The high price of peace in Europe.

[swissie]

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.

 

[candide]

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.

[Mike_Hunt]

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

[Hanaguma]

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.

[scottiejohn]

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

[Hanaguma]

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.

[swissie]

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.

 

[TedG]

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. 

[swissie]

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".

[candide]

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..

[SunnyinBangrak]

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.

[Yellowtail]

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. 

 

 

[swissie]

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.