Why can't Europe defend itself?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

And you Europeans are different how again?

[gaelic cowboy]

And you Europeans are different how again?

What????????

Ah I get it you think because the US is the preeminent power in NATO this somehow means Europe cannot defend itself. Don't be silly America has global interests therefore it has a bigger military. It does not make a bit of sense either politically or militarily for Europe to try to match the US we have no threats here to our security.

[Vladimir]

*sigh*

If you can't fight with your friends, who can you fight with?

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Warman: Not terribly different no. Just that much more eager to pursue economic/diplomatic alternatives, where the USA is more willing to do the Scrapheap Challenge. Which means nothing in terms of can Europe defends itself (it can) and by extension means that our usual working methods do not require to spend that much on an army. Also, it might help to understand that Europe i comprised of some truly independent nations with their own foreign policy, military, economy etc. as opposed to the semi-autonomous regions that the S in USA stand for.

Oh by the way when it comes to finance, it's the USA which owes Europe a lot of money rather than the reverse -- mainly because a lot of the European debt is to other European creditors (prime example of that being Italy). I.e. as it stands it is the USA living off European (and Chinese and Japanese) credit. USA have been doing this since your beloved Reagan came to power, btw.

[Brenus]

“French was supplying the Murderers. Check out the Worse then War book, might learn something.” Absolute crap. The French did supply machete?
So learn something before to put something on writing and it is double-check your info and sources.
There is no one shade of proof of this allegation but it still going I can see.

“Where was Europe's strong handing when the Balkan wars broke out? Took many years before anything remotely got done.” They were trying, some of them, to prevent an Ethnic Cleansing and the resurgence of Nationalism.
They failed, and the US supported the plan dividing lands following ethnicities and encouraged ethic cleansing… Well done.

“When Geogria got invaded in 2008, All the European nations complained”
Except of course that Georgia was not invaded but started the aggression in shelling Refugees Camps.

“Took many years before anything remotely got done.” Agree. At least the Russian stop the Georgian President to play his little Tudjman…

I think that was the reason why NATO bombed the Serbs because it was what they were doing against the Albanian from Kosovo…
So what is good for US is not for Russia?

[Vladimir]

What? So nothing on my European hardbut penetrator?

[gaelic cowboy]

What? So nothing on my European hardbut penetrator?

I thought twas an april fool or summit I mean Hardbut come on

[PanzerJaeger]

I cannot believe this thread has had legs...

A more serious question would be: 'Should European nations have more force projection capabilities?', which is highly debatable.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I cannot believe this thread has had legs...

A more serious question would be: 'Should European nations have more force projection capabilities?', which is highly debatable.

Much of Europe should scale back its defense spending. 1.5 percent should suffice, with possible exceptions for France and the UK, who need to project power globally for reasons of prestige.

Everything above 1 / 1.5 % is strategic waste. There is no short term need for more. For Europe's midterm safety, the money was better spend on maternity leave, or education, or healthcare, or the environment. For Europe's long term safety, well, we gave up on thinking like that ages ago.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What? So nothing on my European hardbut penetrator?

Excellent. The product of close Franco-British-Italian cooperation. Which to me is the way forward for European defense, especially for the two main spenders France and Britain.

There will be massive defense cuts ahead. (Yes, Furunculus, your Conservatives will cut back on defense despite theit election platform). There are also massive efficiency benefits to be had from closer cooperation. Defense budgets can be scaled back ten, twenty percent with relative ease while still maintaining the same operational prowess.

[Beskar]

Yes, Furunculus, your Conservatives will cut back on defense despite theit election platform.

That was sad, looking back at it. I remember you and Furunculus arguing pre-election over this, and Furunculus was sure that Conservatives would increase spending, and he attacked Labour, while you had all these figures, etc, saying Labour was expanding the military.

He might as well have elected me.

[Furunculus]

That was sad, looking back at it. I remember you and Furunculus arguing pre-election over this, and Furunculus was sure that Conservatives would increase spending, and he attacked Labour, while you had all these figures, etc, saying Labour was expanding the military.

He might as well have elected me.

i believe i very clearly argued that the cons were as bad as labour when it came to funding, on the grounds that:
> labour is happy to splash the cash, but dislike the armed forces
> conservatives like to think of themselves as strong on defence, but are tight with the cash

the defence reasons as to why i wanted the Cons to win were:
> labour have wrecked the forces by failing to fund their stated strategic ambitions in the first place, and then reducing funds at the same time as keeping the forces operating at a tempo above planning assumptions
> todays budget, as likely from either party, will require specialisation, and limitation, to what power projection we will do in future, for without this then what remains will not be strategic in effect, and i prefer the Con's maritime sympathies
> the only mechanism we have for punishing the politicians that have failed the forces so visibly is to kick the rascals out, to fail to do so is tacit acceptance of their actions in office, and that would be unnacceptable.

[PanzerJaeger]

Excellent. The product of close Franco-British-Italian cooperation. Which to me is the way forward for European defense, especially for the two main spenders France and Britain.

You can't forget Germany, as much as you'd like to.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You can't forget Germany, as much as you'd like to.

They can, even though they probably want to involve Germany for the cash & industry anyways. Germany is extremely unwilling to use its army, even more so than the Netherlands.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You can't forget Germany, as much as you'd like to.

Hey! I didn't forget Germany! I merely happily played along withmaintaining a modest, low-key image of German defense initiatives.

Germany holds no direct shares in MBDA, the manufacturer. German industry and research are however involved.

This suits everybody. The missiles are German quality, yet carry the mark 'Made in France / UK'. Evil dictators must buy missiles from Paris (/London), not Berlin. Which has the double positive consequence of: a)boasting France's sense of self esteem and foreign importance, and b) diminishing German involvement in the art of murder and destruction, which for historical reasons Germany is a bit wary of.

Bless European co-operation! As usual, everybody wins.

[Furunculus]

There will be massive defense cuts ahead. (Yes, Furunculus, your Conservatives will cut back on defense despite theit election platform). There are also massive efficiency benefits to be had from closer cooperation. Defense budgets can be scaled back ten, twenty percent with relative ease while still maintaining the same operational prowess.

i know, i have been reading about it non-stop for the last years. i am also happy to see britain cooperate with france, this should not come as a surprise to you, as my objection lies to delegated sovereignty (as opposed to pooled sovereignty), and i have often noted that france is the only other nation in europe with both a powerful military and a desire to use it.

before you start throwing figures around on what budget the armed forces can sustain their capabilities upon you ought to realise that bernard grays report that just meeting labours unfunded defence acquisition plan over the next decade is in reality a 10% budget cut, and that stuffing the trident acquisition costs into the defence budget represents a 2% cut, and rusi were quite clear that a cut larger than 17% would prevent even a much more limited ability for strategic power projection rather than mini-US broad-spectrum power projection we are supposed to be able to do now. this limits actual treasury cuts in the budget to 5%!