swissie said:

European countries are "out of money". So again, who is going to be the "financier" of future European military capabilities? To look at the "balance-sheet" of most European countries will confirm that we simply don't have the money for something like that.

 

Stop wasting the money on Ukraine and use it to build up their own forces would be a good start.

 

No money? "Welcome to our Russian overlords" signs are a cheap alternative to an actual military.

11 hours ago, swissie said:

The PPP of Russia is not known to us. The "shadow-fleet" of Russian ships exporting their oil, and thus replenishing their "war chest" has only be discovered recently, (3 years going into the war). One must conclude, that all the western intelligence agencies were asleep during the last 3 years.

If the EU increases the defense budget from 2% to 3%, according to your pocket calculator, how much more in monetary terms would that be? You will be amazed. Not to speak of Donalds request of 5%? We simply dont't have the money for this and the European "borrowing-power" has reached it's limits.

 

Euro countries have loads of cash, but it's all in the accounts of the super rich- the ones making money out of the Ukrainian fiasco. Given the governments only care about their rich buds it's going to stay there.

IMO.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

When Western Europe does eventually fall, it won't be to the Hammer and Sickle.  It'll be to the Star and Crescent.  And the Euros will only have their feckless leaders to blame. 

 

Hear hear. Europe is bankrupt politically, militarily and soon economically.

15 hours ago, swissie said:

To secure peace, a strong deterrent is a good way to go. Even the old Romans knew this. "Si vis pacem, parabellum".

 

For 30 years, Europe has abandoned this principle. To bring up our military capabilities up to par will cost astronomical amounts of money and can easily take up to 10 years.

 

Problem: Some legislative "dept ceilings" are in place. Other European countries have "maxed-out" their credit cards already. Tax increases? No way!

 

So, I would just like to know how the future peace in Europe can be financed.

 

Of course, if the US should pull out of NATO (even a limited pull-out), we would not have to bother with our European military build up anymore.  Rather should we start teaching our kids Russian as a second language, replacing English.

 

 

The Russian army is pathetic. They have lost most of their tanks/guns against the weakest country in Europe. Even without increasing spending the EUSSR could easily withstand a Russian (non nuclear) attack. Current EUSSR defence spending is 500 billion compared to Russia's 100 billion. Our GDP is 20 trillion compared to their 2 trillion. Our population is 500 million compared to their 140 million. The only thing lacking in the EUSSR is guts.

16 minutes ago, henryford1958 said:

 

The Russian army is pathetic. They have lost most of their tanks/guns against the weakest country in Europe. Even without increasing spending the EUSSR could easily withstand a Russian (non nuclear) attack. Current EUSSR defence spending is 500 billion compared to Russia's 100 billion. Our GDP is 20 trillion compared to their 2 trillion. Our population is 500 million compared to their 140 million. The only thing lacking in the EUSSR is guts.

Ill agree with the first sentence and the last one. I would disagree that Europe could beat Russia, even if united. It would be trench warfare all over again

11 hours ago, swissie said:

The PPP of Russia is not known to us. The "shadow-fleet" of Russian ships exporting their oil, and thus replenishing their "war chest" has only be discovered recently, (3 years going into the war). One must conclude, that all the western intelligence agencies were asleep during the last 3 years.

If the EU increases the defense budget from 2% to 3%, according to your pocket calculator, how much more in monetary terms would that be? You will be amazed. Not to speak of Donalds request of 5%? We simply dont't have the money for this and the European "borrowing-power" has reached it's limits.

 

- GDP is also important because of Russia's high dependence on foreign technology for military and other industries. PPP is good for Vodka. 

 

"The "shadow-fleet" of Russian ships exporting their oil, and thus replenishing their "war chest" has only be discovered recently, (3 years going into the war)."

 

- Known from the beginning: 

 

Russia relies on 'shadow fleets' for crude oil sales

January 16, 2023   5:10 AM ET

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/16/1149375089/russia-relies-on-shadow-fleets-for-crude-oil-sales

 

"One must conclude, that all the western intelligence agencies were asleep during the last 3 year"

 

- Direct opposite judging from Ukraine's intensely precise targeting of everything inside Russia.

 

5 hours ago, rabas said:

- GDP is also important because of Russia's high dependence on foreign technology for military and other industries. PPP is good for Vodka. 

 

"The "shadow-fleet" of Russian ships exporting their oil, and thus replenishing their "war chest" has only be discovered recently, (3 years going into the war)."

 

- Known from the beginning: 

 

Russia relies on 'shadow fleets' for crude oil sales

January 16, 2023   5:10 AM ET

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/16/1149375089/russia-relies-on-shadow-fleets-for-crude-oil-sales

 

"One must conclude, that all the western intelligence agencies were asleep during the last 3 year"

 

- Direct opposite judging from Ukraine's intensely precise targeting of everything inside Russia.

 

Exactly. Russia is an economic dwarf, despite its vast resources, thanks to Putin's incompetent management over decades.

 

However it is one single country, and not multiple countries as in Europe. There is enough money available in Europe (of course, some other expenses would need to be cut), but there is not enough political will. It's not only a question of guts, it requires that each country would accept to invest in more than just defending its own territory.

I think Russia's economy is ten times that of Ukraine

 

I think Russia's population is four times that of Ukraine

 

I think Russia's area is thirty times that of Ukraine

 

 

 

I am saddened that conversations always turn to economics and never to ethics and morals

7 minutes ago, Negita43 said:

I am saddened that conversations always turn to economics and never to ethics and morals

 

 

I guess that is the difference between reality and ideology...

IMHO the latest pronouncements from Trump/Vance are indeed a wake-up call to Europe and NATO. And I think it's a good thing too. Here's why.

 

Post WW2, the beginning of the Cold War, and NATO formation, the Hegemony of the USA has defined politics in The West. The USA was very enthusiastic to see itself as the worlds SuperPower, and was ready to spend blood and treasure to maintain a claim to that throne. There was plenty of money to be made too, not to mention power projection over its allies as well as its enemies. 

As a result what did the world get? Decades of proxy wars, nuclear standoff, American expansionism, and global terrorism fed by US policies in the ME. 

 

With the fall of the Soviet Union, America consolidated its global hegemony and enjoyed the spoils it brought. There was little or no complaint from the US establishment about the costs back then, it was all part of the money-go-round the MIC was riding high on.

 

Some of you pointed to the 'bloated' social security system Europe set up. Well YES! They did! As a young man I looked at the poverty and deprivation and decay in the US and wondered how the richest nation in the world could suffer it. My seniors simply pointed out that Europe spent money on social services, and the US spent its money on guns and bombs, and built big jails for their poor. As long as Big Business and the Military Industrial Complex thrived, keeping the elites wealthy, and US Hegemony unchallenged - to hell with those bums.

 

But lately - probably starting with Covid, and US defeat in Afghanistan - Americans have woken up to whats been going on around them, they've suffered economically, seen military disaster, and had wokeism shoved down their throats. They've finally said 'enough', and - like him or not - believed in Trump's promises as the solution to their woes. So they voted for THAT PROMISE en masse.  Now he's delivering exactly what they voted for. Massive Change.

 

Trump's promise to Make America Great Again *may* improve a lot of things back home for Americans. But it will come at the cost of America's Hegemony in the wider world. We see it now in his attitude to NATO, and how he treats his 'allies' in Europe. We see it in his demands on their military spending, and his expressed aims of grabbing the resources he needs for his plans at home.

 

So the Post WW2 order is coming to an end, and yes it's a good thing, because instead of The West being a junior partner, tied to American Hegemony (a role they've become all too comfortable with) they will now have to stand on their own feet, and cut the umbilical to the US. That means, yes, more spending on military preparedness - but not necessarily at the levels Trump has demanded, because The West will in future be able to ignore America's demands for involvement in its war mongering around the globe. No more Libya's, no more Iraq's or Afghanistans, no war with Iran (an American/Israli obsession). Europe can determine its own place in the world, and let America go to hell, as it should.

 

America (under Trump, and probably his immediate successors) will claim victory, wallow in their home spent wealth (for a while), and gradually withdraw into the old isolationism they enjoyed pre WW1. There'll be a chance of global peace at last. It will eventually dawn on the US that they have become largely irrelevant in the Great Game as China and BRICS become the new SuperPowers.

The US will only be 'important' because it has a nuclear arsenal - which it won't use. Nobody will be interested in invading a dormant nuthouse.

 

Meanwhile Europe will grow up and improve its own national defenses, a European Defence Force is highly likely, and another good thing too.

As for the threat from Russia - I believe that without a bellicose USA pulling the strings things will settle down a lot between Europe and Russia, and anyway, after its performance in Ukraine the Russian military has shown itself to be a complete paper tiger, being tied down to 'trench warfare' for nearly 3 years by a country with a fraction of its population.

 

So carry on Trumpy, break their balls, focus on building your beach resorts in Palestine. Good luck with that.

 

 

 

 

23 hours ago, candide said:

(Preliminary comment for posters who may not be aware of it. The EU has no defense prerogative, according to the treaties signed)

 

Spending more is necessary, but it's not the main issue.

 

Currently, the aggregated budget of European countries is far from being ridiculous. In PPP it's the equivalent of the current Russian military budget, which is at his maximum, and in nominal value it's 3 times higher than Russia.

 

The problem is the coordination and optimisation at the European level. Each country spends to defend its own country, not to defend the whole of Europe. And they are far from being able to agree on a common project.

 

I think the main issue is, that durign the last 80 years, the USA has been very happy with having their 100,000 troops stationed in Germany, where they have a central strike capability and did house all kinds of illegal attack weapons without any control or interference.

 

The idea was always that it is better, to pay a relatively minor amount for this capability to keep guaranteed political influence over Germany and prevent an independet military buildup.

 

I am not sure what has changed, but I personally would not applaud Germany having their own nuclear deterrence (technical not really difficult to do, so we could have that within a year or two, well before Putin is strong enough to attack Poland and than move westwards).

 

But thosew who say 'A' also need to say 'B', the law of consequences.

 

Of course, if Trump really wants Germany to spend 5% of GDP on their own weapons, stop telling us what to do and <deleted> right off out of Ramstein airbase.

The nature of war fighting, defence and offence has changed dramatically since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the withdrawal of the Soviet Military from Eastern Europe and the fall of the "puppet" communist regimes in Eastern Europe.

 

Then (1960s, 70s and 80s) we thought,. and were prepared to fight, in terms of massed armies ranged across Europe, from the Alps to the Baltic. Largely armoured, you had the NATO corps, each of up to 4 divisions , German, US, Belgian, British, Dutch and German again. The second wave was a massive airlift of American troops from the continental USA , practiced in various degrees in the big NATO exercises - which almost always included a "Reforger" component from the USA. The armies were manned, with the exception of the British and latterly the US, largely by conscription. The opposition, Group of Soviet Forces Germany was deployed similarly, albeit in a more offensive posture, backed up by their Warsaw Pact allies and second wars drawn on mobilisation from the Soviet Union.

 

The whole business has changed. Formations are smaller, more agile and far better equipped, the brigade has replaced the Division and Corps as the fighting formation. Brigades are far more practiced, trained and expect to fight alongside brigades from other nationalities; in fact multinational brigades are common. Conscription is much less of a feature. Equipment commonality is much greater, communications, command and control more effective and faster; artillery and anti tank guided weapons are far more effective, particularly in defence, and the development of drones both for surveillance and delivery of munitions has opened up a whole new dimension.

 

All this, training and equipment, has become much more expensive of course, but you now have a vastly different battlefield, to that which NATO was created to fight on.

 

There is a need to spend more, there will always be a need to spend more, however the core reliance upon the US for reinforcement in manpower and weaponry is much reduced - "Reforger" has not been played for decades, and US withdrawal from or prevarication over NATO will have less impact than it would have done in the days of the Cold War. Europe would lose the US nuclear umbrella, but the UK and French strategic deterrence would remain.

 

My point is, NATO has changed, Europe has changed, militaries have changed. US withdrawal will be a great blow, but not as fatal as it would have been to "the old order". New countries are emerging as drivers within NATO, in particular Poland and the Scandinavians. The current regime in the USA has cast significant doubt as to wether they could actually be trusted to follow the core rule of the alliance, article 5 of the treaty, an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO and Europe will have, are having, to learn to live without the USA.

23 hours ago, swissie said:

European countries are "out of money". So again, who is going to be the "financier" of future European military capabilities?

 

 

As I mentioned above, having a nuclear deterrence is not expensive, and in the year 2025 is basically off-the-shelf for a country like Germany. The technology, good enough to reach Moscow, is basically 80 years old.

 

But I remind everybody once again. What was the reason, 80 years ago, that everybody thought it a good idea that there is no independent military build-up in central western Europe?

 

Maybe the question should be, why Trump wants a Germany, controlled by a far-right political party (see the last talks on the Munich security conference).

5 minutes ago, jts-khorat said:

 

I think the main issue is, that durign the last 80 years, the USA has been very happy with having their 100,000 troops stationed in Germany, where they have a central strike capability and could house all kinds of illegal attack weapons without any control or interference.

 

The idea was always, that it is better, to pay a relatively minor amount for this capability to keep guaranteed political influence over Germany and prevent an independet military buildup.

 

I am not sure what has changed, but I personally would not applaud Germayn having their own nuclear deterrence (technical not really difficult to do, so we could have that within a year or two, well before Putin is strong enough to attack Poland and than move westwards).

 

But thosew who say 'A' also need to say 'B', the law of consequences.

 

Of course, if Trump really wants Germany to spend 5% of GDP on their own weapons, stop telling us what to do and <deleted> right off out of Ramstein airbase.

It's not only about Europe. Relatively recent history (ex. Irak or Ukraine vs NK) has shown that the only way to be really protected is the possession of nuclear weapons.

 

I would not be surprised if SK or Japan, for example, would come one day to the same conclusion.