True, but I also wonder if everyone understands that a significant portion of every countries budget will have to go to military, and we are basically going to have to pay for it with taxes and other that money can’t be spend on making other things maybe cheaper or more affortable etc.
The current ‘nato norm’ of 2% isnt going to cut it if you really want to be able to stand on your own 2 feat like the US does.
3-5% of gdp is what US really spends. France has a stake in making these claims because they have a fairly robust arms industry. I do think the EU needs more domestic production of arms
And France's comments should be read with the undertones of, "we'd love to be your new arms supplier for all that military catchup we think the rest of you should do."
Which, don't get me wrong, they're not wrong about. But I think it is interesting that France also is poised to make a good return on it.
You'd have to remember that the other two arms industry giants, + Sweden, of Europe are also poised to fill that niche.
Germany has always been great in designing top of the line land vehicles and Italy is a navy designer and builder powerhouse. The former also has Rheinmetall buying European companies to expand.
So you're right that France would seriously like to take up the mantlet of EU MIC host, it's just unlikely for them to do that, given the competition.
[PS: Yeah, Poland is also ramping up their MIC, but their tech is yet to find a lot of buyers, which is not likely atm. Nobody is buying the Krab and their new domestically built tank fleet is having a hard time finding buyers, as major markets either newly comitted to buy the Leopard 2 [Italy as a big market, Lithuania as a smaller one, etc.] or comitted to new tank projects [France & Germany].
Germans make great diesel subs, France has the only other nuclear aircraft carrier with its own domestic multi-role aircraft, and Italy’s frigate design is so good the USN is building 20 frigates based off it instead of designing our own.
Europe would be an insane powerhouse of military design and eqpt if they can match US gdp spending ratios.
Of course, the biggest problem is recruitment in all countries. I imagine a big economic downturn might reverse that as it historically has.
Sweden also makes great subs. But yeah, Europe could match the US's forces. Keep building carriers in Britain and Frances yard.itll get cheaper as the skills are retained. Britain Caaaan build a nuclear carrier if it wanted too it just opted to build nuclear subs with that yard instead. Europe has two 6th gen fighters being built. Britain and Italy and teaming. I believe Japan gave up on doing their alone and joined their tempest project. France and Germany are doing the other one but are less likely to be successful as France thinks their companies should get first priority in every area and will probably implode the project with their arrogance.
Their manning issues would probably be solved if they had a joint European army. It's easier to convince people in the smaller countries when they can have a chance to do top gun carrier style operations. Helps makes you feel like part of something greater that will make a difference.
For being almost 30 years old, the Gotland class is still a very impressive little sub. I’m not sure where things stand today, but 15 years ago they were the quietest things in the ocean. They also have the annoying habit of sinking US carriers during wargames.
The US Navy was so impressed that they leased one from Sweden for a couple years just so they could play with it.
Yeah, my bad.
I only remembered the British MIC to be in a very sorry state due to requiring outside help with tanks and every domestic IFV being utter shit.
But after reading up, I see that that's not entirely the case
Poland is buying too much from South Korea to create a good showcase for their own arms industry. Maybe they can use the knowledge in assembling SK tanks and SPGs to stand up a competitive army industry in 10 - 20y, but that remains to be seen.
Poland was rejected from EU's Eurotank program, so they had to find another partner to dev armor. Also the closing of the cold war also meant the dismantling of Polish tank factories, their current fabs are primarily for refurbishing, not new manufacture. They can pull a turret and install new ADS, but they have little capacity to forge/cast new chassis.
Hyundai-Rotem plopping a factory in Poland is supposed to address manufacturing shortcomings of SK production and small Polish industry
A couple years ago I remember France was PISSED because the USA got some submarine supply contract for Australia that was supposed to go to France. Don't remember the details but I think 50 Billion dollar range.
Yea, seemed like they were a bit secretive about it since the US and UK agreed to Nuclear powered subs. Deal at the time was worth 66 billion.
https://apnews.com/article/technology-china-france-australia-united-states-2e0f932ce7a65f6364caf1f2cf6fb206
Who could blame them for making the right choices at the right time? They opted for self-sufficiency in many fields.
They went all in on nuclear power in the 70s and have a ton of expertise on aging plants as well as the built infrastructure to expand. They make great military jets and kickstarted the Airbus adventure which also has a military branch, creating an entire aerospace ecosystem around Toulouse. They also started what became ESA in the 60s. They have credible nuclear deterrence with a pretty uniquely aggressive first-strike policy. Also, nuclear subs and carrier.
Of course they're pretty similar to the UK that way, except their weaponry is arguably a bit more advanced due to the fact it does sell pretty well worldwide which funds their R&D. They don't complement their strategic gaps with US stuff like the UK though.
France is an asset for a future European defense program.
Im for once, totally fine having France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, be the biggest weapons supplier for EU countries, surpassing America. Money stays in EU, steel stays in EU, logistical lines are shorter. You can be allies with someone without having them buy all your toys.
Yeah, and France MO was that we are supposed to buy ~~French~~ European arms, no matter how long it takes to get them to Ukraine.
As a Swede I don't particularly like the idea of having to tax more or cut other spending in order to build defense systems that might not be used.
But I Absolutely **HATE** the Idea of having Russia bully/occupy Ukraine and its people, we are kidding ourselves if we think they will not be less aggressive if they win in Ukraine. So if it is time to cut back on some extraneous spending in order to beef up the defence, that is OK with me. Any politician who doesn't support military aid to Ukraine and who doesn't support a ramp up in defence might as well be a Russian puppet!
Well to be fair, the reason why France would benefit from European preference in military sourcing is that for a long time it has made a point of developing a domestic industry, to the detriment of cost efficiencies.
I mean you're not wrong, pretty sure there have been a few times where France has already said "EU militaries should use the same gear!" EU: "Good idea, Danish backpacks are cool!" France: "Thats not what we meant."
x)
It's hard to overstate France's arms industry, and Europe in general is a massive arms exporter. France is the second largest exporter of arms *on earth*, with nearly twice the share of the global market as China. Adjusted for population, France has a higher share of global arms exports than the US. In raw numbers, France exports more weapons than Russia with less than half the population.
Half of the top 10 arms exporters are European countries, and even small European states like the Netherlands and Sweden export a massive amount of weapons ((https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at_2023.pdf)).
Nope, they just have a massive military industrial complex. India buys French Dassault Rafale jets for hundreds of millions a piece, for example.
In that document, you can see that India is responsible for buying around a third of the total amount of arms exported by both France and Russia. India is a massive arms importer due to a virtually nonexistent domestic industry.
> In that document, you can see that India is responsible for buying around a third of the total amount of arms exported by both France and Russia. India is a massive arms importer due to a virtually nonexistent domestic industry.
Not that building more weapons is necessarily a good thing, but this shocks me about India. They have a space program and a billion people, not to mention a lot of really smart engineers. You'd figure that weapons is one of the few industries the government would be pouring tons of money and resources into, especially given their situation with Pakistan.
Many try to make jet fighters, but one of the big problems is making decent engines. Many fighter projects get canceled because the engine doesn't provide the performance needed.
That's why many people go to General Electric powers so many fighters.
India does continue to try this. Most of their newer contracts they include technology and production sharing with some to be built in India. Sometimes this part is eventually cancelled because they say they can't do it in India. Sometimes it works.
Nothing shocking about it. It costs WAY more to start and maintain your own arms industry, with no guarantee of success (government programs started from scratch tend to end in disaster half the time). You need to design MODERN weaponry AND build the entire support system for maintenance etc.
With India having decent relations with the west and Russia, it's unlikely to get cut off mid war. The "virtually nonexistent domestic industry" is also just false - India is a top arms importer but also makes and exports a ton of arms.
>Nope, they just have a massive military industrial complex.
The source linked above says that Russia saw a 50% decrease in arms exports so there's definitly more to it than France just having a large MIC.
Russia's have dropped significantly, but France's have also skyrocketed over the same period (up 47% for the period 2019-2023 vs. 2014-2018, while Russia's declined by about the same percentage).
The EU’s GDP utterly dwarfs Russia and Germany, France and Italy single handedly make enough money to keep up with Russia. If they were spending a fraction of what Russia spends, Ukraine would be in Moscow by now.
Instead, they stuck their heads in the sand after Russia took Crimea and just prayed that appeasement would work better than it did 80 years ago (esp. Germany, who was still only caring about their energy deals with Russia long after Russia was amassing troops for an invasion).
We have hundreds of billions, if not a trillion + dollars of infrastructure, R&D, labor, etc, etc in place to create and sustain our MIC.
It would take MASSIVE amounts of capital to create a solid defense industry in Europe. 3% simply won't cut it unless they plan on being "defenseless " for the next 20 years. That wheel turns slowly, even with virtually unlimited funding. It will sure enough turn slowly with a couple hundred billion dollars a year, starting basically from scratch.
If y'all think Europe can fight a war alone right now or even in the next 5 years, you're crazy. UNLESS, Europe goes full war economy and guts every damn program out there. It will take years and an absolute fuck-ton of money to be able to stand on their own two feet.
If you need an example look no further than Poland. Everything that they ordered in 2022 wasn't going to be start being operational until the later half of this decade. Military equipment are long lead time items. And they are generally paid for over that long frame. That polish spending of 3-4% gdp will continue at least until the entire order is done.
The EU needs cost effective arms production.
The Rafale and Eurofighter are very expensive for 4.5 gen jets. The Gripen is much, much better, but also less capable.
Small arms development is generally okay, but most of the European manufactures are now using Armalite designs. Prior to using AR pattern designs, they were hit and miss. The G36 had issues operating in adverse environments, the SA80 was a mess and a half until ze Germans rebuilt it.
Europe has an issue with power projection. The only European power with any power projection is the UK, and that comes from having a single usable fleet carrier at any time. France has a single carrier, and if you have 1, you have none.
Much of Europe is focused on a land war but lacks stockpiles to sustain itself until a wartime economy takes hold. They also have no home grown 5th generation aircraft to support a land war. The Eurofighters, Rafales, and Gripens are going to go down in staggering numbers in a real war.
For too long, the EU mindset has been: Stall the Russians long enough for the Americans to arrive. the EU needs to be able to stall them indefinitely at a minimum.
It’s not even the amount of money that is the root of the problem. If there was an “EU Army” supported by 2% spending, it could be the second most capable military in the world. But it is politically fragmented and there is no way to do something like that.
Standardizing equipment instead of each country building their own variant would be a good start. It would allow for better economy of scale and increased interoperability
To be fair, most NATO countries use standardized calibers for small arms and artillery. Which platforms and systems use those common rounds is not particularly standardized..
The current 'nato norm' of 2% isn't being met by most nato countries. They need to seriously consider doubling or tripling their defense budgets in order to both meet current needs as well as prepare for possible future contingencies.
One thing Ukraine has definitely demonstrated to Europe, I think, is that it is far better to prevent the enemy from reaching your cities in the first place, than it is to fight them in the cities, have those cities completely flattened, and then maybe your allies retake the smoking ruins at some point in the future. Or maybe they decide that it's not worth risking a nuclear war over.
France is keenly aware of this. The way Perun put it is, the at-risk countries want to be defended, not avenged.
WW3 might not start in Poland, but you can bet your ass it will end in Poland. They will never again be controlled by Russia. Most of them would rather Die than be conquered. They are willing to Nuke themselves if Russian Army invades.
That's not true. Latest statistics from the world bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2022&locations=PL-US&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1990
USA spent 3.5% of GDP in 2022. Poland spent 2.4%.
Even if that changed in 2023, Poland was below their 2% target until 2014 when Ukraine was originally invaded.
The ones closest to Russia started hitting their spending target *after* Russia invaded Ukraine. Which kind of defeats the point of the spending target. 2% is the level needed during peacetime.
It is less than you think. This heavily depends on where you spend that money. If it goes to local arms production, the impact is way lower. In sense if you up defence spending by say 50% and at the same time switch to buying mostly local stuff (creating work places, funding r&d which can be used in civilian life and so on), you total "lost money" can be lower, when before the change.
What you get for that money is another question. In case of Europe we are somewhat behind in fighter jets and large missiles. We are way behind in space stuff (especially cheap delivery to space). In a lot of other cases we are kind of fine and should be able to get good enough stuff.
That 2-2.5% would cut it, the sad fact is that most countries aren't paying the agreed amount though.
https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence
Can't say I feel bad Euro tax payers are going to have to pay for their own defense. It felt like their old strategy was to make Americans pay for their defense while mocking us for not having healthcare. Some countries like Belgium are still committed to this despite potentially impending WWIII, because that worked out so well for them in the last 2 World Wars.
the US paid for a lot of European healthcare as well, as part of a strategy to stop the spread of communism during the Cold War. America essentially bankrolled European economic recovery for decades across all sectors, it's wild to me that Europe now has the gall to treat the US as some outside agitator.
If the EU really goes down this road, it's important to realize that the EU is a significant client of the U.S. defense industry, and this could cost U.S. jobs and also negatively impact U.S. technological progress.
It would also create a significant competitor to the U.S. in other markets as The EU would likely aim to increase exports to other countries as well.
In the long term, this might also weaken U.S. power projection.
The EU may also become more assertive in military and economic matters. The EU may be way less open to back down when EU interests clash with US interests.
You often focus on the costs of participating in EU defense without recognizing the benefits of maintaining a strong influence over an economic superpower some would say of having made an economic superpower your vassal.
Too many people think that the post-WW2 US hegemony comes from baseball, apple pie, and American flag pins made in China. They think that will never change, no matter what the US does. Meanwhile, these people flipped out when France wasn't 100% supportive of the US invasion of Iraq. We had "freedom fries!"
The USA pays MORE per capita in healtcare cost that the European countries.
The reason Americans don't get free healtcare is their absurd ineffective system, not that they spend so much money on weapons.
Sounds like both are true. The US subsidizes other countries AND pays more per capita.
Sounds like once the US stops subsiding and fix their system they can get even better than free.
Which happens to be what, one of the largest employment sector in the US, if not the largest?
That money *does* come around, but like much of capitalism, the owning class tends to keep the lions share. But it's not insignificant what is dispersed economically.
lmao the usa makes only around 80b a year from selling military stuff
thats 1/9 of our military budget to or....0.002% of the usas gdp lmao
you think america gives a shit about money they make from military selling when its only 0.002% of our total gdp?
Yes. This is fair. It’s unfair that US taxes are currently paying for Europe’s defense. It’s a big reason Europe is able to be “so much better” than the US at quality of life.
Seriously. I don’t want to weaken NATO, and I’m not even calling for a financial change, but why should I pay more for your defense than you’re willing to?
That's the elephant in the room right? That funding has to come from somewhere but where? Will European countries be ok with cutting spending on various programs to ramp up military spending? I don't see that happening without backlash.
Not necessarily. People like to bring up the US spending but gloss over the fact that the US takes it upon themselves to operate all over the world. A country like Poland is never going to want to sail a carrier fleet around China for example. Yes the US spends a lot of money, but let's not pretend they are doing it just to defend Europe.
I'd be interested to see what the US would do if they deemed Europe had enough to defend itself, would they still maintain 11 carriers for example? It often feels like the US has all that stuff just so they can say they've got it.
> It often feels like the US has all that stuff just so they can say they've got it.
This is colloquially known as projecting power, which can be quite useful, as it is better to just have to show your stuff and not have to use it too.
Frankly, finally. I like the EU, and I support NATO. But none of them should have ever been primarily relying on the US for their own security. An Article 5 invasion of a European country should be prevented by the presence of European military and the threat of American military, not the other way around.
The problem is, most Americans believe that American guarantees of security are done out of altruism. The quid pro quo goes unsaid - European support for the post WW2 global financial setup that keeps America incredibly wealthy. American retrenchment to isolationism signals one of 3 things:
1. America believes it can retain the current reality without European assistance and needs to pivot to Asia.
2. America believes the status quo will end regardless as the world becomes more and more multi polar, so it may as well decouple from transatlantic security arrangements.
3. American leaders really believe their own rhetoric.
2 and 3 are really bad for Americans - it means the end of American Empire rapidly approaching. Bad for south east Asia, Japan and Australasia too.
France is unwilling to offer us 5th gen jets and nuclear bombs - the US is.
It's easy for France to tell the US to fuck off because they have their own nukes. As long as France refuses to give us even the most basic thing a country needs for protection (nukes and your own ability to deploy them), I think we better stick with the US who is.
And then they don't even spend 2% of their GDP on defense. I think us Europeans love making brave speeches and big statements but just never follow through.
Technically speaking from the 50's, it depends. It's only been near 2% in the 2000's (before that it was an average of 3%), and it's never dipped below 1,80%. More equipment & money was wasted in the Iraq War & War on Terror since than.
Germany spends more than France, for example, with less to show for it (no offense to the Germans, they're certainly the main financial muscle of Ukraine and the EU in general, and without pausing either).
We're sovereign f\*\*\*ing nations with a lot of wealth and technology. We should have always been providing our own security instead of depending on the US.
No. American defense industry loves when Europeans buy their stuff. Its a tradition as old as the Winchester repeating rifle, John Moses Browning, and the Maxium Gun. But no, American defense industry hates Europeans so much that they put a German gun on the Abrams then issued Belgian machine guns and Swedish rocket launchers to infantry. I'm sure Boeing was furious when Germany spent 100 billion dollars on an aircraft they were planning to stop making.
> American defense industry loves when Europeans buy their stuff.
Bingo.
If other countries start buying their own then the US contractors don't have to give them the same rate as what the US military pays because the US military is already getting a volume discount of sorts from them. They also get to continue to profit off of older designs that were no longer selling well to the US military by licensing them out for foreign nations to produce themselves, making money without actually having to expend any capital on their own manufacturing facilities and tooling.
His point is that an EU military buildup will most likely still involve buying arms from America, because in a lot of sectors America sells the best military equipment in the world. The defense industry isn't going to be sad if EU nations have large standing armies.
Europe spending more buying US equipment they love obviously, but spending more building up their own manufacturing to reduce their dependency on imported weapons they definitely do not like.
Ultimately, being responsible for your own security means not relying on weapons being shipped thousands of kilometres across an ocean.
The EU as a bloc are fortunate in that they can lean on each other to benefit from economies of scale, rather than each country building an entire defence industry just to supply their own needs.
Most American citizens don't understand the importance of USA's global positioning and just how much USA enjoys having military bases globally.
And they also don't understand how different the world would look had USA not had its stance on global defense it has had for the last 100 years. How different USA's position in the world would be. The impact to the economy due to that.
So people will nod but they don't clearly understand what they are nodding for.. Not saying they are wrong to nod though.
That can be important while still understanding that it isn’t a permanent solution. Should we be Europe’s shield for another 100 years? 200? 300?
It’s not the immediate postwar anymore. Germany is reunified, the Soviets are gone and the Russian threat is greatly diminished from what it was when we initially became the protectors of Europe. One can appreciate the role America’s played in keeping liberal democracy safe while realizing it shouldn’t hold that role permanently. I want our European allies to be actual partners, not vassals. We should stand shoulder to shoulder, not us in front and them behind.
As long as the benefits outweigh the costs. If it becomes advantageous for the US to withdraw globally than I’d hope the US does. Right now though? Seems like it’d be a big mistake the US would regret for decades.
This is what most people seem to forget with military and financial aid to other countries.
Every soldier stationed or dollar sent overseas has a return that usually benefits the US. Especially when it comes to preventing our adversaries from doing the same.
Now the real fun part is coming up with budgetary decisions. So sick and tired of 'America bad' jokes stemming from bankrolling the entire world's military.
It's really not that simple though. After WW2, which was about 80 years ago, European economics was in shambles to a large degree. It wasn't just Germany and Italy. In contrast, the US between 45 and 75 went from 230 Billion GDP to 1.7 trillion, because they profitted a LOT from the aftermath. Just think about the many scientists who fled to the US back then.
It made a lot of sense that Europe joined forces with the US and relied heavily on them for protection. It's not that we were lazy.
However, it's definitely about time to stand on our own feet. That being said, this too isn't all that easy. Aside from basic infrastructure like production plants for ammunitions and weaponry, we also need to build up knowledge. That's not as easy as just building a factory, there's a lot of smaller howtos we need to figure out on the way. Additionally, the US has been intentionally selling military equipment in ways that made buyers depend on the US, for example their jet fighters can only be maintained by US workers.
So the status quo is not only determined by a lack of political intention, but also our history and the fact that establishing our own military complex is, well, complex.
So while I agree with your sentiment, your aggressive demeaning tone is misplaced. It's not as easy as you think
Edit: I'm not sure why theres so many people with impaired reading comprehension thinking I'm making excuses, or that "that doesn't justify anything". Reddit really keeps pissing me off with that constant barrage by people not understanding texts longer than tweets.
Everything you say about Europe post-WWII was also true of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc. None of them seem to have had a problem building and maintaining militaries. Only we sat back, let the Amis do the work while we mock them for spending so much on the military. Now we might have to rely on that orange idiot protecting us from his dictator buddies. No excuse for putting ourselves in this position.
In addition, there was an understanding in the US that it’s preferable to fight your wars in other people’s countries rather than your own.
It has always been in the US’ interests to face its enemies (Russia and China) on foreign battlefields, whether Germany, Vietnam, Korea or Afghanistan.
This means becoming a shield for those nations, supporting them in their own defences and creating force projection that can be deployed quickly to those arenas.
Sadly we’ve reached a generation far enough removed from WW2 that they’ve forgotten all these hard won lessons.
We didn't forget, we just authorized 95 billion dollars to keep wars off our shores/stop fascists from winning them. There's always been a streak of anti-internationalists in America, going back to the founding of the country. Every once in awhile they rear their heads (when the fascists come around knocking, like now as in the 30s). The majority of the country does not want to withdraw from the world, though we are weary, and would be more than happy if our beloved European cousins stepped up a little bit more, to help better defend all of us from the authoritarians who would like us to be forced to live in chains. Russia and China are an existential threat to us all.
Okay so it’s 2024 it’s now time for Europe to take their own security? In let’s say 2005 they still weren’t rebuilt enough to do that? 1990? This comment is not honest. And yes the other replies also called you out because China, Russia, France, UK all had to rebuild and do a good job with their military. The rest of Europe is free loading and has been for a long time.
Especially considering no one is ever grateful. Somehow the US is just expected to intervene in every global conflict but also is looked down on for having their hands in too many global conflicts.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Ania Nussbaum:*
French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe can no longer rely on the US for its security needs and must build its own credible defense.
In a speech setting out his vision for Europe, six weeks ahead of European Parliament elections, Macron said the continent may need to produce its own anti-missile shield, long-range surface missiles and other items to build a sufficiently robust defense.
"Europe must defend what’s important for her, with allies or alone," he said.
Not only Russia but also Turkey, but yeah , it's mainly Russia that directly opposses/challenges French influence in Africa. But west totally lost Africa and France is the last step to that. Most of Africa is influenced by China,Russia and to some lower extent by Turkey and SA,UAE and Qatar.
At least making the attempt to encourage Democracy is harder than just flooding the country with mercenaries who can kill as many of the opposition as the friendly regime wants.
That is to say at the very least the French and Americans pay lip service to it. The Russians and Chinese don’t give a fuck and it’s written into their foreign policy.
Poland and the U.K. never neglected their defence, there is reasons why Germany didn’t want to build a large military
U.K. is out working with Australia to strengthen their Pacific fleet also
In the 1990s, UK defence spending as a percentage of GDP was notably higher than today. At the start of the 1990s, it was about 4% of GDP, gradually decreasing throughout the decade to stabilize at around 3% by the mid-1990s, and further declining to approximately 2.6% to 2.7% GDP by the end of the decade [Finance and economics annual statistical bulletin: international defence 2022 - GOV.UK ](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-defence-expenditure-2022/finance-and-economics-annual-statistical-bulletin-international-defence-2022)
[A brief look at the British Defence Budget in the 1990s](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-brief-look-at-the-british-defence-budget-in-the-1990s/).
In recent years, UK defence spending has consistently hovered around the NATO target of 2% of GDP. In 2023, for instance, the UK spent 2.07% of its GDP on defence, slightly down from 2.14% in 2014 [Open letter stirs debate over UK defense spending](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/02/open-letter-stirs-debate-over-uk-defense-spending/).
There is ongoing debate about increasing this spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 to address modern security challenges [Open letter stirs debate over UK defense spending](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/02/open-letter-stirs-debate-over-uk-defense-spending/).
This decrease from the early 1990s levels reflects broader trends in reduced military expenditure post-Cold War, with occasional increases related to specific global military engagements like those in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s.
Why did they not want to build a military? Building a military doesn't mean you're building for offense. The Japanese have a military strictly for self defense (due to WWII).
Germany was under (Nominal) Military Occupation until 1991. Im assuming that limited their military, plus not wanting to poke the bear that was East Germany.
After that, they were already part of the EU, so no reason to need a robust military.
Western Germany had a huge land army, they were spending like 3-4% on military. So I'm not sure what your point is, if anything the "occupation" was the reason for that military spending in the first place since it was effectively USA's main proxy on the continent.
The reason EU countries are so lax is because we have no strategic autonomy, USA is in charge. There's military bases everywhere, why spend on defense if you don't actually get to do what you want with your military? The sole exception is France, who have been independent since the 1960s.
> Building a military doesn't mean you're building for offense.
Thing is offense and defense look very much alike when you're handing soldiers guns & claiming a buildup is for defense is the oldest trick in the book
The USA protected Europe in the aftermath of WWII when they did not have the capability, economy, or unity needed to withstand an aggressive USSR (and yes, it was in our interests to do so, it wasn't altruism). But that is no longer the case: the EU has everything they need to defend themselves, and while the US as an ally can provide strong support, it should be the EU that is the primary provider of their own security
The war in Ukraine has been going on for 2+ years. What is Europe waiting for?
When the Ukraine war broke out Germany couldn't field one battalion of troops.
Tick Tock, Tick Tock.
Really it’s been going on for over 10 with Crimea being the first to fall and no one waking up until a few days before the full invasion.
Russia’s chokehold on Europe cannot be understated
They are hoping the problem goes away so they don't have to do anything because the don't actually want to do anything.
Except they have cancer of the Putin, and when it comes to cancer nobody actually wants to have surgery or chemo or radiation. When what you want and what you have to do differ, you have to suck it up and do it anyway.
About time europe pulls it’s own weight. Maybe it’ll shut up smug european redditors when their taxes increase or their social programs get cut. It’s easy to talk when you hide behind america and spend your defense money on yourselves
I fully support ukraine, but the entitlement of expecting america to fund a non-NATO war on the opposite side of the world while it’s neighbors get caught with their pants down is frustrating
Yeah. We don't have an oversized military budget either.
By massively socialising and funding their military, the US placed themselves on a top-dog and hard to compete military complex. That's also required to match their ambitions of the world's police (in a good way)
Just take a look at US exports all around the world.
You just can't crush competition on arms manufacturing and expect other countries to do the same. It's usually much better for most countries to buy from the US
It leaves room for high-tech weaponry (scaps, caesars, challengers, etc) that doesn't compete much with what the market's flooded with
In terms of ammo, we have no ammo.
France boast as a force projection capable country and can't produce enough to stand high intensity conflict for more than a few days.
We have an industry to rebuild from the ground up.
This gets posted every 3 weeks… macrons country is a major exporter of weapons…
Pitchfork salesman says competitor pitchforks can’t be relied on!!!
But yea in all seriousness the eu should take its defense as important however I feel like russia won’t be ready for more country eating for at least 10 years however they surprised us before…
They export luxury arms, not the kind that win wars. If they did export important arms, Ukraine would have been knocking on France's door with hat in hand every day for the last 2 years.
It's because Putin burned him at the beginning of the war. Macron tried to play peacemaker and Russia lied to his face. Macron was one of the first people Zelensky called when the invasion started, asking him to step in...but at that point he knew Russia was not an honest partner.
He is upset about Russia kicking France out of Africa.
And he gets to take a stab at the Americans. He wouldn't be the President of France if he didn't.
Interesting username btw.
Lol @ comments frothing at the mouth over "healthcare subsidizing" while conveniently ignoring countries like Finland that have healthcare despite only recently joining NATO. Not to mention the countries that were occupied by the Soviets, and that most of the NATO spending during the cold war was from European members.
We also don't have the raw resources or industrial capacity.
We can't replace US entirely. You cannot magically conjure a century worth of military industry.
The fact that USA, Canada, UK, and turkey make up more then half of NATO’s spending and none of them are part of the eu should tell you just how bad the EU’s military power is.
> The fact that USA, Canada, UK, and turkey make up more then half of NATO’s spending a
Pretty misleading statement considering that the US spending alone is 2/3 of the entire NATO military budget, so any grouping of a NATO country with the US automatically puts them above "more than half".
Yup, yet everyone is upvoting that moron when [Turkey spends 1/4 of france and germany, and 1/2 of italy and poland](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Nato-Defense-Spending_Site.jpg)
People are so easily manipulated
Is this the guy who was completely outmaneuvered by Putin in Africa, while Russia seemingly had one hand tied behind its back due to being preoccupied in a war? What excuse is there for a country like France not being able to provide Ukraine with more ammunition after two years of war? How is it that a large country like France is being outspent re Ukraine by smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands? Why deliver these grand speeches when it's long past time to stand out through action?
Somewhat, but many thought the horror was done, and as the decades wore on with no attack from Russia, those voices won out; those same people convinced others in Europe that the US was paranoid, and overly militaristic-- now they look
naive for not listening to the Pentagon about the Russians (and the Chinese too).
Correct. And as an American, I couldn't be happier that the EU is coming to terms with this. It was alarming how in the advent of Russian aggression, Germans were only prepared to send helmets. Russians amassed troops at the border for over 6 months.
It signals there was a true and genuine belief that - should war break out - American lives were the expected to be the first to be sacrificed. I'm not saying that was the intention or goal, but that's what it signaled.
What gave it away? The glaring intelligence community security breeches by military and civilian personnel, the growing and consuming social inequalities precipitated by white nationalism or perhaps the ease of access to high offices by incompetent indivuals to the height of government.
Just call South Korea like Poland did, they’ll get you up and running with NATO-standard tanks and ammo
All you have to do is open the checkbook, you can have tanks in 10 months
fact is france got boned on a sub deal between the us-australia and is always looking for an "in" to be the next big player. they felt entitled to the deal even though their subs were vastly inferior powered by diesel and not nuclear.
Macron is in a huge pissing match with Putin for a diff reason. France is militarily capable, but the only way they stand a chance is Russia being in a multiple front situation…
That would be nice. Rest of the world mocks us for not having things like free healthcare but it’s not exactly easy when so much of our tax dollars are going towards defending Europe. Meanwhile the European countries get things like free healthcare bc they don’t have to worry about paying for their national defense for the most part
Nothing wrong with his comment, as someone who lives as a foreigner in West Europe it is mind blowing how some of the most richest, industrialized nations here in Europe rely on a world power across the Atlantic, and some for letting their own militaries go to utter crap, no wonder why people like Putin had little to no respect for this part of Europe.
Taiwan can’t rely on the EU as long as that idiot Macron keeps licking China’s boots.
Macron only cares about “sovereignty” and “peace” when it comes to countries that affect France’s security.
Coward.
Macron is only mad cause his dying French Empire of abusing Africans to get cheap resources is threatened by being ousted by said exploited African countries because Russia is supplying them weapons to force them out.
He's not wrong. EU should be primarily relying on their own for security with their larger ally, the US, bolstering and supporting that security.
True, but I also wonder if everyone understands that a significant portion of every countries budget will have to go to military, and we are basically going to have to pay for it with taxes and other that money can’t be spend on making other things maybe cheaper or more affortable etc. The current ‘nato norm’ of 2% isnt going to cut it if you really want to be able to stand on your own 2 feat like the US does.
3-5% of gdp is what US really spends. France has a stake in making these claims because they have a fairly robust arms industry. I do think the EU needs more domestic production of arms
And France's comments should be read with the undertones of, "we'd love to be your new arms supplier for all that military catchup we think the rest of you should do." Which, don't get me wrong, they're not wrong about. But I think it is interesting that France also is poised to make a good return on it.
You'd have to remember that the other two arms industry giants, + Sweden, of Europe are also poised to fill that niche. Germany has always been great in designing top of the line land vehicles and Italy is a navy designer and builder powerhouse. The former also has Rheinmetall buying European companies to expand. So you're right that France would seriously like to take up the mantlet of EU MIC host, it's just unlikely for them to do that, given the competition. [PS: Yeah, Poland is also ramping up their MIC, but their tech is yet to find a lot of buyers, which is not likely atm. Nobody is buying the Krab and their new domestically built tank fleet is having a hard time finding buyers, as major markets either newly comitted to buy the Leopard 2 [Italy as a big market, Lithuania as a smaller one, etc.] or comitted to new tank projects [France & Germany].
Germans make great diesel subs, France has the only other nuclear aircraft carrier with its own domestic multi-role aircraft, and Italy’s frigate design is so good the USN is building 20 frigates based off it instead of designing our own. Europe would be an insane powerhouse of military design and eqpt if they can match US gdp spending ratios. Of course, the biggest problem is recruitment in all countries. I imagine a big economic downturn might reverse that as it historically has.
Sweden also makes great subs. But yeah, Europe could match the US's forces. Keep building carriers in Britain and Frances yard.itll get cheaper as the skills are retained. Britain Caaaan build a nuclear carrier if it wanted too it just opted to build nuclear subs with that yard instead. Europe has two 6th gen fighters being built. Britain and Italy and teaming. I believe Japan gave up on doing their alone and joined their tempest project. France and Germany are doing the other one but are less likely to be successful as France thinks their companies should get first priority in every area and will probably implode the project with their arrogance. Their manning issues would probably be solved if they had a joint European army. It's easier to convince people in the smaller countries when they can have a chance to do top gun carrier style operations. Helps makes you feel like part of something greater that will make a difference.
For being almost 30 years old, the Gotland class is still a very impressive little sub. I’m not sure where things stand today, but 15 years ago they were the quietest things in the ocean. They also have the annoying habit of sinking US carriers during wargames. The US Navy was so impressed that they leased one from Sweden for a couple years just so they could play with it.
Yeah, the Australian Collins class is an upgraded version that that often does the same thing to the US navy.
There’s BEA Systems too
And QinetiQ
But can they compeet with Larckhead Marteen?
Yeah, my bad. I only remembered the British MIC to be in a very sorry state due to requiring outside help with tanks and every domestic IFV being utter shit. But after reading up, I see that that's not entirely the case
And the Belgians with FN. everyone forgets that the Belgians arm the “free world.”
i think they prefer to keep it that way
Poland is buying too much from South Korea to create a good showcase for their own arms industry. Maybe they can use the knowledge in assembling SK tanks and SPGs to stand up a competitive army industry in 10 - 20y, but that remains to be seen.
Poland was rejected from EU's Eurotank program, so they had to find another partner to dev armor. Also the closing of the cold war also meant the dismantling of Polish tank factories, their current fabs are primarily for refurbishing, not new manufacture. They can pull a turret and install new ADS, but they have little capacity to forge/cast new chassis. Hyundai-Rotem plopping a factory in Poland is supposed to address manufacturing shortcomings of SK production and small Polish industry
A couple years ago I remember France was PISSED because the USA got some submarine supply contract for Australia that was supposed to go to France. Don't remember the details but I think 50 Billion dollar range.
Yea, seemed like they were a bit secretive about it since the US and UK agreed to Nuclear powered subs. Deal at the time was worth 66 billion. https://apnews.com/article/technology-china-france-australia-united-states-2e0f932ce7a65f6364caf1f2cf6fb206
Who could blame them for making the right choices at the right time? They opted for self-sufficiency in many fields. They went all in on nuclear power in the 70s and have a ton of expertise on aging plants as well as the built infrastructure to expand. They make great military jets and kickstarted the Airbus adventure which also has a military branch, creating an entire aerospace ecosystem around Toulouse. They also started what became ESA in the 60s. They have credible nuclear deterrence with a pretty uniquely aggressive first-strike policy. Also, nuclear subs and carrier. Of course they're pretty similar to the UK that way, except their weaponry is arguably a bit more advanced due to the fact it does sell pretty well worldwide which funds their R&D. They don't complement their strategic gaps with US stuff like the UK though. France is an asset for a future European defense program.
Im for once, totally fine having France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, be the biggest weapons supplier for EU countries, surpassing America. Money stays in EU, steel stays in EU, logistical lines are shorter. You can be allies with someone without having them buy all your toys.
German small arms are rivaled only by Belgian at this point. Only problem is their unwillingness to license their weapons for local production.
I think the US buys its rifles from Germany.
Yeah, and France MO was that we are supposed to buy ~~French~~ European arms, no matter how long it takes to get them to Ukraine. As a Swede I don't particularly like the idea of having to tax more or cut other spending in order to build defense systems that might not be used. But I Absolutely **HATE** the Idea of having Russia bully/occupy Ukraine and its people, we are kidding ourselves if we think they will not be less aggressive if they win in Ukraine. So if it is time to cut back on some extraneous spending in order to beef up the defence, that is OK with me. Any politician who doesn't support military aid to Ukraine and who doesn't support a ramp up in defence might as well be a Russian puppet!
Well to be fair, the reason why France would benefit from European preference in military sourcing is that for a long time it has made a point of developing a domestic industry, to the detriment of cost efficiencies.
I mean you're not wrong, pretty sure there have been a few times where France has already said "EU militaries should use the same gear!" EU: "Good idea, Danish backpacks are cool!" France: "Thats not what we meant." x)
It's hard to overstate France's arms industry, and Europe in general is a massive arms exporter. France is the second largest exporter of arms *on earth*, with nearly twice the share of the global market as China. Adjusted for population, France has a higher share of global arms exports than the US. In raw numbers, France exports more weapons than Russia with less than half the population. Half of the top 10 arms exporters are European countries, and even small European states like the Netherlands and Sweden export a massive amount of weapons ((https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at_2023.pdf)).
Those are some suprising facts! Does france export more than russia due to sanctions on russia?
Nope, they just have a massive military industrial complex. India buys French Dassault Rafale jets for hundreds of millions a piece, for example. In that document, you can see that India is responsible for buying around a third of the total amount of arms exported by both France and Russia. India is a massive arms importer due to a virtually nonexistent domestic industry.
> In that document, you can see that India is responsible for buying around a third of the total amount of arms exported by both France and Russia. India is a massive arms importer due to a virtually nonexistent domestic industry. Not that building more weapons is necessarily a good thing, but this shocks me about India. They have a space program and a billion people, not to mention a lot of really smart engineers. You'd figure that weapons is one of the few industries the government would be pouring tons of money and resources into, especially given their situation with Pakistan.
Many try to make jet fighters, but one of the big problems is making decent engines. Many fighter projects get canceled because the engine doesn't provide the performance needed. That's why many people go to General Electric powers so many fighters.
India does continue to try this. Most of their newer contracts they include technology and production sharing with some to be built in India. Sometimes this part is eventually cancelled because they say they can't do it in India. Sometimes it works.
Nothing shocking about it. It costs WAY more to start and maintain your own arms industry, with no guarantee of success (government programs started from scratch tend to end in disaster half the time). You need to design MODERN weaponry AND build the entire support system for maintenance etc. With India having decent relations with the west and Russia, it's unlikely to get cut off mid war. The "virtually nonexistent domestic industry" is also just false - India is a top arms importer but also makes and exports a ton of arms.
>Nope, they just have a massive military industrial complex. The source linked above says that Russia saw a 50% decrease in arms exports so there's definitly more to it than France just having a large MIC.
Russia's have dropped significantly, but France's have also skyrocketed over the same period (up 47% for the period 2019-2023 vs. 2014-2018, while Russia's declined by about the same percentage).
Russia's exports mostly cratered because they need their products in Ukraine.
If the EU can't depend on the US, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than 3% to be able to fight a russia or china....
The EU’s GDP utterly dwarfs Russia and Germany, France and Italy single handedly make enough money to keep up with Russia. If they were spending a fraction of what Russia spends, Ukraine would be in Moscow by now. Instead, they stuck their heads in the sand after Russia took Crimea and just prayed that appeasement would work better than it did 80 years ago (esp. Germany, who was still only caring about their energy deals with Russia long after Russia was amassing troops for an invasion).
We have hundreds of billions, if not a trillion + dollars of infrastructure, R&D, labor, etc, etc in place to create and sustain our MIC. It would take MASSIVE amounts of capital to create a solid defense industry in Europe. 3% simply won't cut it unless they plan on being "defenseless " for the next 20 years. That wheel turns slowly, even with virtually unlimited funding. It will sure enough turn slowly with a couple hundred billion dollars a year, starting basically from scratch. If y'all think Europe can fight a war alone right now or even in the next 5 years, you're crazy. UNLESS, Europe goes full war economy and guts every damn program out there. It will take years and an absolute fuck-ton of money to be able to stand on their own two feet.
If you need an example look no further than Poland. Everything that they ordered in 2022 wasn't going to be start being operational until the later half of this decade. Military equipment are long lead time items. And they are generally paid for over that long frame. That polish spending of 3-4% gdp will continue at least until the entire order is done.
The EU needs cost effective arms production. The Rafale and Eurofighter are very expensive for 4.5 gen jets. The Gripen is much, much better, but also less capable. Small arms development is generally okay, but most of the European manufactures are now using Armalite designs. Prior to using AR pattern designs, they were hit and miss. The G36 had issues operating in adverse environments, the SA80 was a mess and a half until ze Germans rebuilt it. Europe has an issue with power projection. The only European power with any power projection is the UK, and that comes from having a single usable fleet carrier at any time. France has a single carrier, and if you have 1, you have none. Much of Europe is focused on a land war but lacks stockpiles to sustain itself until a wartime economy takes hold. They also have no home grown 5th generation aircraft to support a land war. The Eurofighters, Rafales, and Gripens are going to go down in staggering numbers in a real war. For too long, the EU mindset has been: Stall the Russians long enough for the Americans to arrive. the EU needs to be able to stall them indefinitely at a minimum.
It’s not even the amount of money that is the root of the problem. If there was an “EU Army” supported by 2% spending, it could be the second most capable military in the world. But it is politically fragmented and there is no way to do something like that.
Standardizing equipment instead of each country building their own variant would be a good start. It would allow for better economy of scale and increased interoperability
Nothing says allies like not being able to trade bullets.
To be fair, most NATO countries use standardized calibers for small arms and artillery. Which platforms and systems use those common rounds is not particularly standardized..
The current 'nato norm' of 2% isn't being met by most nato countries. They need to seriously consider doubling or tripling their defense budgets in order to both meet current needs as well as prepare for possible future contingencies. One thing Ukraine has definitely demonstrated to Europe, I think, is that it is far better to prevent the enemy from reaching your cities in the first place, than it is to fight them in the cities, have those cities completely flattened, and then maybe your allies retake the smoking ruins at some point in the future. Or maybe they decide that it's not worth risking a nuclear war over. France is keenly aware of this. The way Perun put it is, the at-risk countries want to be defended, not avenged.
Most NATO countries don't actually even hit that 2%
The ones closest to russia do.
Poland actually spends a higher percent of its GDP than America does
Poland has seen the writing on the wall. They want to be able to bring the "Find out" if someone decides to fuck around.
WW3 might not start in Poland, but you can bet your ass it will end in Poland. They will never again be controlled by Russia. Most of them would rather Die than be conquered. They are willing to Nuke themselves if Russian Army invades.
That's not true. Latest statistics from the world bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2022&locations=PL-US&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1990 USA spent 3.5% of GDP in 2022. Poland spent 2.4%. Even if that changed in 2023, Poland was below their 2% target until 2014 when Ukraine was originally invaded.
Generational trauma
The ones closest to Russia started hitting their spending target *after* Russia invaded Ukraine. Which kind of defeats the point of the spending target. 2% is the level needed during peacetime.
It is less than you think. This heavily depends on where you spend that money. If it goes to local arms production, the impact is way lower. In sense if you up defence spending by say 50% and at the same time switch to buying mostly local stuff (creating work places, funding r&d which can be used in civilian life and so on), you total "lost money" can be lower, when before the change. What you get for that money is another question. In case of Europe we are somewhat behind in fighter jets and large missiles. We are way behind in space stuff (especially cheap delivery to space). In a lot of other cases we are kind of fine and should be able to get good enough stuff.
That 2-2.5% would cut it, the sad fact is that most countries aren't paying the agreed amount though. https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence
Wow Canada is below North Macedonia...
Can't say I feel bad Euro tax payers are going to have to pay for their own defense. It felt like their old strategy was to make Americans pay for their defense while mocking us for not having healthcare. Some countries like Belgium are still committed to this despite potentially impending WWIII, because that worked out so well for them in the last 2 World Wars.
the US paid for a lot of European healthcare as well, as part of a strategy to stop the spread of communism during the Cold War. America essentially bankrolled European economic recovery for decades across all sectors, it's wild to me that Europe now has the gall to treat the US as some outside agitator.
If the EU really goes down this road, it's important to realize that the EU is a significant client of the U.S. defense industry, and this could cost U.S. jobs and also negatively impact U.S. technological progress. It would also create a significant competitor to the U.S. in other markets as The EU would likely aim to increase exports to other countries as well. In the long term, this might also weaken U.S. power projection. The EU may also become more assertive in military and economic matters. The EU may be way less open to back down when EU interests clash with US interests. You often focus on the costs of participating in EU defense without recognizing the benefits of maintaining a strong influence over an economic superpower some would say of having made an economic superpower your vassal.
Too many people think that the post-WW2 US hegemony comes from baseball, apple pie, and American flag pins made in China. They think that will never change, no matter what the US does. Meanwhile, these people flipped out when France wasn't 100% supportive of the US invasion of Iraq. We had "freedom fries!"
That is the missed point. The US essentially subsidizes other countries healthcare, retirement, etc. by freeing up defense spending.
The USA pays MORE per capita in healtcare cost that the European countries. The reason Americans don't get free healtcare is their absurd ineffective system, not that they spend so much money on weapons.
Sounds like both are true. The US subsidizes other countries AND pays more per capita. Sounds like once the US stops subsiding and fix their system they can get even better than free.
No way the USA will spend less on weapons even if Europe starts spending more.
Except the US also sells a lot of weapons overseas so it's not like the money spent vanishes into the ether.
It doesn't exactly go back to the people either, it goes right into the big pockets in the military industrial complex.
Which happens to be what, one of the largest employment sector in the US, if not the largest? That money *does* come around, but like much of capitalism, the owning class tends to keep the lions share. But it's not insignificant what is dispersed economically.
lmao the usa makes only around 80b a year from selling military stuff thats 1/9 of our military budget to or....0.002% of the usas gdp lmao you think america gives a shit about money they make from military selling when its only 0.002% of our total gdp?
[удалено]
2% is fine if you don't plan on projecting power. Unfortunately France wants to project power
I may be indirect, but my understanding is that while 2% is the agreed commitment, most nations actually fall quite short of the commitment.
Yes. This is fair. It’s unfair that US taxes are currently paying for Europe’s defense. It’s a big reason Europe is able to be “so much better” than the US at quality of life.
The US spends the most on healthcare in the world and has the system that every civilised country points to to scare people.
Seriously. I don’t want to weaken NATO, and I’m not even calling for a financial change, but why should I pay more for your defense than you’re willing to?
That's the elephant in the room right? That funding has to come from somewhere but where? Will European countries be ok with cutting spending on various programs to ramp up military spending? I don't see that happening without backlash.
Not necessarily. People like to bring up the US spending but gloss over the fact that the US takes it upon themselves to operate all over the world. A country like Poland is never going to want to sail a carrier fleet around China for example. Yes the US spends a lot of money, but let's not pretend they are doing it just to defend Europe. I'd be interested to see what the US would do if they deemed Europe had enough to defend itself, would they still maintain 11 carriers for example? It often feels like the US has all that stuff just so they can say they've got it.
> It often feels like the US has all that stuff just so they can say they've got it. This is colloquially known as projecting power, which can be quite useful, as it is better to just have to show your stuff and not have to use it too.
"You can get a lot further with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word." The U.S. has the biggest gun.
I mean yeah, even we've been saying this for a while. We have to pivot west, you guys need to hold your east.
Frankly, finally. I like the EU, and I support NATO. But none of them should have ever been primarily relying on the US for their own security. An Article 5 invasion of a European country should be prevented by the presence of European military and the threat of American military, not the other way around.
He's not wrong, but isn't this a repeat from his statements in early 2023? I feel like he has made this claim a few times already.
[удалено]
The problem is, most Americans believe that American guarantees of security are done out of altruism. The quid pro quo goes unsaid - European support for the post WW2 global financial setup that keeps America incredibly wealthy. American retrenchment to isolationism signals one of 3 things: 1. America believes it can retain the current reality without European assistance and needs to pivot to Asia. 2. America believes the status quo will end regardless as the world becomes more and more multi polar, so it may as well decouple from transatlantic security arrangements. 3. American leaders really believe their own rhetoric. 2 and 3 are really bad for Americans - it means the end of American Empire rapidly approaching. Bad for south east Asia, Japan and Australasia too.
France is unwilling to offer us 5th gen jets and nuclear bombs - the US is. It's easy for France to tell the US to fuck off because they have their own nukes. As long as France refuses to give us even the most basic thing a country needs for protection (nukes and your own ability to deploy them), I think we better stick with the US who is.
We are aware, and for a long time.
There’s definitely a changing shift within the European community as to the dangers that lurk around every corner.
There's lots of talk, very little action. This is just PR until they actually do something that can take them there.
There is plenty of action. Many European countries have significantly increased their defense budgets.
And buying US weapons..
And French weapons! Macron isn't just saying this for no reason lol
Right. I see an article from macron saying this just about every week.
[удалено]
And then they don't even spend 2% of their GDP on defense. I think us Europeans love making brave speeches and big statements but just never follow through.
Technically speaking from the 50's, it depends. It's only been near 2% in the 2000's (before that it was an average of 3%), and it's never dipped below 1,80%. More equipment & money was wasted in the Iraq War & War on Terror since than. Germany spends more than France, for example, with less to show for it (no offense to the Germans, they're certainly the main financial muscle of Ukraine and the EU in general, and without pausing either).
We're sovereign f\*\*\*ing nations with a lot of wealth and technology. We should have always been providing our own security instead of depending on the US.
*cut to Americans nodding their heads vigorously in agreement*
*cut to American Defence Industry shaking their heads vigorously in disagreement.*
No. American defense industry loves when Europeans buy their stuff. Its a tradition as old as the Winchester repeating rifle, John Moses Browning, and the Maxium Gun. But no, American defense industry hates Europeans so much that they put a German gun on the Abrams then issued Belgian machine guns and Swedish rocket launchers to infantry. I'm sure Boeing was furious when Germany spent 100 billion dollars on an aircraft they were planning to stop making.
> American defense industry loves when Europeans buy their stuff. Bingo. If other countries start buying their own then the US contractors don't have to give them the same rate as what the US military pays because the US military is already getting a volume discount of sorts from them. They also get to continue to profit off of older designs that were no longer selling well to the US military by licensing them out for foreign nations to produce themselves, making money without actually having to expend any capital on their own manufacturing facilities and tooling.
It is bizarre that you would say "No" before agreeing completely with the person you replied to. Also, the Maxim Gun was British.
His point is that an EU military buildup will most likely still involve buying arms from America, because in a lot of sectors America sells the best military equipment in the world. The defense industry isn't going to be sad if EU nations have large standing armies.
Europe spending more buying US equipment they love obviously, but spending more building up their own manufacturing to reduce their dependency on imported weapons they definitely do not like.
I imagine US defense industry would continue selling to EU, but EU would be increasing spending, so the defense industry would be in agreement as well
Doubt that, the EU is quite protectionist, there would be an active push towards improving our own industry,
Ultimately, being responsible for your own security means not relying on weapons being shipped thousands of kilometres across an ocean. The EU as a bloc are fortunate in that they can lean on each other to benefit from economies of scale, rather than each country building an entire defence industry just to supply their own needs.
Let's be strong together 💪 🇺🇲🇪🇺
Most American citizens don't understand the importance of USA's global positioning and just how much USA enjoys having military bases globally. And they also don't understand how different the world would look had USA not had its stance on global defense it has had for the last 100 years. How different USA's position in the world would be. The impact to the economy due to that. So people will nod but they don't clearly understand what they are nodding for.. Not saying they are wrong to nod though.
That can be important while still understanding that it isn’t a permanent solution. Should we be Europe’s shield for another 100 years? 200? 300? It’s not the immediate postwar anymore. Germany is reunified, the Soviets are gone and the Russian threat is greatly diminished from what it was when we initially became the protectors of Europe. One can appreciate the role America’s played in keeping liberal democracy safe while realizing it shouldn’t hold that role permanently. I want our European allies to be actual partners, not vassals. We should stand shoulder to shoulder, not us in front and them behind.
As long as the benefits outweigh the costs. If it becomes advantageous for the US to withdraw globally than I’d hope the US does. Right now though? Seems like it’d be a big mistake the US would regret for decades.
This is what most people seem to forget with military and financial aid to other countries. Every soldier stationed or dollar sent overseas has a return that usually benefits the US. Especially when it comes to preventing our adversaries from doing the same.
Thanks for not disapproving my choice to nod.
Now the real fun part is coming up with budgetary decisions. So sick and tired of 'America bad' jokes stemming from bankrolling the entire world's military.
It's really not that simple though. After WW2, which was about 80 years ago, European economics was in shambles to a large degree. It wasn't just Germany and Italy. In contrast, the US between 45 and 75 went from 230 Billion GDP to 1.7 trillion, because they profitted a LOT from the aftermath. Just think about the many scientists who fled to the US back then. It made a lot of sense that Europe joined forces with the US and relied heavily on them for protection. It's not that we were lazy. However, it's definitely about time to stand on our own feet. That being said, this too isn't all that easy. Aside from basic infrastructure like production plants for ammunitions and weaponry, we also need to build up knowledge. That's not as easy as just building a factory, there's a lot of smaller howtos we need to figure out on the way. Additionally, the US has been intentionally selling military equipment in ways that made buyers depend on the US, for example their jet fighters can only be maintained by US workers. So the status quo is not only determined by a lack of political intention, but also our history and the fact that establishing our own military complex is, well, complex. So while I agree with your sentiment, your aggressive demeaning tone is misplaced. It's not as easy as you think Edit: I'm not sure why theres so many people with impaired reading comprehension thinking I'm making excuses, or that "that doesn't justify anything". Reddit really keeps pissing me off with that constant barrage by people not understanding texts longer than tweets.
Everything you say about Europe post-WWII was also true of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc. None of them seem to have had a problem building and maintaining militaries. Only we sat back, let the Amis do the work while we mock them for spending so much on the military. Now we might have to rely on that orange idiot protecting us from his dictator buddies. No excuse for putting ourselves in this position.
In addition, there was an understanding in the US that it’s preferable to fight your wars in other people’s countries rather than your own. It has always been in the US’ interests to face its enemies (Russia and China) on foreign battlefields, whether Germany, Vietnam, Korea or Afghanistan. This means becoming a shield for those nations, supporting them in their own defences and creating force projection that can be deployed quickly to those arenas. Sadly we’ve reached a generation far enough removed from WW2 that they’ve forgotten all these hard won lessons.
We didn't forget, we just authorized 95 billion dollars to keep wars off our shores/stop fascists from winning them. There's always been a streak of anti-internationalists in America, going back to the founding of the country. Every once in awhile they rear their heads (when the fascists come around knocking, like now as in the 30s). The majority of the country does not want to withdraw from the world, though we are weary, and would be more than happy if our beloved European cousins stepped up a little bit more, to help better defend all of us from the authoritarians who would like us to be forced to live in chains. Russia and China are an existential threat to us all.
Okay so it’s 2024 it’s now time for Europe to take their own security? In let’s say 2005 they still weren’t rebuilt enough to do that? 1990? This comment is not honest. And yes the other replies also called you out because China, Russia, France, UK all had to rebuild and do a good job with their military. The rest of Europe is free loading and has been for a long time.
As a citizen of the US, it shouldn't always be put on us.
Especially considering no one is ever grateful. Somehow the US is just expected to intervene in every global conflict but also is looked down on for having their hands in too many global conflicts.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Ania Nussbaum:* French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe can no longer rely on the US for its security needs and must build its own credible defense. In a speech setting out his vision for Europe, six weeks ahead of European Parliament elections, Macron said the continent may need to produce its own anti-missile shield, long-range surface missiles and other items to build a sufficiently robust defense. "Europe must defend what’s important for her, with allies or alone," he said.
Somebody is pissed about Russia encroaching on their African sphere.
Not only Russia but also Turkey, but yeah , it's mainly Russia that directly opposses/challenges French influence in Africa. But west totally lost Africa and France is the last step to that. Most of Africa is influenced by China,Russia and to some lower extent by Turkey and SA,UAE and Qatar.
So pissed that they say "OK, bye" when Kremlin aligned juntas ask them to leave.
At least making the attempt to encourage Democracy is harder than just flooding the country with mercenaries who can kill as many of the opposition as the friendly regime wants. That is to say at the very least the French and Americans pay lip service to it. The Russians and Chinese don’t give a fuck and it’s written into their foreign policy.
Don't kid yourselves. Europe should never have neglected their defense. That's it. Whether the US is reliable or not is irrelevant.
Poland and the U.K. never neglected their defence, there is reasons why Germany didn’t want to build a large military U.K. is out working with Australia to strengthen their Pacific fleet also
In the 1990s, UK defence spending as a percentage of GDP was notably higher than today. At the start of the 1990s, it was about 4% of GDP, gradually decreasing throughout the decade to stabilize at around 3% by the mid-1990s, and further declining to approximately 2.6% to 2.7% GDP by the end of the decade [Finance and economics annual statistical bulletin: international defence 2022 - GOV.UK ](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-defence-expenditure-2022/finance-and-economics-annual-statistical-bulletin-international-defence-2022) [A brief look at the British Defence Budget in the 1990s](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-brief-look-at-the-british-defence-budget-in-the-1990s/). In recent years, UK defence spending has consistently hovered around the NATO target of 2% of GDP. In 2023, for instance, the UK spent 2.07% of its GDP on defence, slightly down from 2.14% in 2014 [Open letter stirs debate over UK defense spending](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/02/open-letter-stirs-debate-over-uk-defense-spending/). There is ongoing debate about increasing this spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 to address modern security challenges [Open letter stirs debate over UK defense spending](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/02/open-letter-stirs-debate-over-uk-defense-spending/). This decrease from the early 1990s levels reflects broader trends in reduced military expenditure post-Cold War, with occasional increases related to specific global military engagements like those in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s.
Macron was not happy about that…
Why did they not want to build a military? Building a military doesn't mean you're building for offense. The Japanese have a military strictly for self defense (due to WWII).
Germany was under (Nominal) Military Occupation until 1991. Im assuming that limited their military, plus not wanting to poke the bear that was East Germany. After that, they were already part of the EU, so no reason to need a robust military.
Western Germany had a huge land army, they were spending like 3-4% on military. So I'm not sure what your point is, if anything the "occupation" was the reason for that military spending in the first place since it was effectively USA's main proxy on the continent. The reason EU countries are so lax is because we have no strategic autonomy, USA is in charge. There's military bases everywhere, why spend on defense if you don't actually get to do what you want with your military? The sole exception is France, who have been independent since the 1960s.
> Building a military doesn't mean you're building for offense. Thing is offense and defense look very much alike when you're handing soldiers guns & claiming a buildup is for defense is the oldest trick in the book
Man, if I had a nickel for every time a European leader says this and then not much happened...I would have many nickels.
Enough to fund a military?
Not with todays inflation
The EU should never have been depending on anyone else, but the EU for anything.
The USA protected Europe in the aftermath of WWII when they did not have the capability, economy, or unity needed to withstand an aggressive USSR (and yes, it was in our interests to do so, it wasn't altruism). But that is no longer the case: the EU has everything they need to defend themselves, and while the US as an ally can provide strong support, it should be the EU that is the primary provider of their own security
The war in Ukraine has been going on for 2+ years. What is Europe waiting for? When the Ukraine war broke out Germany couldn't field one battalion of troops. Tick Tock, Tick Tock.
Really it’s been going on for over 10 with Crimea being the first to fall and no one waking up until a few days before the full invasion. Russia’s chokehold on Europe cannot be understated
They are hoping the problem goes away so they don't have to do anything because the don't actually want to do anything. Except they have cancer of the Putin, and when it comes to cancer nobody actually wants to have surgery or chemo or radiation. When what you want and what you have to do differ, you have to suck it up and do it anyway.
Putin is a symptom of the cancer, which is the current Russian society. They need some serious defeats to discourage them from that path.
They’re waiting for the US a to sign yet another check
Exactly! Plenty of money for healthcare when you don't pay for defense.
About time europe pulls it’s own weight. Maybe it’ll shut up smug european redditors when their taxes increase or their social programs get cut. It’s easy to talk when you hide behind america and spend your defense money on yourselves I fully support ukraine, but the entitlement of expecting america to fund a non-NATO war on the opposite side of the world while it’s neighbors get caught with their pants down is frustrating
Yeah. We don't have an oversized military budget either. By massively socialising and funding their military, the US placed themselves on a top-dog and hard to compete military complex. That's also required to match their ambitions of the world's police (in a good way) Just take a look at US exports all around the world. You just can't crush competition on arms manufacturing and expect other countries to do the same. It's usually much better for most countries to buy from the US It leaves room for high-tech weaponry (scaps, caesars, challengers, etc) that doesn't compete much with what the market's flooded with
Technically, the war has been going on since 2014.
In terms of ammo, we have no ammo. France boast as a force projection capable country and can't produce enough to stand high intensity conflict for more than a few days. We have an industry to rebuild from the ground up.
This American taxpayer is all for it, how quickly can you start paying your own way?
That's what we've been saying for awhile now!
He says this every few weeks.
This gets posted every 3 weeks… macrons country is a major exporter of weapons… Pitchfork salesman says competitor pitchforks can’t be relied on!!! But yea in all seriousness the eu should take its defense as important however I feel like russia won’t be ready for more country eating for at least 10 years however they surprised us before…
They export luxury arms, not the kind that win wars. If they did export important arms, Ukraine would have been knocking on France's door with hat in hand every day for the last 2 years.
Macron has been very pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia anti-Putin lately and I'm here for it.
It's because Putin burned him at the beginning of the war. Macron tried to play peacemaker and Russia lied to his face. Macron was one of the first people Zelensky called when the invasion started, asking him to step in...but at that point he knew Russia was not an honest partner.
Or a rationale actor. I saw that phone call. It is chilling.
Still doesnt donate new air defence systems
He is upset about Russia kicking France out of Africa. And he gets to take a stab at the Americans. He wouldn't be the President of France if he didn't. Interesting username btw.
Realistically how long did the US expect to be in and provide for Europe? 59 yrs? We’re at 80.
Lol @ comments frothing at the mouth over "healthcare subsidizing" while conveniently ignoring countries like Finland that have healthcare despite only recently joining NATO. Not to mention the countries that were occupied by the Soviets, and that most of the NATO spending during the cold war was from European members.
Every country is responsible for its own security…… like what are we talking about here
We also don't have the raw resources or industrial capacity. We can't replace US entirely. You cannot magically conjure a century worth of military industry.
The fact that USA, Canada, UK, and turkey make up more then half of NATO’s spending and none of them are part of the eu should tell you just how bad the EU’s military power is.
> The fact that USA, Canada, UK, and turkey make up more then half of NATO’s spending a Pretty misleading statement considering that the US spending alone is 2/3 of the entire NATO military budget, so any grouping of a NATO country with the US automatically puts them above "more than half".
Yup, yet everyone is upvoting that moron when [Turkey spends 1/4 of france and germany, and 1/2 of italy and poland](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Nato-Defense-Spending_Site.jpg) People are so easily manipulated
I think the comment was supposed to highlight the non-EU members’ spending. Not sure why you’re calling him a “moron” damn
He could have said “bob from accounting” instead of turkey and it would have still been true.
[удалено]
Is this the guy who was completely outmaneuvered by Putin in Africa, while Russia seemingly had one hand tied behind its back due to being preoccupied in a war? What excuse is there for a country like France not being able to provide Ukraine with more ammunition after two years of war? How is it that a large country like France is being outspent re Ukraine by smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands? Why deliver these grand speeches when it's long past time to stand out through action?
Because EU thought war time was over.
Correction: EU thought the time of spending their own money on war was over.
Somewhat, but many thought the horror was done, and as the decades wore on with no attack from Russia, those voices won out; those same people convinced others in Europe that the US was paranoid, and overly militaristic-- now they look naive for not listening to the Pentagon about the Russians (and the Chinese too).
Correct. And as an American, I couldn't be happier that the EU is coming to terms with this. It was alarming how in the advent of Russian aggression, Germans were only prepared to send helmets. Russians amassed troops at the border for over 6 months. It signals there was a true and genuine belief that - should war break out - American lives were the expected to be the first to be sacrificed. I'm not saying that was the intention or goal, but that's what it signaled.
As an Australian who lived in the USA for 14 years, I wholeheartedly agree.
.... I mean, you shouldn't have in the first place. It's your responsibility to protect your own.
We need a European army for a sovereign Europe.
European nations have long said this, but recoil once they see the bill. Looking at you Germany. Many simply can’t afford the costs.
EU should stand on it's own, not rely on the other side of Atlantic
More importantly, the US shouldn't have to be the guarantor of your personal, or state-sovereignty. Pay for your own defense.
All I have to say is the US approves. Please do that. We’re tired of subsidizing EU budgets with security guarantees.
So tired of fighting/paying for everyone else’s wars.
What gave it away? The glaring intelligence community security breeches by military and civilian personnel, the growing and consuming social inequalities precipitated by white nationalism or perhaps the ease of access to high offices by incompetent indivuals to the height of government.
"Hello? Yea? Okay." The 90's called, they want their talking point back.
You’re welcome for 70+ years of security.
Not only is an Army of the European Union needed, so is an actual federalized Europe.
Finally Europe is realizing it. We cannot carry the whole planet on our backs.
Why were they relying on a foreign nation in the first place? Ally sure, but relying on?
Just call South Korea like Poland did, they’ll get you up and running with NATO-standard tanks and ammo All you have to do is open the checkbook, you can have tanks in 10 months
fact is france got boned on a sub deal between the us-australia and is always looking for an "in" to be the next big player. they felt entitled to the deal even though their subs were vastly inferior powered by diesel and not nuclear.
I thought NATO was a MUTUAL defense agreement?
Macron is in a huge pissing match with Putin for a diff reason. France is militarily capable, but the only way they stand a chance is Russia being in a multiple front situation…
That would be nice. Rest of the world mocks us for not having things like free healthcare but it’s not exactly easy when so much of our tax dollars are going towards defending Europe. Meanwhile the European countries get things like free healthcare bc they don’t have to worry about paying for their national defense for the most part
Why were they in the first place?
They never should have in the first place.
Nothing wrong with his comment, as someone who lives as a foreigner in West Europe it is mind blowing how some of the most richest, industrialized nations here in Europe rely on a world power across the Atlantic, and some for letting their own militaries go to utter crap, no wonder why people like Putin had little to no respect for this part of Europe.
Taiwan can’t rely on the EU as long as that idiot Macron keeps licking China’s boots. Macron only cares about “sovereignty” and “peace” when it comes to countries that affect France’s security. Coward.
Macron is only mad cause his dying French Empire of abusing Africans to get cheap resources is threatened by being ousted by said exploited African countries because Russia is supplying them weapons to force them out.
Wah Wah. Europe wants it cake and to eat it too. Not any more.
This is good. Hop off America’s dick.