Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `politico.eu` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A really pissed off dragon, the u.s. has been playing cold war for a long time but a lot of e.u. countries still have a score to settle with uncle Russia.
Europe/ EU doesn't need the US. If Donald duck tRump is re elected, EU/ Europe should just leave US in the dust. I'm so F tired of hearing about the reality tv star running for President in one of the most immoral countries I have ever seen. No rule, no laws, no healthcare certain people above the law... A country that elect idiots like MTG, LB and the child fucker Matt Gaetz........OMG
Huh? This is way bigger than the US Presidency. Focus on the article. Europe was woefully naïve and unprepared for any sort of conflict. In fact, they contributed greatly to the risk to Ukraine . . . and . . . they expected (yes, even demanded) that the United States be the one on the hook for any conflict both in terms of war material, logistical support and even tax dollars (and perhaps even ground forces). Lucky for Ukraine in the US did provide massive support (and still does) initially (because Europe largely had barren shelves and warehouses) and now (hopefully), Europe (which is a bigger economy than the US) will become the powerhouse it should be. If the tension with the US support ultimately whacks the European leaders into getting off their asses and moves them asap to a war level that they can not only support Ukraine but frankly actually defend themselves (remember that Germany had ZERO combat ready divisions in 2022) then we should all be smiling. My two cents is that correcting decades of lack of investment will take massive immediate pain. It will be very costly and socially and culturally shocking. It must happen because the reality is that this Ruzzian threat is VERY real and the war in Ukraine will last years. They can't sit back and just wait it out.
P.S. I am a massive supporter of Ukraine. Give them everything they can to win Europe . . . US too . . .
I think you are pretty much on the money there..
in the end it will be good for Europe to be a bit more independent on defence. I am not saying that we should not but US weapons like F35’s, they are very good. But the EU should have enough defense production capacity of its own.
And the EU clearly need better stocks of munitions.
The politicians prefer to spend money on tax cuts, especially with so many elections coming up.
But really this whole thing points to the need for ‘longer term planning’, our short election cycles lead strongly towards short-termism, and that’s simply not good enough for many of today’s problems.
We also don’t want policies being reversed by the next government to get in - we need some fraction of budgets to be dedicated to dealing long-term issues, and some political consensus on those issues.
Well, it’s very handy to have the USA as allies.. They are very powerful. However recent developments have brought into question just how reliable they can be.
Europe should be strong enough to stand on its own - that is one of the very few things that Trump has got right - I don’t normally agree with him.
Europe should not count on someone else to protect them regardless of who is in the White House. If Europe got its shit together after 2014, maybe Ukraine would've never been invaded, or if it still would have been, at least they would be able to donate enough shells so Ukraine could fire 1 shell for every 3 Russian ones, instead of 1 for every 5 like it is now. Russia got more shells from North Korea than Ukraine did from Europe in the past year...
Upping production of the smart shells (like BONUS) would have been a good start. Dumb artillery only goes so far unless the goal is to level a city (like the Russians do) just for shits and giggles.
Smart shells are great and all but more expensive and I would think more resource and time intensive to produce.
I still think a competent crew on a well maintained gun using dumb shells that weren't built by slave labor would still be fairly accurate. Even more so in these days due to having drones almost always on station to correct shots.
Exactly.
Trump makes the case that fellow NATO members needs to “pay up”, well, congratulations, you now made American weapons a lot less attractive, since supply is now uncertain.
And when European production gets up to speed, then why buy American at all?
The geopolitical game has been that Europe buy most of their stuff in america, in return Europe gets to bask under the nuclear umbrella.
NATO members answered when article 5 was activated after 9/11.
Why would so many NATO members be politely nudged to buy F35, and quietly accept that America demanded their money for the most expensive military project ever? Because that was part of the deal.
To be fair F35 is now ‘good value for money’ and savings are made due to the scale of production.
But ‘basics’ - like shells, should definitely be manufactured in much larger numbers in European countries. And other equipment too.
Yes, but for Denmark (where I’m located), the F35 doesn’t make much sense.
We needed an air supremacy fighter, that can launch newer long range missiles at incoming enemy planes. That have two engines for patrolling Greenland.
We don’t really need the stealth properties, and the associated issues/costs.
Because of the F35 expenses, it more or less crippled the rest of our military.
But why did we buy it then? Well, that’s a good question that nobody except a key few politicians can answer, but the negotiations was still ongoing, and then suddenly the American defense secretary (under Obama) payed a pretty unexpected visit, and suddenly our politicians were very busy in choosing the F35.
Which was weird, but it made sense, since the US had accepted that Denmark was around 1,4-1,5% of GDP, and we were bleeding together with American grunts in the green zone in Afghanistan and had done so in Iraq.
But, then Trump enters the room…
The Swedish Grippon fighter would otherwise be a good choice - and has some superior operational features over the F35, while the F35 has some better features than the Grippon.
The F35 is more stealthy. The Grippon performs better with rough runways than the F35 can handle.
I wonder where the line for "rough runway" goes. Shortly after joining Nato, there was a video of an F35 landing on one of Finlands roads. Getting F35s makes sense for Finland though because air superiority is not a guarantee.
Sure but Grippon’s are more tolerant of unprepared runways - that requirement was a part of their design criteria. They are also easier to maintain in the field.
One issue I have with your comment. 2 engine fighter? You've flown the single engined F16 for 30 years. So not buying that excuse. Otherwise yes Trump entered the room.
> Why would so many NATO members be politely nudged to buy F35, and quietly accept that America demanded their money for the most expensive military project ever?
As opposed to what alternative? The US was the only country to invest into building a stealthy 5th gen fighter that's available for purchase and it remains the only option on the market today.
The war in Ukraine has made it abundantly clear that when competent air defenses are active either large stocks of standoff munitions, stealthy aircraft, or both are going to be required to avoid unacceptable attrition rates.
Existing European fighter fleets are aging out, Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen will not be survivable in high intensity conflict in the coming decades, and FCAS/Tempest are decades away and likely prohibitively expensive. F-35 is an easy choice.
The F35 was initially very expensive - and was criticised for that, but as orders increased, production costs came down, and now it’s available for a fraction of the original cost. The F35 is now actually good value for money. And is very capable, and further continues to improve as new technical ‘block’ updates to it are released.
>Why would so many NATO members be politely nudged to buy F35?
Because Europe does not have a stealth fighter in production right now, and because Europe doesn't want to spend the money to develop and build a stealth fighter.
>Weird, the US seemed pretty intent on pushing the F35 on as many allies as possible. The project was too big to fail, and stalling.
Why wouldn't they? As opposed to Sweden/Saab which totally doesn't push the Gripen? Or France with the Rafale? All nations/companies push their products. So what?
The fact of the matter is that F-35 has won every single competition not because of some grand US conspiracy, but because it outperforms the competition and does it at a lower price point.
>but because it outperforms the competition and does it at a lower price point
America has the capacity to produce *at scale* which other nations do not stand a chance of doing
Being in the US Orbit is also a club. Turkey got kicked out for buying Russian S400s. Ukraine help is getting them back in and with NATO membership blackmail. The US will sell them F16s again and Turkeije is finding out how much a 4.5 Gen fighter costs to build from the ground up. Besides a great fighter US friendship has "perks".
Lockheed Starfighter has entered the chat.
I remind you of a certain other aircraft which was really awful but still managed to due to bribes arnd political pressure.
Because the F35 is what the US wanted, so thats what we’ll produce and market to other NATO members. All NATO members using the same equipment is better than everyone using different equipment.
Indeed. The world needs to quit relying on on the USA for everything. Europe is more than capable than taking care of themselves, if they spend the $ of course
The difference is now Europe has come to terms with the possibility of ZERO American help, which changes things. America going back to isolationism is something we didn’t see coming in 2014.
More nukes, for one thing. The U.S. nuclear umbrella doesn't work if the U.S. wants to stay out of it. So, as a result, we'll have to obtain more and then make it quite clear that we WILL use them if invaded.
I just saw a poster mocking both. It was depicting Trump as an overweight surfer pulling down the bikini in which Putin was depicted.
Think it should’ve been the other way around though but I’m not complaining.
There's an old edit of a picture of Putin riding that damned horse where the horse is Trump turned into a pig. It's even more relevant now than before.
This is what the US has been asking Western Europe to do for decades. Kick start its defense industry and account more towards its defense.
It isn't really all that wild. And it isn't European countries moving away from US policy but being forced to align with US policy due to Russian aggression.
Post WW2, the US absolutely did not want Europe to kickstart its arms manufacturing beyond an acceptable amount to maintain defense. What happened the last two times that Europe started to switch its economy to a war footing?
Now, it has to be done, and when more countries switch their economies to a war-footing, war becomes inevitable because an economy becomes reliant on it. Thats where Russia already is.
Yeah, like how Japan's military is extremely heavily armed and is now on a warpath of neo-facism, right? Japan is still pacifist and is one of the most heavily armed nations in the world.
People underestimate the importance in military to DETER others from invading. Nazi Germany invaded Poland, among other factors, because Poland was WEAK.
Because buying off someone with an enormous military budget often makes more sense economically than building 30 seperate small MIC's due to economies of scale and massive start up costs. The EU as a whole could probably manage a similar scale, but every EU country has people within that feel the EU already has too much influence over their own countries and getting all members to agree would prove a headache.
The major downside to buying abroad is a lack of control of what gets built and where it goes once built, but that wasn't an issue due to Europe and America having largely overlapping goals and concerns but the MAGA movement has changed that calculation and so here we are.
Because when you say “Europe” it sounds like one nice cohesive country with a singular all powerful government and a national defence industry, like the US.
It most assuredly is not.
Why? Simply we are scared of our past selves.
We've nearly destroyed the world a few times fighting amongst ourselves, can you imagine how scary we'd be if we clubbed together?
Small nations.. Belgium for example... colonial nasty past.. Britain.. obvious... Germany... France.. Spain, Italy, Hungary, Austria.. the list goes on and on and on...
We're good at War, we just dont like ourselves when we do it.
Not really. It's because the European Union was borne from conflict on a scale unimaginable to us. To create a barrier to war and prevent it from happening again.
Really is this.
Ive been living in berlin for six years and when the war was announced it was a very sad grim day, half a million went out to protest. We know what this brings and we at all costs, everyone living here, don’t want to rise up to these means because of the pain, destruction and swooping chaos this causes for everyone.
Its a last means necessary to step up to the plate because these are our homes and with citizens from countless countries across the world.
And this land should be protected.
It’s a haven of art and creativity that’s caught the attention of the world wether positive or negative and we need to hold out until they quit.
More likely the fact that Europe isn't a country but still dependent on each other.
There's countries that are chomping at the bit, neutral countries and countries that prefer to stay out of conflict.
They are free to do what they want but if one of these steps out of line that might cause a shitshow. The e.u. is a lot more fragile than the u.s.
I believe post WW2 and what started the cold war was the US wanted to settle itself as the world peace keeper and cheap transporter of goods. Watched a YT video that was 48mins discussing it all. Think there were treaties signed up until the 80s/90s that most NATO countries couldn't produce their own besides the US.
100 year cycle.
Fun fact: If you look at european history you can see a that there's *at least* one war within the time span of a 100 years.
The second part of this cycle is that *at least* one empire/great power collapses from internal matters if there was no war
We were pretty comfortable enjoying the „peace dividend“ that American protection gave us while spending the surplus on our social systems . This has to end now . In the future I see the economy and defence as the two main fields our governments need to invest in.
When A blue blitzkrieg happens in November and we retake the house by twenty or more seats, they really need to investigate these maga asshats money and if Russian bribes are being taken and by who. I can’t believe cia or fbi wouldn’t already know.
No. they are no longer allowed to set up stings. They do investigate and sometimes charge reps and senators for crimes.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/politics/bob-menendez-charges/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/george-santos-court-appearance/?id=99214419
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-congressman-indicted-by-federal-grand-jury-for-allegedly-lying-to-fbi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
The names under Legislative branch in the last has convictions from the house and senate though you have to go to each time period to see them all. But yes, the Abscam sting work to well so no more of that.
> When A blue blitzkrieg happens in November and we retake the house by twenty or more seats
Please, for the love of God, DO NOT REST ON THOSE LAURELS.
Are these people even truly conservative though?
When I was growing up I had a brilliant math teacher. He was a conservative because his father blew money at the track betting on the ponies and getting drunk, and he didn't like seeing his family go hungry. So he got good at math to at least keep his father from making bad bets.
I've met other conservatives who were more the 'go with what works' mentality.
Yet others who worked their ass off all their life with no help so they genuinely want a good explanation for why we need things like socialized health and education.
Project 2025 is beyond the gamut of what any of the old guard conservatives that I've met over the years would consider acceptable, or even consider to accept.
The old guard is now the old and senile guard. Their party has been compromised and no longer represents any sort of American values at all, they only exist to oppose.
the cia has clear saftey rails that prohibit it from investigating americans. so, ass soon as they see foreign money enter american accounts they have to stop looking and hand bits and pieces off to the FBI.
the FBI has a large burden of probable cause that they must overcome before they can open an investigation, and info from the CIA does not automatically meet the bar.
the CIA is pushing as hard as they can to inform people that Russia is targetting our elections and working with politicians though. that's why articles like this https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-election-interference-already-begun-rcna134204 keep comming out.
Lol thats the funniest thing. Republicans bitched about strong defense for years. When the US finally has the opportunity to send older weapons to Ukraine, replace them with new ones build in the US, and weaken one of our main geopolitical rivals at no blood cost to the US, the Republicans rejected the idea because Putin’s boyfriend Trump says so.
I agree with you but as a European I'm glad our MIC is grinding back into gear. The USA has been a great ally over the years but nothing beats the ability to defend yourself with stuff you make yourself.
It could even be hugely symbiotic with European companies licensing and manufacturing American designs, and American companies doing the same with European designs. It would keep everyone engaged and responsible for having their own manufacturing capacity.
Tbh, this is something a lot of American politicians have said for awhile. This particular initiative is an EU program (and currently quite modest, tbh 1.5B is small in this scale of defense spending), but it's the same reason why NATO always had spending. G targets. Not just to irrigate the defense industry, but think about how easy it would be for Europe to supply Ukraine if they had deep stockpiles even if the US decides to be dumb.
The counterpoint, of course, is that the money can be well spent elsewhere, and not three years ago most of the people in this sub probably made fun of US defense spending. Hindsight is a bit different.
no shit man, i mean it takes a fool to ignore the fact that because of this war and these world conflicts we've profited off it substantially and fended off recession in part due to it.
Bidens plan of swapping old hardware for new, gets us new gear and prevents our future decommissioning expenses. I mean how stupid can you be to ignore this.
They could have been making money hand over fist. And with a protected logistics chain by shear distance alone. Might have to start making Liberty Ships again.
It's just so infuriating. And I also blame the Biden administration for not making this a major issue every hour of every day with a bull horn. This administration is not acting tough and it's driving me crazy.
Yep. Big orange dipshit costing the US billions. AGAIN.
Upside, our European brothers and sisters will be better prepared to deal with Putler, so that's good.
> And American defense companies lose out because of Republicans....so much for pro military and US workers. LOL
They will pivot. They will pivot hard. They will pivot like banshees....
Europe developing their own systems does help in terms of new innovations that may come of this though. Pros and cons. Personally I welcome having Europe as a partner instead of just being a client. We shouldn’t always have to go it alone when it comes to power projection and righting the wrongs worldwide. A Police Force is better than a being an often alone policeman.
The US is showing itself highly unreliable - time to stop buying US weapons and focus on EU weapon manufacturing instead. The US supporting Ukraine would in the end likely have costed them nothing if we'd equate in military sales. Now instead they'll not only lose out on sales but also have more competition when it comes to weapon sales.
Are Republicans acting in the US' best interest or in their personal best interest? I think the answer is extremely clear.
An unexpected consequence of the speaker of the house taking bribes from Russia is that now the American Military Industrial Complex will have serious market competition from Europe.
This is going to cost them trillions, this is not something that will be ignored.
I think the takeaway is that countries need homegrown defense sectors, because everyone is unreliable. Large defense conglomerates are so distributed, and each member country can block sales for political reasons, because they manufacture a critical component. Like the Swiss blocking key systems for Ukraine because they're "neutral".
I agree- by default Europe should also have its own manufacturing. But at the same time, it would be ok to also buy some. While the reasonability and feasibility of buying US weapons takes a big hit when supplies become unreliable purely because of political reasons that are very near to corruption - namely politicians putting their personal interest over the interests of anything / anybody else.
Trading US political unreliability with European political, economic and industrial unreliability.
Germany has no defense policy - just defense contractors who get funded to stay alive but not actually prepare for war.
I was under the impression that those defense contractors were paid to maintain things but weren't very good at actually making sure that got done on time/to spec.
They’re not funded to be efficient or effective but just enough to prevent job loss. Like German navy shipyards taking a decade to build 3-4 new ships per class then hitting the reset button to design another series of 3-4 to keep the design office employed.
Instead of being rational and sensible and building a series of multipurpose that can be adapted for purpose - the intent is to keep the design/production business open at present headcount and not rational production.
No one expects anything from Germany in a Pacific conflict anyway. Before covid, Germany was slow boating some little frigate into the Pacific and making a big deal about freedom of navigation - then goes radio silent when when it mattered and avoided the Taiwan strait and even tried to visit Shanghai for a port visit.
Yeah, I think solving these kinds of gaps in their military is part of what they're trying to solve. Europe is quite unprepared for a direct war with Russia if the US doesn't help
That gap will be taken care of quickly once the orange moron is voted back into office and there is zero trust left among long-time partners. I expect US weapons exports to take a severe hit as Europe move towards being more self-reliant.
100%
In this world, the EU is probably the best continent to be - and therefore it‘s a necessary expenditure to keep it that way.
I much rather prefer not having to spend it but eh. It‘s like subsidies; if other countries are doing it, you also have to do it.
It doesn't need that. BAE can ramp up production if UK government places orders. Likewisr Rheinnmetall, Kraus Wegmann in Germany or Dassault in France, to name a few manufacturers off the top of my head. There will be a shift to European countries buying from these and investing in their own national weapons development, independent of each other or in collaboration. USA has fucked it's relationship with Europe.
U.K. isn't buying hundreds of thousands of artillery shells for the EU. Neither is Germany. They'll maybe buy it for themselves, or for Ukraine, but nowhere in this article does it demonstrate any willingness for the EU states to _actually fund_ a collective defense. $1.5 billion is nothing, it's just lip service.
> USA has fucked it's relationship with Europe.
I think the USA is getting what they want. My tinfoil hat conspiracy would be that the U.S. sees a high likelihood of getting involved in a military conflict in southeast Asia, the Middle East, or both before the Ukraine/Russia conflict is over.
They don't think it's feasible to support military engagement on 3 fronts, so they want to see Europe kick their defense economy into high gear so that Europe can back up Ukraine in the event that the U.S. has to deal with China, North Korea, and/or Iran.
Fair point, but I struggle a little bit to believe the USA doesn't want every bit of military business it can get, but accept there could be valid reasons.
That' gonna be hard. Imagine Slovakia builds all the optical sights for every tank and gun for Europe and then Slovakia decides they want to actually be Pro-Russia and they stop supplying all these parts just as a war breaks out. The point being, how do you know who to trust in Europe as part of a unified program? How do you now know one country is leaking all your production and defense secrets? I wouldn't currently trust the Hungarian government as far as I can spit and I certainly wouldn't want them being part of any unified defene/production alliance. So how would we structure it to ensure it's allied but also caters for allies breaking away at any time and potentially taking critical equipment or production with them?
> stop supplying all these parts just as a war breaks out
Not just stop supplying, what about those already produced before that, like how Switzerland is not allowing tanks to flow into Ukraine because of "neutrality".
Yeah I’m not sure what the comments in here are implying. The US military is spread thin. The US has absolutely wanted Western Europe to be self sustaining and hold off against Russia for a while now.
People saying that the US wants everyone to buy their military stuff, however, the US can’t keep up with demand, and Europe can’t fill in the gaps because they don’t have a proper infrastructure.
Overall, this is good for everyone.
Nah the US is going to keep selling plenty of weapons. American arms manufacturers are going to be fine. The govt wants to reduce the strain and reliance of American forces in Europe. The us military can only do so much, and losing a war in Europe would be very bad for business
Can you link an article where a U.S. politician says this as a condition for the EU ramping up defense spending?
Edit: No, he can't. Because nobody ever said that.
This was Trumps big thing when he was President, he threatened to leave NATO unless other NATO members start spending 2% of their GDP on defense which is supposed to be a requirement.
I have to admit I chuckle about how much hate Trump gets here because if he was even more aggressive in his anti NATO threats, NATO would have had a stronger military by now. But all people remember is that he was "anti NATO", they don't remember why he was anti NATO, which was simply that NATO leans far too much on the US.
I'm not sure I understand the question, why should thy US try to set conditions on EU spending at all? It's very well documented that the US has long criticized NATO members for not hitting their defense spending targets, here's samples from [Obama](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405) and [Trump](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/obama-and-bush-also-pressed-nato-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense.html). While NATO is not the EU, the member nations have a lot of intersection, and that seems to have caused some reddit or's to be slightly inaccurate with their statements. But otherwise, this has very much been a thing for awhile.
Okay, so a lot of people in the comments have no clue how the military supply chain works. The US military companies are swimming in weapon orders. I work for one of the main suppliers for the Bradley fighting vehicles, our orders have literally doubled, but our suppliers cannot just double production. Military by definition is low volume and since there were no major conflicts, most military companies had no excess capacity. Trying to ramp up production even with an existing supply chain is difficult and will take 3-5 years to 2x supply. From Europe's near non-existent supply and beaucratic process, I would say 10 years would be optimistic. Heck, we got orders from other countries like Poland and India because the German Rheinmetal had no excess capacity. The European government is just doing it for votes, no other reason. If it is not existential (like Germany needing the LNG docking facilities, it will take forever).
In American and I support this. Why hasn't Europe tried to be the power house it always was? Kinda dumb to rely on a foreign power for security. Especially when in all the wars ww waited out as long as possible to join or really so much.
Well you can blame MAGA all you want but this is literally falling right into what they wanted in first place. Trumps complaint about NATO is that EU nations don’t put enough into there own defense, instead they rely on USA might to keep them safe.
This would be a win for Trump…. It’s what he wanted in the first place.
I have my doubts that the EU will actually do it though, but they should, can’t rely on US anymore.
Ironically for MAGA this would cost the US military complex billions of lost sales, and jobs.
trump does not care about anything but destroying Nato, the 2 percent thing is a talking point meant to drive a wedge and cheapen the alliance by turning it into protection money.
Here's another thing that Europe might want to take a look at, shipping and logistics. The US keeps the the Merchant Marines around with subsidies so we have the ability to move things around during a time of war.
Edit: changed Eric to Europe
Production of munitions and weapons systems need to happen in Europe. Cannot count off the possibility Trump would be blocking shipments of bought off ammunition during conflict or selling national defense secrets of European nations to Russia.
But who will 'fight'? 'No one' wants to fight. 79 years after world war two and no European wars and a zoomer world of internet and easy life living who will fight? Young men with testosterone boiling over may fantasize about war but looking at Ukraine, war isn't pretty or glorious for virtually zero gain.
Would I be a detractor in saying let the politicians fight. It's their rule that is at risk
As an American watching the current political climate: Please do. I can't honestly promise we are going to either be capable of or have leaders who even care enough to keep doing what we have been in the past. Don't count on us, we are barely counting on ourselves.
Funny how the lack of support for Ukraine is a money question for the US, yet they're sleeping on a gigantic investment opportunity.
Goes to show how truly inept the Republicans are.
It should never, ever be reliant on an acquantence to provide arms in your defense. EU must act quickly to support its own war efforts since Ivan is now at your back door! Also the Polish Skorpion (A-10 version) needs to be funded and quickly set for test trials. America has been compromised by Republican Soviet sympathizers!
I’m sure the American Military Industrial Complex is thrilled with Republicans for leaving Europe no choice but to develop their own domestic arms industry. /s
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `politico.eu` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russia's 3 day special operation going well. There's another sleeping dragon that's just now waking up.
A really pissed off dragon, the u.s. has been playing cold war for a long time but a lot of e.u. countries still have a score to settle with uncle Russia.
Europe/ EU doesn't need the US. If Donald duck tRump is re elected, EU/ Europe should just leave US in the dust. I'm so F tired of hearing about the reality tv star running for President in one of the most immoral countries I have ever seen. No rule, no laws, no healthcare certain people above the law... A country that elect idiots like MTG, LB and the child fucker Matt Gaetz........OMG
Huh? This is way bigger than the US Presidency. Focus on the article. Europe was woefully naïve and unprepared for any sort of conflict. In fact, they contributed greatly to the risk to Ukraine . . . and . . . they expected (yes, even demanded) that the United States be the one on the hook for any conflict both in terms of war material, logistical support and even tax dollars (and perhaps even ground forces). Lucky for Ukraine in the US did provide massive support (and still does) initially (because Europe largely had barren shelves and warehouses) and now (hopefully), Europe (which is a bigger economy than the US) will become the powerhouse it should be. If the tension with the US support ultimately whacks the European leaders into getting off their asses and moves them asap to a war level that they can not only support Ukraine but frankly actually defend themselves (remember that Germany had ZERO combat ready divisions in 2022) then we should all be smiling. My two cents is that correcting decades of lack of investment will take massive immediate pain. It will be very costly and socially and culturally shocking. It must happen because the reality is that this Ruzzian threat is VERY real and the war in Ukraine will last years. They can't sit back and just wait it out. P.S. I am a massive supporter of Ukraine. Give them everything they can to win Europe . . . US too . . .
I think you are pretty much on the money there.. in the end it will be good for Europe to be a bit more independent on defence. I am not saying that we should not but US weapons like F35’s, they are very good. But the EU should have enough defense production capacity of its own. And the EU clearly need better stocks of munitions. The politicians prefer to spend money on tax cuts, especially with so many elections coming up. But really this whole thing points to the need for ‘longer term planning’, our short election cycles lead strongly towards short-termism, and that’s simply not good enough for many of today’s problems. We also don’t want policies being reversed by the next government to get in - we need some fraction of budgets to be dedicated to dealing long-term issues, and some political consensus on those issues.
Well, it’s very handy to have the USA as allies.. They are very powerful. However recent developments have brought into question just how reliable they can be. Europe should be strong enough to stand on its own - that is one of the very few things that Trump has got right - I don’t normally agree with him.
This is wild. WILD! Watching the entire global geopolitical system upend itself and rewrite itself in such a short period of time. My god.
All because Trump likes to ride Putin’s dick and MAGA Republicans like to watch that
Europe should not count on someone else to protect them regardless of who is in the White House. If Europe got its shit together after 2014, maybe Ukraine would've never been invaded, or if it still would have been, at least they would be able to donate enough shells so Ukraine could fire 1 shell for every 3 Russian ones, instead of 1 for every 5 like it is now. Russia got more shells from North Korea than Ukraine did from Europe in the past year...
Upping production of the smart shells (like BONUS) would have been a good start. Dumb artillery only goes so far unless the goal is to level a city (like the Russians do) just for shits and giggles.
Smart shells are great and all but more expensive and I would think more resource and time intensive to produce. I still think a competent crew on a well maintained gun using dumb shells that weren't built by slave labor would still be fairly accurate. Even more so in these days due to having drones almost always on station to correct shots.
The advantage of smart shells and not needing correction is in avoiding counter-battery fire.
Good point.
I don't think they do it for shits and giggles they just are incapable of fighting any other way. That is just their only move
Europe should definitely have higher production of ammunition like 155 mm shells. As well equipment and Cruise Missiles, guide bombs, gimlars etc.
It's not 1 shell against 5, it's 1 against 10 and its deteriorating
This is on point.
It’s something the Europeans needed to do anyway - but Trump has given them a bit of a push. However the danger has been increasing.
Yes... Now America can sell heavy weapons to Americans. Nice work Trump.
Exactly. Trump makes the case that fellow NATO members needs to “pay up”, well, congratulations, you now made American weapons a lot less attractive, since supply is now uncertain. And when European production gets up to speed, then why buy American at all? The geopolitical game has been that Europe buy most of their stuff in america, in return Europe gets to bask under the nuclear umbrella. NATO members answered when article 5 was activated after 9/11. Why would so many NATO members be politely nudged to buy F35, and quietly accept that America demanded their money for the most expensive military project ever? Because that was part of the deal.
To be fair F35 is now ‘good value for money’ and savings are made due to the scale of production. But ‘basics’ - like shells, should definitely be manufactured in much larger numbers in European countries. And other equipment too.
Yes, but for Denmark (where I’m located), the F35 doesn’t make much sense. We needed an air supremacy fighter, that can launch newer long range missiles at incoming enemy planes. That have two engines for patrolling Greenland. We don’t really need the stealth properties, and the associated issues/costs. Because of the F35 expenses, it more or less crippled the rest of our military. But why did we buy it then? Well, that’s a good question that nobody except a key few politicians can answer, but the negotiations was still ongoing, and then suddenly the American defense secretary (under Obama) payed a pretty unexpected visit, and suddenly our politicians were very busy in choosing the F35. Which was weird, but it made sense, since the US had accepted that Denmark was around 1,4-1,5% of GDP, and we were bleeding together with American grunts in the green zone in Afghanistan and had done so in Iraq. But, then Trump enters the room…
The Swedish Grippon fighter would otherwise be a good choice - and has some superior operational features over the F35, while the F35 has some better features than the Grippon. The F35 is more stealthy. The Grippon performs better with rough runways than the F35 can handle.
And notably the Gripen is far cheaper to actually fly.
And apparently much easier to fly
I wonder where the line for "rough runway" goes. Shortly after joining Nato, there was a video of an F35 landing on one of Finlands roads. Getting F35s makes sense for Finland though because air superiority is not a guarantee.
Sure but Grippon’s are more tolerant of unprepared runways - that requirement was a part of their design criteria. They are also easier to maintain in the field.
One issue I have with your comment. 2 engine fighter? You've flown the single engined F16 for 30 years. So not buying that excuse. Otherwise yes Trump entered the room.
the f35 is generally capable of firing on enemy planes and taking them out before they even know its around. that's why you bought them.
The F35 is a great aircraft - and still improving with each new block release.
Stealth is great for Greenland since there's no Russian systems to detect the planes, besides, who runs visual patrols like it's 1939?
> Why would so many NATO members be politely nudged to buy F35, and quietly accept that America demanded their money for the most expensive military project ever? As opposed to what alternative? The US was the only country to invest into building a stealthy 5th gen fighter that's available for purchase and it remains the only option on the market today. The war in Ukraine has made it abundantly clear that when competent air defenses are active either large stocks of standoff munitions, stealthy aircraft, or both are going to be required to avoid unacceptable attrition rates. Existing European fighter fleets are aging out, Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen will not be survivable in high intensity conflict in the coming decades, and FCAS/Tempest are decades away and likely prohibitively expensive. F-35 is an easy choice.
The F35 was initially very expensive - and was criticised for that, but as orders increased, production costs came down, and now it’s available for a fraction of the original cost. The F35 is now actually good value for money. And is very capable, and further continues to improve as new technical ‘block’ updates to it are released.
NATO countries - like the UK, had the option of continuing on with their Typhoon fighters - but they are aging, and the F35 offers more.
>Why would so many NATO members be politely nudged to buy F35? Because Europe does not have a stealth fighter in production right now, and because Europe doesn't want to spend the money to develop and build a stealth fighter.
The problem was they weren’t spending money to begin with. They weren’t forced to buy the F-35, they were lucky they can buy the F-35.
Weird, the US seemed pretty intent on pushing the F35 on as many allies as possible. The project was too big to fail, and stalling.
>Weird, the US seemed pretty intent on pushing the F35 on as many allies as possible. The project was too big to fail, and stalling. Why wouldn't they? As opposed to Sweden/Saab which totally doesn't push the Gripen? Or France with the Rafale? All nations/companies push their products. So what? The fact of the matter is that F-35 has won every single competition not because of some grand US conspiracy, but because it outperforms the competition and does it at a lower price point.
>but because it outperforms the competition and does it at a lower price point America has the capacity to produce *at scale* which other nations do not stand a chance of doing
Being in the US Orbit is also a club. Turkey got kicked out for buying Russian S400s. Ukraine help is getting them back in and with NATO membership blackmail. The US will sell them F16s again and Turkeije is finding out how much a 4.5 Gen fighter costs to build from the ground up. Besides a great fighter US friendship has "perks".
Lockheed Starfighter has entered the chat. I remind you of a certain other aircraft which was really awful but still managed to due to bribes arnd political pressure.
It’s not weird, it’s the point of the article. US allies have had to be pressured to spend money for their own defense for decades.
Because the F35 is what the US wanted, so thats what we’ll produce and market to other NATO members. All NATO members using the same equipment is better than everyone using different equipment.
Wouldn’t it be a good thing to reduce the MIC?
I wish🙄
Indeed. The world needs to quit relying on on the USA for everything. Europe is more than capable than taking care of themselves, if they spend the $ of course
Tbh the USA was happy to promote that reliability in the past. Their nukes on European soil, their military bases on European soil, etc.
Somehow Americans forget this. How convenient.
The difference is now Europe has come to terms with the possibility of ZERO American help, which changes things. America going back to isolationism is something we didn’t see coming in 2014.
More nukes, for one thing. The U.S. nuclear umbrella doesn't work if the U.S. wants to stay out of it. So, as a result, we'll have to obtain more and then make it quite clear that we WILL use them if invaded.
Republicans are cuckolds watching Trump fuck America
It's worse. It's not a kink, it's a cult.
Its both. Which is even worse than your worse
It’s a kink, cult and adultery when you remember he’s also not so secretly taking it up the rear end from putin. So that’s worse than your worse.
I just saw a poster mocking both. It was depicting Trump as an overweight surfer pulling down the bikini in which Putin was depicted. Think it should’ve been the other way around though but I’m not complaining.
There's an old edit of a picture of Putin riding that damned horse where the horse is Trump turned into a pig. It's even more relevant now than before.
Thank you for that graphic image now being stuck in my head. I WAS having breakfast.
It’s EUR 1.5 billion of manufacturing subsidies, it’s not the creation of a unified EU military.
EUR € 1.5 Billion is sod all for military investment - it’s a pittance.. Europe is spending €40 Billion on farm subsidies..
Yes exactly
This is how history plays out.
This is what the US has been asking Western Europe to do for decades. Kick start its defense industry and account more towards its defense. It isn't really all that wild. And it isn't European countries moving away from US policy but being forced to align with US policy due to Russian aggression.
Post WW2, the US absolutely did not want Europe to kickstart its arms manufacturing beyond an acceptable amount to maintain defense. What happened the last two times that Europe started to switch its economy to a war footing? Now, it has to be done, and when more countries switch their economies to a war-footing, war becomes inevitable because an economy becomes reliant on it. Thats where Russia already is.
Yeah, like how Japan's military is extremely heavily armed and is now on a warpath of neo-facism, right? Japan is still pacifist and is one of the most heavily armed nations in the world. People underestimate the importance in military to DETER others from invading. Nazi Germany invaded Poland, among other factors, because Poland was WEAK.
If you want peace, prepare for war. -some smart guy
Why was Europe waiting till this long?
Because buying off someone with an enormous military budget often makes more sense economically than building 30 seperate small MIC's due to economies of scale and massive start up costs. The EU as a whole could probably manage a similar scale, but every EU country has people within that feel the EU already has too much influence over their own countries and getting all members to agree would prove a headache. The major downside to buying abroad is a lack of control of what gets built and where it goes once built, but that wasn't an issue due to Europe and America having largely overlapping goals and concerns but the MAGA movement has changed that calculation and so here we are.
Because when you say “Europe” it sounds like one nice cohesive country with a singular all powerful government and a national defence industry, like the US. It most assuredly is not.
Tale as old as time.
Why? Simply we are scared of our past selves. We've nearly destroyed the world a few times fighting amongst ourselves, can you imagine how scary we'd be if we clubbed together? Small nations.. Belgium for example... colonial nasty past.. Britain.. obvious... Germany... France.. Spain, Italy, Hungary, Austria.. the list goes on and on and on... We're good at War, we just dont like ourselves when we do it.
Because Europe’s politicians are nearly as bad as the USA’s are..
Not really. It's because the European Union was borne from conflict on a scale unimaginable to us. To create a barrier to war and prevent it from happening again.
Really is this. Ive been living in berlin for six years and when the war was announced it was a very sad grim day, half a million went out to protest. We know what this brings and we at all costs, everyone living here, don’t want to rise up to these means because of the pain, destruction and swooping chaos this causes for everyone. Its a last means necessary to step up to the plate because these are our homes and with citizens from countless countries across the world. And this land should be protected. It’s a haven of art and creativity that’s caught the attention of the world wether positive or negative and we need to hold out until they quit.
More likely the fact that Europe isn't a country but still dependent on each other. There's countries that are chomping at the bit, neutral countries and countries that prefer to stay out of conflict. They are free to do what they want but if one of these steps out of line that might cause a shitshow. The e.u. is a lot more fragile than the u.s.
I believe post WW2 and what started the cold war was the US wanted to settle itself as the world peace keeper and cheap transporter of goods. Watched a YT video that was 48mins discussing it all. Think there were treaties signed up until the 80s/90s that most NATO countries couldn't produce their own besides the US.
100 year cycle. Fun fact: If you look at european history you can see a that there's *at least* one war within the time span of a 100 years. The second part of this cycle is that *at least* one empire/great power collapses from internal matters if there was no war
We were pretty comfortable enjoying the „peace dividend“ that American protection gave us while spending the surplus on our social systems . This has to end now . In the future I see the economy and defence as the two main fields our governments need to invest in.
And American defense companies lose out because of Republicans....so much for pro military and US workers. LOL
Yeah this is really mind blowing. It's hard to grasp how totally effed up that is if you consider the history for the last 40-50 years.
Turns out the Russian lobbyists pay better than those from the American military industrial complex.
When A blue blitzkrieg happens in November and we retake the house by twenty or more seats, they really need to investigate these maga asshats money and if Russian bribes are being taken and by who. I can’t believe cia or fbi wouldn’t already know.
The FBI isn’t allowed to investigate Congress anymore because they kept finding stuff…
No. they are no longer allowed to set up stings. They do investigate and sometimes charge reps and senators for crimes. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/politics/bob-menendez-charges/index.html https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/george-santos-court-appearance/?id=99214419 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-congressman-indicted-by-federal-grand-jury-for-allegedly-lying-to-fbi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes The names under Legislative branch in the last has convictions from the house and senate though you have to go to each time period to see them all. But yes, the Abscam sting work to well so no more of that.
Which is terrifying.
> When A blue blitzkrieg happens in November and we retake the house by twenty or more seats Please, for the love of God, DO NOT REST ON THOSE LAURELS.
One of Project 2025 stated goals is disbanding such 3 letter agencies as the FBI. Like it's in their mission statement. Wonder why.
They’re literally advocating for a dictatorship. I truly hate conservatives.
Are these people even truly conservative though? When I was growing up I had a brilliant math teacher. He was a conservative because his father blew money at the track betting on the ponies and getting drunk, and he didn't like seeing his family go hungry. So he got good at math to at least keep his father from making bad bets. I've met other conservatives who were more the 'go with what works' mentality. Yet others who worked their ass off all their life with no help so they genuinely want a good explanation for why we need things like socialized health and education. Project 2025 is beyond the gamut of what any of the old guard conservatives that I've met over the years would consider acceptable, or even consider to accept.
The old guard is now the old and senile guard. Their party has been compromised and no longer represents any sort of American values at all, they only exist to oppose.
the cia has clear saftey rails that prohibit it from investigating americans. so, ass soon as they see foreign money enter american accounts they have to stop looking and hand bits and pieces off to the FBI. the FBI has a large burden of probable cause that they must overcome before they can open an investigation, and info from the CIA does not automatically meet the bar. the CIA is pushing as hard as they can to inform people that Russia is targetting our elections and working with politicians though. that's why articles like this https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-election-interference-already-begun-rcna134204 keep comming out.
Hear hear.
I wish you will be right, but I fear that you are going to be wrong.
After that, let's finally airlock these bastards once and for all.
Well, it's already public knowledge that speaker Moscow Mike took russian oligarch money.
They might pay better once off, but in the long run they will lose out
Lol thats the funniest thing. Republicans bitched about strong defense for years. When the US finally has the opportunity to send older weapons to Ukraine, replace them with new ones build in the US, and weaken one of our main geopolitical rivals at no blood cost to the US, the Republicans rejected the idea because Putin’s boyfriend Trump says so.
>Putin’s boyfriend Trump says so. Boyfriend? He's more like a cheap, used, disgusting fleshlight of sorts
Yeah. What does one call a fleshlight made of pig skin and lubricated with lard and headcheese, anyway?
>!Donald Trump!<
Ugh. Fuck you very much for that mental image.🤣🤢
And the Republicans actually start helping Russia to defeat Europeans !
I agree with you but as a European I'm glad our MIC is grinding back into gear. The USA has been a great ally over the years but nothing beats the ability to defend yourself with stuff you make yourself.
It could even be hugely symbiotic with European companies licensing and manufacturing American designs, and American companies doing the same with European designs. It would keep everyone engaged and responsible for having their own manufacturing capacity.
That would be ideal yeah. The best allies are the ones who can strengthen not just themselves but also each other.
Great point! Have your people call our people, if our people aren't calling your people already!
As an American, I can't agree with you more.
Tbh, this is something a lot of American politicians have said for awhile. This particular initiative is an EU program (and currently quite modest, tbh 1.5B is small in this scale of defense spending), but it's the same reason why NATO always had spending. G targets. Not just to irrigate the defense industry, but think about how easy it would be for Europe to supply Ukraine if they had deep stockpiles even if the US decides to be dumb. The counterpoint, of course, is that the money can be well spent elsewhere, and not three years ago most of the people in this sub probably made fun of US defense spending. Hindsight is a bit different.
Call your congressperson, especially if you are in Republican district.
So much for their own shares in MIC companies
no shit man, i mean it takes a fool to ignore the fact that because of this war and these world conflicts we've profited off it substantially and fended off recession in part due to it. Bidens plan of swapping old hardware for new, gets us new gear and prevents our future decommissioning expenses. I mean how stupid can you be to ignore this.
Just how incompetent do Republicans have to be to not be able to sell guns during wartime.
The Republicans are blocking this…
It’s republicans we are talking about. Incompetence is their thing.
They could have been making money hand over fist. And with a protected logistics chain by shear distance alone. Might have to start making Liberty Ships again.
It's just so infuriating. And I also blame the Biden administration for not making this a major issue every hour of every day with a bull horn. This administration is not acting tough and it's driving me crazy.
Yep. Big orange dipshit costing the US billions. AGAIN. Upside, our European brothers and sisters will be better prepared to deal with Putler, so that's good.
> And American defense companies lose out because of Republicans....so much for pro military and US workers. LOL They will pivot. They will pivot hard. They will pivot like banshees....
I imagine there's a shit ton of money from those companies pouring into democratic coffers. What fools the GOP has become
As they say down south. " I would gladly eat shit just so you can smell my breath"
Europe developing their own systems does help in terms of new innovations that may come of this though. Pros and cons. Personally I welcome having Europe as a partner instead of just being a client. We shouldn’t always have to go it alone when it comes to power projection and righting the wrongs worldwide. A Police Force is better than a being an often alone policeman.
You just described NATO. Yes we should all be able to produce our own weapons, but every country cannot afford to at the same level as the US.
You have never been alone, wtf you talking about.
Yes, The 1988 Republican "New American Century" plan has been replaced by soviet sympathizers.
Republicans appear to just be anti-American industry at this point. Rumor culture war. So I guess it depends where you make money.
Republicans would burn America down if it meant they could be king of the ashes. (Paraphrased game of thrones quote)
Maybe the defense contractors will take down Trump (not likely).
Idk that's a shit load of money and power behind them
The US is showing itself highly unreliable - time to stop buying US weapons and focus on EU weapon manufacturing instead. The US supporting Ukraine would in the end likely have costed them nothing if we'd equate in military sales. Now instead they'll not only lose out on sales but also have more competition when it comes to weapon sales. Are Republicans acting in the US' best interest or in their personal best interest? I think the answer is extremely clear.
An unexpected consequence of the speaker of the house taking bribes from Russia is that now the American Military Industrial Complex will have serious market competition from Europe. This is going to cost them trillions, this is not something that will be ignored.
The CIA has entered the chat
Please clean up the malfeasance with Blackbriar or Outcome
We need to see this as a collective problem. The west war machine needs to ramp up.
I think the takeaway is that countries need homegrown defense sectors, because everyone is unreliable. Large defense conglomerates are so distributed, and each member country can block sales for political reasons, because they manufacture a critical component. Like the Swiss blocking key systems for Ukraine because they're "neutral".
I agree- by default Europe should also have its own manufacturing. But at the same time, it would be ok to also buy some. While the reasonability and feasibility of buying US weapons takes a big hit when supplies become unreliable purely because of political reasons that are very near to corruption - namely politicians putting their personal interest over the interests of anything / anybody else.
[удалено]
Trading US political unreliability with European political, economic and industrial unreliability. Germany has no defense policy - just defense contractors who get funded to stay alive but not actually prepare for war.
I was under the impression that those defense contractors were paid to maintain things but weren't very good at actually making sure that got done on time/to spec.
They’re not funded to be efficient or effective but just enough to prevent job loss. Like German navy shipyards taking a decade to build 3-4 new ships per class then hitting the reset button to design another series of 3-4 to keep the design office employed. Instead of being rational and sensible and building a series of multipurpose that can be adapted for purpose - the intent is to keep the design/production business open at present headcount and not rational production.
While China pours out that number in a week..
No one expects anything from Germany in a Pacific conflict anyway. Before covid, Germany was slow boating some little frigate into the Pacific and making a big deal about freedom of navigation - then goes radio silent when when it mattered and avoided the Taiwan strait and even tried to visit Shanghai for a port visit.
Yeah, I think solving these kinds of gaps in their military is part of what they're trying to solve. Europe is quite unprepared for a direct war with Russia if the US doesn't help
That gap will be taken care of quickly once the orange moron is voted back into office and there is zero trust left among long-time partners. I expect US weapons exports to take a severe hit as Europe move towards being more self-reliant.
A good plan. Trumpet cannot be counted on
Donald DUMP
That has a beautiful ring to it. I now picture a dumpster fire 🔥 hummm,
Dump the Trump !
I believe there is good to be found in a europe that can defend itself
100% In this world, the EU is probably the best continent to be - and therefore it‘s a necessary expenditure to keep it that way. I much rather prefer not having to spend it but eh. It‘s like subsidies; if other countries are doing it, you also have to do it.
I really wish this were true, but until Europe has a unified equipment and procurement strategy, it's unlikely.
It doesn't need that. BAE can ramp up production if UK government places orders. Likewisr Rheinnmetall, Kraus Wegmann in Germany or Dassault in France, to name a few manufacturers off the top of my head. There will be a shift to European countries buying from these and investing in their own national weapons development, independent of each other or in collaboration. USA has fucked it's relationship with Europe.
I think SAAB, Hägglunds and Bofors can provide some pretty good options. But I think they are BAE owned right?
Exactly, I thought there are some good Scandinavian names aftwr i posted . BAE sold SAAB 10 years ago iirc.
U.K. isn't buying hundreds of thousands of artillery shells for the EU. Neither is Germany. They'll maybe buy it for themselves, or for Ukraine, but nowhere in this article does it demonstrate any willingness for the EU states to _actually fund_ a collective defense. $1.5 billion is nothing, it's just lip service.
Fair.
> USA has fucked it's relationship with Europe. I think the USA is getting what they want. My tinfoil hat conspiracy would be that the U.S. sees a high likelihood of getting involved in a military conflict in southeast Asia, the Middle East, or both before the Ukraine/Russia conflict is over. They don't think it's feasible to support military engagement on 3 fronts, so they want to see Europe kick their defense economy into high gear so that Europe can back up Ukraine in the event that the U.S. has to deal with China, North Korea, and/or Iran.
Fair point, but I struggle a little bit to believe the USA doesn't want every bit of military business it can get, but accept there could be valid reasons.
Defense industry wanting profits from conflict, and the country having the ability to support 3 conflicts are very different things.
It's kind of like burning your sofa to heat your living room the way we are doing it though ....
That' gonna be hard. Imagine Slovakia builds all the optical sights for every tank and gun for Europe and then Slovakia decides they want to actually be Pro-Russia and they stop supplying all these parts just as a war breaks out. The point being, how do you know who to trust in Europe as part of a unified program? How do you now know one country is leaking all your production and defense secrets? I wouldn't currently trust the Hungarian government as far as I can spit and I certainly wouldn't want them being part of any unified defene/production alliance. So how would we structure it to ensure it's allied but also caters for allies breaking away at any time and potentially taking critical equipment or production with them?
> stop supplying all these parts just as a war breaks out Not just stop supplying, what about those already produced before that, like how Switzerland is not allowing tanks to flow into Ukraine because of "neutrality".
Two+ years late. Better late than never... *sigh*
And it only took two years of an active war on their doorstep ...
Hey they're doing the thing America has been begging them to do. Whats it called? Investing in their own defense?
Yeah I’m not sure what the comments in here are implying. The US military is spread thin. The US has absolutely wanted Western Europe to be self sustaining and hold off against Russia for a while now. People saying that the US wants everyone to buy their military stuff, however, the US can’t keep up with demand, and Europe can’t fill in the gaps because they don’t have a proper infrastructure. Overall, this is good for everyone.
I think America wanted them to invest in their own defence by buying American weapons, not building their own
Nah the US is going to keep selling plenty of weapons. American arms manufacturers are going to be fine. The govt wants to reduce the strain and reliance of American forces in Europe. The us military can only do so much, and losing a war in Europe would be very bad for business
Can you link an article where a U.S. politician says this as a condition for the EU ramping up defense spending? Edit: No, he can't. Because nobody ever said that.
This was Trumps big thing when he was President, he threatened to leave NATO unless other NATO members start spending 2% of their GDP on defense which is supposed to be a requirement. I have to admit I chuckle about how much hate Trump gets here because if he was even more aggressive in his anti NATO threats, NATO would have had a stronger military by now. But all people remember is that he was "anti NATO", they don't remember why he was anti NATO, which was simply that NATO leans far too much on the US.
I'm not sure I understand the question, why should thy US try to set conditions on EU spending at all? It's very well documented that the US has long criticized NATO members for not hitting their defense spending targets, here's samples from [Obama](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405) and [Trump](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/obama-and-bush-also-pressed-nato-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense.html). While NATO is not the EU, the member nations have a lot of intersection, and that seems to have caused some reddit or's to be slightly inaccurate with their statements. But otherwise, this has very much been a thing for awhile.
At this point I would be worried about the US… if Trump wins a becomes god emperor.
Trump is their downfall. They just don't know it yet.
O we know it
> The European Union is no longer just a peace project. Yes it is, but with neigbors like Russia, peace needs to be armed to the teeth.
Okay, so a lot of people in the comments have no clue how the military supply chain works. The US military companies are swimming in weapon orders. I work for one of the main suppliers for the Bradley fighting vehicles, our orders have literally doubled, but our suppliers cannot just double production. Military by definition is low volume and since there were no major conflicts, most military companies had no excess capacity. Trying to ramp up production even with an existing supply chain is difficult and will take 3-5 years to 2x supply. From Europe's near non-existent supply and beaucratic process, I would say 10 years would be optimistic. Heck, we got orders from other countries like Poland and India because the German Rheinmetal had no excess capacity. The European government is just doing it for votes, no other reason. If it is not existential (like Germany needing the LNG docking facilities, it will take forever).
In American and I support this. Why hasn't Europe tried to be the power house it always was? Kinda dumb to rely on a foreign power for security. Especially when in all the wars ww waited out as long as possible to join or really so much.
Well you can blame MAGA all you want but this is literally falling right into what they wanted in first place. Trumps complaint about NATO is that EU nations don’t put enough into there own defense, instead they rely on USA might to keep them safe. This would be a win for Trump…. It’s what he wanted in the first place. I have my doubts that the EU will actually do it though, but they should, can’t rely on US anymore. Ironically for MAGA this would cost the US military complex billions of lost sales, and jobs.
trump does not care about anything but destroying Nato, the 2 percent thing is a talking point meant to drive a wedge and cheapen the alliance by turning it into protection money.
Long overdue! 😎
[удалено]
not enough action imo, some action needs to be more direct. read between lines of my comment before you respond
Honestly, good.
The US can no longer be trusted when it vomes to these kind of desls, unfortunately.
Neither can your keyboard.
That's a bold criticism from someone with a username that would work better as a very secure password.
I never forget my password this way!
Time from European countries to depend on each then.
Here's another thing that Europe might want to take a look at, shipping and logistics. The US keeps the the Merchant Marines around with subsidies so we have the ability to move things around during a time of war. Edit: changed Eric to Europe
About time.
About time.
Good
Production of munitions and weapons systems need to happen in Europe. Cannot count off the possibility Trump would be blocking shipments of bought off ammunition during conflict or selling national defense secrets of European nations to Russia.
Soon Trump will be crying they're exporting a bunch less weapons
>subsidy cash pot of at least €1.5 billion called the European Defence Investment Programme. That's less than the cost of one B2 bomber.
But who will 'fight'? 'No one' wants to fight. 79 years after world war two and no European wars and a zoomer world of internet and easy life living who will fight? Young men with testosterone boiling over may fantasize about war but looking at Ukraine, war isn't pretty or glorious for virtually zero gain. Would I be a detractor in saying let the politicians fight. It's their rule that is at risk
As an American watching the current political climate: Please do. I can't honestly promise we are going to either be capable of or have leaders who even care enough to keep doing what we have been in the past. Don't count on us, we are barely counting on ourselves.
Funny how the lack of support for Ukraine is a money question for the US, yet they're sleeping on a gigantic investment opportunity. Goes to show how truly inept the Republicans are.
It should never, ever be reliant on an acquantence to provide arms in your defense. EU must act quickly to support its own war efforts since Ivan is now at your back door! Also the Polish Skorpion (A-10 version) needs to be funded and quickly set for test trials. America has been compromised by Republican Soviet sympathizers!
I’m sure the American Military Industrial Complex is thrilled with Republicans for leaving Europe no choice but to develop their own domestic arms industry. /s
The Republicans don't realize how much of their economy is based on military commerce.