NATO chief says Europe should ‘keep on dreaming’ if it thinks it can defend itself without the US
(www.cnn.com)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 26 Jan 20:43
https://lemmy.world/post/42215079
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 26 Jan 20:43
https://lemmy.world/post/42215079
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has told Europe it should “keep on dreaming” if it thinks it can defend itself without the support of the United States.
“If anyone thinks here again that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming. You can’t. We can’t. We need each other,” Rutte said during an address to the European Parliament in Brussels on Monday.
The NATO chief warned European nations they would need to increase defense spending to 10% if they “really want to do it alone,” adding they would need to build up their own nuclear capability, costing billions of euros.
#world
threaded - newest
This chief is broken, send it to the USA for utilization and elect a new one.
Europe is welcome to try. In fact, I don’t think it is controversial to say it is preferable that they work towards that goal. However, that doesn’t mean he and Trump are incorrect about the EU’s reliance on the US military for defense. It was a decent plan for a long time but now we’re seeing the pitfalls of allowing a single foreign entity to handle most of the continents security. The fact that Trump is a huge piece of shit doesn’t change how much the EU has historically invested in defense.
Of the top 10 countries in military spending per capita (as of 2023), three are European NATO members.
That’s cool but is also a rather useless description of the situation. If you add up the contributions from the top 15 military spenders in NATO (excluding the US) you get about half of what the US spends. The US dominates military spending in Europe no matter how you slice it.
If you want to reduce military reliance on the US, which you unequivocally should do, it will require either significant investments in defense or the acceptance of a significant reduction in military assets and preparedness for the EU as a whole.
Not if you slice it by spending as a percentage of GDP, in which case the US ranks above average among NATO members but does not especially stand out. Of total NATO military spending, about two thirds comes from the US mainly because of its large productive capacity. Most of the NATO members, especially in eastern and southern Europe, are simply not very rich countries. Indeed, those three I mentioned are all rich Nordic countries (the top 10 is rounded out by Israel and Gulf states).
It’s a fiction that European NATO members spend little and rely only on the US for defence. None but the US itself could realistically oppose a coalition of non-US NATO members. This is precisely why increased spending is necessary, to hedge against the uncertainty of an increasingly erratic and authoritarian US.
France and the UK would likely beg to differ, but we’re probably not nuking anyone unless either of us is specifically at risk
France and Poland could put up a fight I don’t think the UK really can, at least not a distant fight
France have an already active military doctrine involving some mini-nuke launch in case of someone crossing the line. It’s the step before the total annihilation launches…
Perhaps you didn’t notice. The UK and France and pretty much everyone else is specifically at risk.
Another trump boot licker.
Rutte is an artist at that, but to be fair that is his job. “The Germans down and Americans in” I believe was the expression.
I think its the taint
Defend from who?
Russia (military budget of 145.9B) can barely invade Ukraine (miltary budget of 28.4B), meanwhile any 2 out of Germany (86B), UK (81B) & France (64B) can match Russia without even counting the rest of Europe.
The combined spend of just DE, UK & FR (231B) is inline with China’s (235B), again without the rest of Europe that has Italy (35B), Poland (28.4B), Netherlands (23.4B), Spain (19.4B), Sweeden (12B) & Norway (10B) which can more or less match Russian spending (128B) especially if you include Ukraine.
Europe alone basically spends the same amount as Russia & China combined, so unless the proposed attacker is the United States, the idea that European military budgets need to increase is ridiculous!
There is also a lot to be said for smaller better trained forces vs large meat grinders, especially in modern warfare, the scale of grift and job creation in US, Russian & Chinese armies is significantly larger than the equivalent in European armies.
And that’s all ignoring the nukes.
Your comment gives me hope we have a chance to be safe
Trump’s going to be warring on Canada, as soon as he tips from “democracy” into proper dictatorship, using Greenland as a base to seal-off Canada from all EU help ( the REAL reason he “NEEDS” Greenland ).
EU’s … abandoned by the Americas, right then.
Putin, backed by BRICS & his African allies, will be rampaging on the EU.
Now multiply that by NO supply of ANYthing from Taiwan, because China’s going to be rampaging it while the West is … occupied …
The predictions about Russia’s capability were grossly-wrong.
I’m betting that the predictions about convention/status-quo continuing also are grossly-wrong.
Regional-consolidation begins soon.
It’ll take less than a decade.
The West chose to outsource all its key viability-capabilities ( Canada has zero chip-making capability, EU … same? )
AFTER regional-consolidation, then region-against-region WAR will begin, in the 2030’s.
_ /\ _
Now you are getting it
Your analysis ignores the concept of purchasing power parity (ppp). I linked a SIPRI faq page below, #12 explains the concept of ppp as it relates to military spending pretty well. The second link I provided shows 2024 global military spend figures that account for ppp.
TLDR: your analysis underestimates European military spend compared to the US but vastly overestimates European military spend compared to Russia or China.
https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex/frequently-asked-questions#PPP
https://militaryppp.com/blog/
Even with those numbers, Europe can match Russia (400 < 183 UKR, 97 DE, 91 FR, 85 UK) or even China (570 < UKR,DE,FR,UK,PO 62, IT 61) without factoring in other European countries that spend at least 200B more in that list alone.
So even by those numbers in the only scenario In which Europe is outspent is if China & Russia attack at the same time, and it seems China has little interest in invading anywhere but Taiwan.
I also don’t really buy those numbers given Russian performance in Ukraine and the fact that China uses their military to provide employment I think they overestimated the military strength of both countries.
Additionally I don’t think anywhere else has the extent of pork barrel spending on the military the US does, so I don’t really believe those in numbers are accurate for PPP for European countries.
First two paragraphs, sure. I wasnt disagreeing with your conclusions, just pointing out that your analysis was flawed. I share your opinion that Europe is unlikely to be credibly militarily threatened by the US, CN, RU, or even CN+RU. I do think china is significantly closer to being a credible threat than your analysis indicates. Historically, how many expansionist empires have decided they had enough territory on their own?
As far as disagreeing with SIPRI figures… they have been the global academic authority on defense economics for almost 60 years. You are welcome to disagree with them based on vibes but there’s really no more to discuss if you don’t have a reputable source of evidence to back your opinion.
This last paragraph is entirely vibes based on my end, so don’t give it more credit than the opinion of some rando on the fediverse. I don’t know that I’d count on Ukraine to be ride or die with Europe in the future. The rest of Europe certainly has not acted in a way to engender that level of mutual defense with Ukraine in the past 12 years. Maybe the Baltic states have, but the larger European economies have spent 12 years appeasing their gas station dictator rather than fully supporting Ukraine. They are saints beyond what the EU deserves if they do fully commit to the EU defensive bloc in the future.
EXCELLENT resources you linked-to, thank you!
( :
_ /\ _
Now do the US since they’re likely going to be the ones at the front of the attack on the EU.
That’s the point he’s making. Just subtly. As not to disturb the very thin skin of the US leader in charge of the world’s largest active military with bases across the world.
If the US wants to invade Europe it can, there is no point in trying to outspend them.
However they struggled to occupy Afghanistan that spends a fraction of the money the US does, I think they’d have trouble holding Europe.
Though to be fair we have a tad less caves and shitty geography to resist the Afghan way.
Afghanistan and Iraq both had governments the US effectively destroyed and replaced with something worse. They then occupied each of those territories for decades.
Neither had infrastructure, roads, or active US military bases that the EU has. Neither are conveniently located near bodies of water where the US has 7 of the 10 aircraft carriers that exist on the planet. Neither were convenient to invade and dispose the government of, but the US is literally batting 1000 on doing that to whatever nation it wants no matter how remote and inhospitable its terrain.
That’s what you should be taking away from Afghanistan. Not that the US occupied it, that they easily fucked it up for generations. Something they’re now doing domestically, and loudly announcing they want to export.
They’re spending the money on American weapons, tech and intel. If you remove America what are you going to spend it on? You have to invest in yourself and that takes time.
THAT is the elegance of Trump’s soon-to-begin war on Canada & the rest of the hated “woke”:
He can simply brick all the Canadian-owned & EU-owned mil-tech from the US!
Calculate how EU’s going to fare THEN, eh?
_ /\ _
Just assume you need one third of the US defense budget. All the rest of that money is just given to contractors for white collar welfare, CEO mansions, private jets, and lobbying for corporate interests. You can do just as well by not being bought by rich dickheads.
Synergy’s the problem:
Synergy for the enemy, not for us.
Once Trump has used The Insurrection Act to enforce his insurrection against the US Constitution, giving him totalitarian dictatorship,
THEN he de-naturalizes all non-Republicans, suddenly turning 100’s of millions into “illegals”, & ICE’s REAL purpose suddenly is born,
AND he annexes Canada, to enforce his continental-kingdom, using Greenland as a base to snuff Canada’s EU-Lifeline.
Putin’s war-machine is in dire economic straights, though!
Ah, but China will make Putin an offer he can’t refuse:
Putin gets to play “Tzar”, rampaging on Europe all he can, using all the scrounged-lives he can get ( POW’s in China’s possession will likely be a river to Russia, then ),
so long as he accepts China’s supplanting Russians throughout Russia’s government ( think “The Mongol Yoke, revised” ).
THEN, suddenly, the equation’s sooo totally-different, that the EU’s under DIRE existential-threat:
NO help, NO trade, from ANYbody outside the region, economy gutted, having to react 10x as quickly as EU-beaurocracy tolerates, & being butchered exactly as Zelenskiy warned, again & again.
From what I can see, it’ll be 2nd-half of Feb when Trump finally claims his totalitarian kingdom, & begins his PURGE, that the Republicans have been planning openly for years ( their … whatever it was, “Red Tide” or something? their revision of Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, was news, a few years ago … it wasn’t Project 2025, & it was related to “Red Caesarism” of the Republicans, but it was a specific highjack-the-country plan that had “red” in its name, sometime during the time since covid )
Anyways, the “playing board” that we’re currently seeing, ISN’T the one we’re going to be in, shortly.
Punctuation between Equilibriums!
This, current, equilibrium, is finished, now.
Prep.
_ /\ _
Exactly the sentiment that was asserted against Ukraina, when Russia looked to be steamrolling it imminently.
They’ve stood.
The portion of NATO that Trump & Putin will be warring against will stand, too.
Shouldn’t be long, now, before the unmasking happens.
_ /\ _
I’ve got a compromise, Rutte: How about I keep dreaming about the EU defending itself without the US?
Rutte does not represent a country so he can go lick boots while at the same time doing something entirely different. It’s not an easy position to be in, but I can see the strategy.
Billions of euros is not a big sum for nuclear weapons. If others ask politely, maybe France or the UK will give a few tips about making them cheaper. Sweden may also have some recipes in the bottom drawer of canceled stuff. Ukraine does very likely possess most of the required knowledge to recreate Soviet designs.
He’s pulling this number from his ass. When the contracts are signed, infrastructure and factories are built, stronger alliances are formed, that number doesnt have to be nearly as big. It’s only because we are catching up that it’s expensive now.
Rutte’s only purpose here is to be a boot licker for Trump so he can remain on a level head with Trump when the next international temper tantrum hits, dont forget that.
So stop making everyone have to…ya fucks.
Just spend money in military without paying extra for CEOs to have 50 yachts and you’ll be good to go.
Against who, Russia?
Russia is 3 years into a 2-day war against a non-nuclear power that’s drafting women and old men, and it still barely holds it’s own. If Europe put a quarter of it’s existing force on the ground in Eastern Ukraine, Russia would be running home with it’s tail tucked, or be lobbing nukes to save their asses.
What a fucking bullshit artist. What’s in it for him to spread this narrative?
Ukraina is holding-its-own ONLY because of the ocean-of-resources WE are pouring into Ukraina.
Trump’s decapitating representative-republic from the US of A, next month, & acting on his already repeatedly-declared intent to coerce Canada into being his possession, using Greenland to snuff our EU-lifeline.
With China making Putin, currently economically nearly-helpless, except for all the African gold he’s gaining, through his “Africa Corps” ( former Wagner ), with China making Putin an offer he cannot refuse, as soon as Trump declares his annexation of Canada:
Puting can rampage on Europe all he wants, using all the lives he can scrounge, so long as he accommodates China’s supplanting Russia, throughout Russia’s government.
( the “revised edition” of The Mongol Yoke, from Russian-people’s perspective )
Since Putin only cares about himself, & he’s got NO alternative, that’s a DONE deal.
So, then Europe’s on its own, against the combined-might of Russia’s military-economy AND China’s economic-force & authoritarian-gov’t…
Totally different equation.
Further, launching nukes means BOTH sides get some nuclear-incineration, & massive nuclear-poisoning.
Putin’s got less to lose: slamming Europe with nukes would suit him fine, right?
Europe, wanting to NOT have the world turned into a few glassed-cities with nuclear-poison all over the place ( no, 500 nukes couldn’t destroy the planet’s life, completely, not by a long-shot: they’d be used clustered, on high-value-targets ), is hobbled in a way that Putin isn’t.
& that means that the war’s going to be conventional, as long as the EU can prevent nukes from getting played.
_ /\ _
More nukes? The UK and France have over 500 between them. That’s more than enough to destroy the planet.
Same as Ukraina could “keep on dreaming” about withstanding Russia’s vile brunt?
Trump’s “NEED” for Greenland is so that he can ENFORCE his annexation of Canada, using it as a base to snuff Canada’s EU-lifeline, for his continental-kingdom, after he uses the Insurrection Act to enforce his insurrection against the US Constitution:
US-led NATO is done.
The regional-consolidation stage of WW3 is nearly begun.
Looks like 2nd-half of Feb, to me…
Prep.
_ /\ _
Rutte was such a bad hire for his current role.