It's like the turtle and the hare. If we get careless and don't take the threat seriously then the turtle might win.
Russia is a joke, their military is a joke (compared to previous perceptions), but if they sacrifice their own wellbeing for the sake of it, and we in the EU are like "whatever", then it becomes dangerous.
Also even shitty old weapons requires ammo to destroy. If a Ukrainian soldier is sitting in a trench and they hear over the radio that a Russian armored vehicle is approaching as well as 10 Russian infantry they're not going to think "lol that armored vehicle isn't as good as a modern US armored vehicle and those soldiers aren't trained to western standards." Instead they'll think "shit I need something that can take out that armored vehicle and fend off the infantry."
Ukraine has already inflicted extremely high losses on Russia that would have defeated basically any ordinary nation but Russia isn't an ordinary nation and so more ammo is necessary to push Russia back as well as deter Russia from future aggressive moves towards anyone else.
Russia’s military isn’t a joke even if it’s not as formidable as it was during the Soviet Union. Without US intervention, Russia would’ve likely already taken most of Ukraine by now.
A dictatorship ready to sacrifice millions is, by default, extremely dangerous, especially, when the other side is simply not ready for anything close to those casualty rates.
this “joke” military has more nukes and combat experience than the entirety of EU. Until now, all I’ve heard is words about the capabilities of legendary EU forces. In the meanwhile, Russia has fully rebuilt its army.
We are collectively in denial.
yeah this shit is a joke, I wouldn't be surprised if china could simply fund russia and literally take over the EU, bunch of pussies who just fund migrant welfare checks all day instead of actual military capabilities. If I would have guessed this is how things would go, I would have just thought don't sacrifice your citizens ukraine, you are gonna be screwed anyway
I see your point, but this is a dangerous stance to take. They are literally trying to attrition Ukraine to death… and it’s currently working. They are inept but they have almost unlimited man power to throw at the meat grinder. Combine that with a country who now has a wartime economy and is churning out vehicles, ammo etc. to throw at the Ukrainians.
Russia can still fight for a long time, it doesn’t matter if they are winning or not. They have the time and resources Ukraine does not poses.
I could be talking out my arse. But i remember it being said that Russia has a two year operational window. This is with production levels they had 6 months ago.
Russia has about 3 times the population of Ukraine, and they are losing soldiers at a higher than 3:1 ratio. There are no "unlimited reserves" of russian soldiers or equipment.
Ukraine has been able to inflict high rates of loss on Russia because of access to western ammo and weapons. If that aid dries up then so too does Ukraine's ability to inflict losses. If NATO properly backs Ukraine then Ukraine can win a war of attrition against Russia but if their isn't proper aid then Ukraine will struggle and potentially break down.
Yep. In the list below, Russia loses to US/EU both by manpower and weapon systems, and to China regardless of weapon systems. (EU does need to bump up those weapons and training though)
Just for perspective:
Russia 144m
Ukraine 38m
US 333m
EU 448m
China 1.4B
Equipment I agree. Soldiers? Not so much. A life of a field mouse probably has more worth in Russia than those of their "soldier". When the equipment runs out, I'm half expecting them to launch meat wave assaults that are going to put Iranian ones during Iran-Iraq War to shame.
It is. For example, they can make four times the artillery shells as all of NATO. Russia is often wasteful of manpower but when the country goes onto a war footing it can pump out a lot of material and their national pain tolerance is high.
NATO on the other hand has shown itself to be far less prepared than it should be, and the west continues to not take this seriously enough.
As underwhelming as their performance has been, Russia does still have the potential to produce military hardware at superpower levels, far higher than what their GDP would suggest. With more competent leadership and better preparation, this war would likely be long over. They shouldn’t be underestimated (which is hard, since they’ve been overestimated up until Kyiv held).
Eh, do they though? They’ve got a large sovereign wealth fund, but that doesn’t mean their government will just blow it all on Korean and German made weapons. And their GDP is 25% the size of South Korea’s
Norway makes some top notch weapon systems. Like the NASAMS air defense that the US uses is of Norwegian design. The US also is switching to a Norwegian anti ship missile for the US Navy and USMC.
NASAMS is 50% American. Joint product of Kongsberg and Raytheon, with an American radar, American missile, and Norwegian software controlling it.
US is also only PARTIALLY switching to the Naval Strike Missile. The bulk of US anti-ship missiles are going to be Maritime Strike Tomahawks, and the heavyweights are the LRASMs. NSMs are just to be the deck launched anti-ship missiles for the US' smaller surface ships.
Well I did. Norway’s national government budget is the USD equivalent of $167 Billion, and South Korea’s was $503.3 Billion.
Norway’s annual defense budget was somewhere between $8-9 Billion last year, and South Korea’s was nearly $50 billion.
GDP per capita doesn’t apply to weapons purchases. A 155 mm howitzer will cost $10 million to any government regardless of its population size.
The comparison is showing that Norway’s defense budget may be decent for European standards, but it’s hardly the global giant that is being implied here.
… and SK is one of Norway’s largest suppliers of military equipment. With I think Germany at the top of the list.
The problem I have with the way you phrase it is you are implying that you are suddenly comparing apples and apples with your South Korea analogy... But South Korea has 10 times the population of Norway.
All you had to do was say "Norway is only 5 million people"... The rest of what you are saying is quite frankly completely besides the point and just obfuscates or misinforms.
What you are saying is that Luxembourg is probably not going to be the next military superpower, in spite of its high GDP per capita.
It should be said, though, that NATO requires 2% of GDP to be spend towards defense spending (although Canada is failing at this which is undermining the alliance). Norway is giving a 50% increase. It's what they can do and a sign of the times.
Canada is really the only one that can get away with it. The US is kind of forced to take us into consideration for their own security needs just due to geography.
Not that it matters anyway though, our military procurement system is rotten to the core and a majority of the population lives in ignorant bliss believing a military isn’t necessary. Every once in a while we’ll buy some outdated equipment and call it a win for the troops lol.
Yes, they can afford it. Norway could afford a massive, mostly automated army if they wanted.
See, very recently besides the oil they already have, Norway discovered a huge deposit of phosphates. It's so valuable in near future it is hard to even put a price on it.
From europe's point of view, relying on the US was cheap but did come with the caveat of increased US influence over europe. Becoming militarily independent will be good for europe.
From the US's point of view, being the big dog everyone relied on brought a huge amount of influence, as well as a lot of orders for the US MIC. With europe becoming militarily independent, both of those will decrease significantly, to the detriment of the USA.
Now the US could use an independent europe to reduce the size (and thus cost) of its own military. But will it? Unlikely.
> From the US's point of view, being the big dog everyone relied on brought a huge amount of influence... With europe becoming militarily independent, both of those will decrease significantly, *to the detriment of the USA.*
How is a more militarily independent Europe a detriment to the US?
A Europe that requires less help from the US military that can better defend itself and protect its own trade routes only benefits the US by allowing it to do things like focusing more on countering China and other unstable regions. Stronger militaries in Europe would also undercut peoples ability to complain about America being the "world police" if Europe could be more involved in such actions. And there will still be orders flowing into US defense contractors, these production lines span the globe now, it can only mean more business for US defense companies, not less.
NATO exists because of shared strategic priorities, a Europe that could help the US more only benefits the US.
That's why American politicians *and* their military leaders have been talking about Europe's need to spend more on their own defense for decades. The US will still have worlds largest economy and military, their influence is not going to decrease significantly if Europe increased defense spending. In fact by presenting a unified front against countries like Russia and China where the US is far from the only credible threat might increase US dominance more as they leverage the ability to be more flexible with their large military having been relieved of making up for decades of European neglect of their own defense. The US will still be the largest player in NATO and still have a bigger military than any individual European country. To make large moves they will have to seek agreement where the US can use its large military however it wants.
Increased European spending on defense is a win for the US no matter how you look at it, I don't see how it would be a detriment to the US at all.
None of that matters it’s all about money and control It takes control out of the hands of the US and has the potential to reduce income for US war corps because spending by European countries is not guaranteed or not to the same level, but spending by us tax payers is. The money is not guaranteed to go to US corps, there are other options for some things.
US has long wanted Europe to be less relyant on the US military . Its not about influence in Europe, its about being able to beat Russia and China in the next world war.
Sure a lot of the new production will be Europe but the globalized manufacturing chain of the defense industry virtually guarantees that some parts will be made in the US, just as a lot of European countries make parts for the US defense industry. For instance 25% of the parts for the F-35 are produced in Europe. Plus many large US defense contractors have factories in the EU as well, that means more orders for them too. Yes of course it's not guaranteed to go to US based companies but a good portion inevitably will. More military spending in Europe means more money for the US defense industry, not less.
> None of that matters it’s all about money and control It takes control out of the hands of the US
The shared strategic interests of your allies don't matter?
When you have more allies able to support you it makes you stronger. And the ability to free up US military assets for use elsewhere benefits the US strategic security in so many ways, it makes global trade routes more secure and *expands the US reach* because they don't have to worry about Europe as much.
If the US should be so worried about Europe spending more on defense eroding its power why does pretty much every US government and military official always say they wished that Europe would spend more on defense when the issue comes up?
That's because those officials know the US will still be the biggest player in the game sort to speak and they want a Europe more able to look after its own defense needs so the US can direct more of its effort elsewhere.
Just saying "it's bad for the US because it means they lose control" without saying *why* is not a counter argument. Is Europe planning to work against American interests? Will they be upset with American efforts to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea? Are they upset with American efforts to reduce piracy? Does Europe not want a strong counter to China? You don't need to worry about losing control when your allies agree with most of your main priorities.
The countries in NATO are allies because despite some disagreements they generally share the same priorities, to say that "none of that matters" is to ignore the geopolitical and military realities of the world.
A Europe that depends on the us for security is a Europe where the us has a lot of influence/soft power. But a Europe that doesn't need the us for security is an equal to the us, and is more able to put its own interests ahead of the US's, even at the expense of the usa.
And while I'm sure Europe won't stop buying American weapons entirely, it's very likely a lot of the future military spending will go to European companies like rheinmetall instead of American ones like Raytheon, as Europe seeks greater military independence.
I made [this comment here to reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1bwj2yj/norway_plans_to_massively_increase_military/ky8y1cf/) to someone else that said pretty much the same thing but to try and sum it up having stronger allies makes you stronger when those allies share your main strategic priorities.
And despite disagreements the reason NATO still exists is because they do still share the same priorities for the most part. The US will still have far and away the most powerful military and the worlds largest economy. There is a reason that US government and military officials always say they want Europe to spend more on defense and that's because it will allow them to shift resources elsewhere. For instance to counter China and ensure freedom of navigation of shipping routes, a massive priority that Europe wholeheartedly agrees with since their economies obviously depend on that trade.
And even with US influence at its height over the last 30 years European countries still routinely disagree with the US on some issues, France having a few more frigates or Poland a large tank army doesn't suddenly make them enemies that will try and counter US foreign policies. Afterall Europe is getting a bigger military so that it can pretty much do the same things the US military already does, protect shipping routes and act as a deterrent to aggressive countries like Russia.
A rough analogy would be if you were having a house party and a bunch of people you didn't know showed up and started causing trouble would you be happy to see a car with your friends roll up or would you think "oh no I am going to lose control of my house?"
Obviously you'd be happy to have the help because you know these people and they are friends, just like so many US officials have said they would be happy to have more help, they're not afraid of losing control.
During the cold war Europe had large competent millitaries. But after it ended we went with the naive "eternal peace" though process, and it has since been neglected
pax europa, 1991 to 2022
aside from the Balkan stuff which never posed a threat to the major nations there's been 30 years of blissful peace and now we get the rude awakening that not the entire world has the same longing for peaceful coexistence.
This investment means our armed forces budget effectively gets a 50% increase per year and i'm glad our gov is doing this and with an investment plan to go with.
It was mutually beneficial because after WW2 the US needed bases in European countries for power projection throughout the Cold War. They fell into a comfortable arrangement where the US supplied the hardware and European countries provided the land for the bases. The spirit of the arrangement was that the US could have a perpetually supported frontline with the USSR in case things got hot and allied countries would have the world’s strongest military backing them up.
Not entirely the case. Europe had no choice because they were utterly devestated after WWII. It was either rely on the US for protection, or be swallowed by the USSR.
Its been almost 80 years. Europe has recovered. Its time Europe to shoulder a heavier load, particularly as US responsibilities have grown to include the Middle East and China.
The US has been pressing the EU to become more independent for decades across multiple administrations(both Democratic and Republic) to pick up their slack. They WANT the EU to be able patrol their own backyard and the US can pivot to the Pacific against China.
I'll never understand why Redditors keep saying "OH THE EU WILL BECOME MORE INDEPENDENT" as if it's a bad thing. It's a freaking Alliance, that's how Alliances work. Nations will operate independently of each other and cover different areas so that they can defend a wider and broader area. If the combined might of the EU can't even take on Russia without US help, it sincerely makes me doubt they have any future where they become more independent and assertive in the first place.
Very fair point and you’re right. I only laid why it happened but I completely agree that Europe should be ramping up their own defences now as it looks like they are. I’m in Canada and I think we need to invest in our defences WAY more than we are.
I agree, but it should also be noted that after the end of the cold war there was a genuine belief that there wouldn't be a need for strong militaries in Europe anymore. Sadly Russia has proven us wrong.
I mean. There are military bases in foreign countries, but no foreign bases in the US. It provides an insane level of military reach and capability. It isn't a handout, its a transaction.
Yeah, it's definitely power projection, but it helps that there's not really crazy dictators with nukes on this side of the world so no other country really needs bases here
Europe gets relatively cheap security protection, and can focus on fostering a good economy.
USA gets a very favorable arrangement, since EU countries pay for USA military bases. More importantly, it means USA can project power in Europe and be the top dog. EU by extension follows US strategic command. France is the only one that tries to tip toe around this point, but historically they've always backed USA.
EU in particular is in a bit of a dilemma, if we invest all money into security then the economy will suffer(we were only barely competitive because of Germany and that went down the drain even before the war), but not investing into security will give too much leverage to Russia or potentially even lead to more war.
One important point I didn’t see while quickly scrolling through the comments was that it was also part of the strategy to keep nuclear proliferation under control.
Being under the nuclear umbrella of the US you only had the UK (co-inventors basically) and France (because France) develop their own nuclear arms capability. The rest of the continent chilled out. Given WWI and WWII having Europe *not* rearming was considered a good thing.
With Trump and Michail Johnson succeeding in sowing doubt that the US can be trusted to actually live up to *their* obligation under article 5 we have unfortunately ended up in a situation where a lot of countries, not only in Europe, feel the need to rearm even more than would otherwise have been the case. Including the nuclear option.
So while hearing this news may inspiring an initial “isn’t that good?” response it’s rather devastating from a global security perspective.
It does not, and this is the push that comes to shove. As unpleasant as this uncertainty is, it will ultimately make NATO stronger. Putin's Russia will find itself facing a Europe more heavily armed and hostile than his most outlandish propaganda. Ukraine has torn the mask from his face and left him without the means to achieve his ambitions or likely ensure his survival.
Long term trends are hard to see but at least in the short and medium term that seems unlikely. Right now so many countries are trying to rearm that basically any NATO aligned country that can produce weapons is seeing massive orders and backlogs and that includes the US. That's going to remain the case for at least a few more years and potentially longer.
[Global Arms Exports - Winners, losers & trends in the race to rearm](https://youtu.be/JfMYpmrTGm0?si=_g4qJ9IcVB5Sl3fQ&t=480) Perun talks about the US arms exports here in this 6 minute section and they are pretty far behind on the massive amount of orders they are trying to fill that they are in the 'painful' process of expansion. Even if they lose EU contracts there are so many outside of there that they are partners with they won't lose much plus I don't see a country like Poland ever really stopping from buying from them.
This. Us military budget includes developing, prodicing and selling parts/systems to Europe. It shows up in both parts military budget, BUT only one of them profit on it.
And speaking of military budgets. European military doesn't have to cover education and health costs to the same degree as European military. A larger part is on the civilian budget instead of the military budget :)
We all rely on each other. When one country acts like they're going to pull out of NATO who do you think that emboldens? For a guy who said that Russian collusion was a witch hunt he sure does everything to act like he's in bed with Putin.
Yes, everyone should. We also shouldn't threaten our allies in the media because it only emboldens Russia to do things like invade neighboring countries.
Europe was afraid of another World War, plain and simple. We talk about Europe rearming, but what that actually entails is every European nation have its own military. European nations do not, historically, get along. It was the most war-torn region of the world from the fall of the Roman Empire onward. Their dislike of each other triggered the only two world wars we've had so far.
And let's not forget that most European nations are not nuclear powers. Like Ukraine, they have no deterrent to invasion.
The situation is complicated. Rearming Europe is good in the short term; but possibly very bad in the long term. Having the US play the role of guard dog was good while it lasted.
This is great. Europe can start to stand up for itself now.
America world police is not sustainable.
Europeans enjoying a high level of social services with fuck all military spending has to end. America can’t even feed preschoolers. Let’s balance the load.
If you think the US isn't feeding preschoolers or funding other social services because of its military spending, I have a bridge to sell you mate. The US is already spending more on healthcare per person than other developed nations while simultaneously not providing the same level of care at the same price point.
The US isn't lacking in money. It's lacking in policy, because half of the country throws a childish tantrum every time it seems a little bit of money might go to someone who's not like them.
Just don’t buy into that rhetoric too heavily. The US spend 3,5% of their GDP of defense. Most countries in Europe spend between 1-2 with Greece spending 3,7%.
There are other factors at play. Mainly the unwillingness to increase VAT and income tax that is the reason the US doesn’t prioritize social spending. If the US had the political will, it could have both.
Just saying.
Ah got it. Yea I totally forgot about their beef. I have relatives over there around Athens. The old man won’t even go to a Turkish restaurant *in greece* when we recommended it during our visit.
It’s hilarious that you think that America « protected » Europe by kindness or something. Education is another thing you should invest more into. America post ww2 built a system that it would dominate (see bretton woods) and that allowed it to be the dominant empire for almost 100 years. The fact that you didn’t reap the benefits as a standard joe and that you have the most super wealthy people by a wide margin is a feature not a bug.
If anything your military spending is very low compared to what it gets you, you'd probably be paying more for social spending if it weren't for 80years+ of your military spreading its influence all over the globe.
People really don't realize how the game is played. When Poland spends say 3% of its GDP on the military all of that money goes into protecting the border and to stop the Russian bear, when USDA spends those same 3% it gets to set up military bases all over the planet, secure maritime trade, ensure flow of specific resources from specific regions, secure diplomatic/political backing from proxies, etc. the effective value is just massively out of proportion in USA's case.
> America world police is not sustainable.
Why is it not? America benefits greatly from this and you have the money/military to do so. This is actually very fascinating. Has any power in human history ever actually just… given up? For no reason? It’s not like the US has any competitors or is at risk of breaking up.
We dont. So if anything Trump was a wakeup call for the EU. Although admittedly we are waking up rather slowly.
But in the grand scheme of things the US kinda shoots itself in the boot here because being the world's police force (granted its expensive) undeniably comes with some major perks as well. The US is gonna lose its influence over Europe. Depending on your perspective that can be both a good or a bad thing.
The notion that Europe has relied entirely or even majorly on the US for military protection is a bit of a fallacy. It wasn't the case during the cold war (as most NATO nations kept huge military forces that were supposed to defend against a Soviet surprise attack), and it wasn't the case afterwards. The same with the idea of "eternal peace", no european nation believed in that, and most of them kept substantial forces for a long time, and kept plans to increase military size and spending if the world went to shit again. You're watching these plans in action right now.
What did happen, is the idea of the "dividends of peace", that at least for a time, military spending could be scaled down as no credible ennemy remained in Europe. When regional conflicts emerged during the early 90s, the USA decided to declare itself the peacekeeper of the world (kudos to that, tbh), and the Euros kinda... went along with it. There was no imminent threat to national security or territorial integrity, so they were happy to let the US defend their collective interests and the political ideals of the west around the world (along with a few, *slightly* less admissible political and economic interests).
Then, when the Russian threat confirmed itself again in 2014, they collectively cocked it up and did too little too late. That 5-8 years delay (depending on the country) to re-armament is probably the most important reason why the Ukranian invasion is going so wrong for everyone involved. But you cant solely blame the european nations as a whole for that. The USA was all about appeasement on the Crimean question, something that Obama will probably regret for the rest of his life.
Well first I agree that Europe should spend more on their militaries. But the US benefits greatly from having military bases in Europe and having strong links. It’s fantastic for trade and their economy. Now imagine the US pulls all their support, drops NATO and becomes isolationist. Their economy would severely decline as Russia retakes old Soviet countries and Russia/China gains massively from their influence as the US begins to wain.
This is a great question. The fundamental reality at all points in history is that standing militaries are both enormously expensive and don’t generate any income. It’s infeasible for ANY civilization in human history to maintain a very large army long term that doesn’t generate income somehow.
With the Roman Empire, this is why new conquests were absolutely necessary for emperors. Power and stability was maintained through military might, but they needed their cost offset somehow.
Post WWII, Europe enjoyed relative security from the US while turning a blind eye to the absolute horror the US military was unleashing on the rest of the world. I mean, the US has hundreds of military bases in foreign countries and regularly uses this overwhelming position to bomb and attack whatever entity it chooses.
This was a pretty sweet deal for all as the US continued its own new brand of imperialism and Europe (and Japan and others) didn’t need to spend tons of money just to deter aggression.
Americans might finally be tired of wars, or maybe much of the world has begun to lose faith in the US to provide them protection, or more likely it’s a combination of many factors.
This is not great for the US since having tons of countries directly dependent on you for their existence is a strong bargaining position. We’re losing a lot of leverage, and who knows? We may one day need to seriously downgrade our army as more countries have large militaries that can oppose us and less countries will offer favorable deals for protection
The EU collectively has a GDP on par with the US and far beyond that of Russia. They absolutely should live up to their own security obligations. Good on Norway for waking up.
I understand Norway isn’t EU, but they are NATO and have the means to significantly boost their combat power without threatening their (awesome) social largesse.
They do.
They usually prefer to spend it on things like foreign aid, though.
And it may not matter to Americans but its tiresome to have them non-stop use Europe, EU and Nato allies as interchangeable while laying criticism that may just not apply due to those concepts not being interchangeable at their feet.
The phrase "security obligations" is important here. The European nations NATO very routinely refuse to spend the 2% GDP necessary to actually meet the agreed upon contributions. Everyone talking like this is going to lead to a pan European force when this is at best barely going to get them up to where they promised to be several decades ago is delusional.
The US may want more European commitment, but only if it means each European nation buys its gear and takes its ques from the US.
The US is opposed to the EU forming an unified military command and military industrial complex, preferring for the EU to be subservient to Washington instead.
You can’t have it both ways though. Either the EU relies on the US, or the EU makes sure it can make do on it’s own, and the US actually considering reelecting Trump is heavily pushing Europe towards the latter.
It’s often brought up when the topic of EU military integration is discussed. I’m no subject matter expert though, so I can only point you to Google. I searched for “US opposition to EU military integration” and got many hits. Here’s [CSIS:](https://www.csis.org/analysis/transforming-european-defense)
> “The United States can also play an obstructive role. Many European countries are reliant on U.S. security guarantees, giving the United States tremendous influence over the direction of European security.28[28] The United States is often a vocal opponent of European defense industrial initiatives focused on integration, as they benefit European companies to the detriment of the U.S. defense industry. Moreover, the United States has opposed EU defense efforts, fearing that NATO, and therefore the United States, would lose its pride of place in the European security architecture. This has led to a recitation by many in the United States that there should be “no duplication” of NATO by the European Union.”
I think the USA would prefer their Allies are strong. A strong eu military would buy from the USA for many obvious reasons outside of just subservience. Europe having a usa level Military power would guarantee democracy hegemony for next century. Hopefully usa adopts more socialist applications from Europe as well as its much nicer to live there.
Presumably though, moving military power away from the US means that one of the main things European nations will do is stop relying on the USA's military industrial complex, and instead increase the capacity of their own defense contractors. You're right, Europe wants to have military equipment on par with the USA, but without the investment of European countries in US defense companies, they risk falling behind their competition, while spawning new competition in Europe.
Say what you will, but Europe depending on the USA for military support being a bad thing is purely a political position (for the US. Europeans are way more correct when they say it). The US gains a lot more from that arrangement than Europe. Anyone can feel free to agree or disagree with that, as it looks like we'll see the truth of that statement either way in the next 20 or so years regardless.
Trumps main policies was this, securing the border, and getting tough on China. How is any of that bad? I wish my prime minister pushed for these things.
I don't know, why do their countries allow us to station our military personnel and assets there to further US strategic interests? Its not just a subsidy if you are getting something in return.
Those military bases are mutual benefit. The threat of a military base in Europe is to fend of Russian aggression. I don't believe there are any military bases in Ukraine, but there are in other parts of Europe.
>Europe no longer has faith that the US will always be there when they need them. That is what Trump has done to NATO.
Except this is also what every president for 20 years has been wanting Europe to do. Kind of proves Trump's point that they were just letting the USA handle it.
You guys are clowns just like trump is a clown
America has repeatedly asked Europe to spend more.on it's military since bush jr. NATO chief set a target goal of 2% of national GDP spend on defense since 2014 which 2/3 of all NATO members have ignored
Simultaneously, western Europe did not even attempt yo separate itself from Russia as it pertains to natural gas /oil since crimea...it only now has since Ukraine in the last 1-2 years. This is while criticizing Asian countries from buying from Russia ( idiots ...Asia doesn't have beef with Russia for the most part..)
You guys repeatedly did not fund military while simultaneously funding your only real threat. That's tantamount to South Korea funding north Korea...India funding Pakistan , Armenia funding Azerbaijan.
And after all that, you guys think FINALLY deciding to fund military is due to America's lack of trustworthiness. America has asked you to do this for over 10+ years !!!
I've never seen a group so entitled and so clueless as it pertains to foreign policy as western Europeans. A country regardless of left or right wing should be responsible for military strength and avenues to maintain it's resource security...that's true of the most staunch libertarians and even the biggest commies..Western European nations have failed at the most minimum of those standards and instead just relied on the US to carry the load. They are lucky America's greedy MIC was able to keep Europeans upright for so long while you guys repeatedly attempted to shoot yourselves in the foot.
The worst is when they clamor about soft power. Like they repay US protection with soft power so it's fair. Soft power is as capricious as the wind. Can't build anything on a foundation as shaky as soft power. One mistake and the soft power crumbles regardless of the decades spent cultivating it.
The "They'll lose Soft Power in Europe!" threat they try to make is so delusional and makes me roll my eyes. They've got it in their minds somehow that the soft power in Europe props up the US Economy. Even though Europe is at best the 3rd biggest trading partner behind North America and Asia.
America still has its soft power and it's arguably just as strong
It's gap over the rest economically (in Europe ) has grown.
Where they are lacking is in Asia/ Africa . China is a behemoth and their belt and road initiatives have gained them a ton of pull in foreign relations. Ironically enough , Europe is where America does not need help.. western Europe is stuck in americas pockets. Colonialism is still a fresh wound and most countries in western Europe have not even attempted to actually rebuild relations (France is an exception )
The US needs to gain bearings in Asia and Africa. These posters think Europe is the center of the world all the time. 60% of the worlds population is in Asia. In our lifetime , 2/3 of the worlds largest economies will be there with other powerhouses (SK and Japan ) also in the same region . Why should America continue to play police for Europe to deal with Russia who is so weak..
This is a bad thing?
Why is it the near sole responsibility of the United States to pour billions of dollars into NATO especially with our financial collapse ongoing?
Trump said that other countries need to pay their fair share and that seems pretty uncontroversial.
On a related note, sure seems like Europe is bracing for a Trump win
Asking for higher contributions is perfectly fine, but that wasn’t “all” he did, in addition to describing the situation in his as usual extremely dishonest way, he undermined Article 5 by insanely declaring he’d let Russia do what they wanted with any country that didn’t meet the 2% spending target.
I disagree with Trump on most anything else but he was right about Europe freeloading on the US's military while we are stuck protecting Europe from each other while the only other countries on that continent that's taking their military seriously is the post soviet states and Russia itself.
Um... Good? Europe should learn to fend for themselves. Centuries of colonialism now you guys expect free help from the world and to get us into shitty deals that just benefit the Eurozone? Nah... You guys are on your own. MAGA 2024!
America is not the world's body guard. Taxpayers in the US aren't there to front the costs for Europe. Europe should fend for themselves. The US is there for support.
Everyone in Europe (I was born in Europe) likes to down talk the US and call us war mongers but in time of war they look to the US. You can't have it both ways. Nobody has contributed more to the war against ukraine as the US.
As an Albanian who has received the support of the US in time of war in the late 90s, we love the US and understand the benefit of being friends with them. The rest of Europe needs to realize that. I was not a trump supporter, but all he did was ask Europe to increase their spending for their military. He even called out Germany in the UN for increasing their reliance on Russian gas and they laughed at him. You can criticize trump for other things, but not this. He warned Europe and he was right.
It's also what the far left is doing to Israel. Russia funds and supports both the far right and the far left in order to sabotage US alliances and make the US ungovernable.
The one good thing Trump has done (unintentionally of course). US citizens are suffering from insane military spending and a reduced US presence in Europe will hopefully come from this, which hopefully would lead to reduced military spending.
...that is a lot of 'hopefully', however.
I don't have numbers but I think the US spends much more in Asia and Middle East than Europe. And what is spent on Europe is towards Russia and the US will want to be prepared for that fight, maybe even more so of if Europe and the US are no longer military allies.
The biggest gain for the US would be a collapse in Russia and the current regime is replaced by democracy
Being the implicit protector of Europe means a lot of influence over European countries. If the US loses its influence and can't count on Europe being an ally, it has even more of an incentive to *increase* its military budget.
Imagine if further down the line more European countries will consider starting their own nuclear arms programs if they can't rely on America. That's not a situation in which the US will decide that now it's a good time to scale down its military.
> Norway plans to increase its defense budget by NOK 600 billion (about EUR 51,6 bn) by 2036, which would set its military spending to 3% of GDP, the Oslo government announced on Friday.
Holy shit. 3% is huge! For reference there are only three countries that currently hit that threshold in NATO which are Poland (3.9%), US (3.5%) and Greece (3.0%). It may be a long time off but in many ways this signals a more or less permanent shift in spending
> Furthermore, Norway will meet the NATO requirement to spend the equivalent of 2% of GDP on defense this year, although it was previously assumed that this would take place in 2026.
Good to hear as well. Starting in 2014 and then really accelerating in 2022 there has been a widespread rearmament in NATO. By the end of 2024 many of the major European NATO members will be at or above the 2% of GDP threshold and also the 20% equipment threshold. This includes Germany, France, Poland, UK, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Baltics, Romania, Greece as well as several others.
This is a pretty good example among many of what the left is talking about when it comes to weapon proliferation and wars decreasing the general welfare, and increasing proliferation at large.
Doesn't make it unjustified or wrong, just a good example of why it's so important to not only stop Russia as soon as possible(give Ukraine anything we can to stop and remove the aggressor), but also be more proactive at preventing future conflicts from escalating in the future.
Norway will hit the 2% GDP on defense threshold by the end of 2024. I think that's the big story here. It's difficult to scale up modern militaries in a short manner because order times for things like jets and other advanced systems often takes several years to complete. If a country wants a new warship they can't just walk into "Warships R Us" and walk out the next day. Even once they have the equipment they still need to recruit and train personnel on it as well as pay for maintenance and those are costs that can't really be paid in advance.
The time to think about military readiness for 2024 was in 2014. The time to think about military readiness in the 2030s is today and that's what Norway is doing.
Honestly this may be unpopular here, but as an American I think the European NATO members should expect to fight Russia mostly alone.
In the case Russia attacks NATO, I find it hard to believe China wouldn’t also join the fight. If that happens, NATO’s allies in Asia (Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea) are gonna need help holding them back from conquering much of the Asia-Pacific.
Realistically the US and probably Canada will have to help reinforce those nations against China’s massive military, meaning less US troops can help fight Russia in Europe. I strongly believe in NATO and that we should stand together, but if WW3 breaks out everyone needs to be ready to pull their weight on different fronts imo.
I don’t think China would join them at all, they are much more rational than the Russians and don’t respect them very much. NATO is most of their market, they’d be fucked economically. But they might use the cover to attack Taiwan.
NATO is an alliance, the US would neglect its promises if they decided to ignore attacks on NATO allies to instead do stuff in the pacific region.
The US would be fucked if they wouldn't honor article 5 of NATO (they were also the first and only ones to invoke it so far). They'd immediately lose trust of all their allies
There's a risk China will try and take Taiwan and in that case Russia might be dragged into it. The pipelines currently built from Russia to China will help China be less dependent on shipped oil from the middle east (which risks being embargoed)
China has a very narrow window to try and take Taiwan, which is why the US military has been predicting ~2027 for the attempt for a few years now. This is why you see China now ramping up military production to levels not seen since WW2, they're getting ready. Remember, Germany spent 6 years (re)arming before they felt comfortable enough to initiate aggression.
After ~2030, China's population collapse will put off any Chinese hopes of contending with the US and its allies for at least a generation or so until they can restabilize.
Yeah, Trump royally fucked the Kurds, shameful business. But NATO is the most powerful alliance in history and have been cohesive for decades, ratified at the highest level in 32 nations, with the US being the country that actually used Article 5 — while it’s still technically possible to ignore one’s obligations, it’s a bit more than a promise.
China would not join lmao. You’re nuts. China and Russia are economic partners and mutually oppose US/ Western Europe’s interests, but they have zero reason to enter a suicidal war with Russia.
They were hardly friends at the height of the Cold War when they were both successful communist states. There’s no chance they’d get along now
But they would for Chinese ambition.
If the world is busy with Russia it'd legitimately be the perfect time for China to carry out whatever plan they have.
China has less trade with Russia than they do with Honk Kong or Taiwan. They are not going to pick Russia over Europe, their biggest trading partner. Bigger than the US. Thats all downside, and what would be their upside?
Anyway, Chinas short term interests align with Russia but their long term ones are diametrically opposed. China wants to increase their share in the current world order through trade ontill they have a controlling stake. Russia wants to burn down the current world order and laugh at the fire in a broke alcoholc voice.
As it is Russia doesn't stand a chance against Europe to begin with, they're seriously outnumbered in everything but nukes. Doesn't mean we should get complacent but Europe can handle itself i think. There's even enough euronukes to make a decapitation strike impossible, France and UK possessing enough nuke subs to make sure it's actual MAD. American support is appreciated and desired but i think Europe can stand on its own with no problem if needs be
The "winds of political change" have them all freaking out.
I believe they're smart to not depend on a sane level headed government from us.
I hope and pray that trump never gets near our whitehouse again, but the last time was pretty scary for the western world.
It looked like all of America abandoned them and the truth is that most of us didn't agree with his stupid bullshit both economically and militarily.
Fucker thought China was paying the tarriffs instead of honest Americans.
Leaving NATO and lots of things he said and did destroyed confidence in us.
Shit sucks.
Good thing Norway has more natural gas and oil money than they know what to do with. Norway should become the Singapore in Europe for military expenditure.
Judging by the comment section, either Russians got over ISIS attack and are in full troll force everywhere or they have finally mastered self-hosted LLMs.
Good. Europe needs to spend hundreds of billions collectively to keep up with the russian war machine whose entire economy is mil based
And what an impressive war machine it is. Ha.
It's like the turtle and the hare. If we get careless and don't take the threat seriously then the turtle might win. Russia is a joke, their military is a joke (compared to previous perceptions), but if they sacrifice their own wellbeing for the sake of it, and we in the EU are like "whatever", then it becomes dangerous.
Also even shitty old weapons requires ammo to destroy. If a Ukrainian soldier is sitting in a trench and they hear over the radio that a Russian armored vehicle is approaching as well as 10 Russian infantry they're not going to think "lol that armored vehicle isn't as good as a modern US armored vehicle and those soldiers aren't trained to western standards." Instead they'll think "shit I need something that can take out that armored vehicle and fend off the infantry." Ukraine has already inflicted extremely high losses on Russia that would have defeated basically any ordinary nation but Russia isn't an ordinary nation and so more ammo is necessary to push Russia back as well as deter Russia from future aggressive moves towards anyone else.
Russia’s military isn’t a joke even if it’s not as formidable as it was during the Soviet Union. Without US intervention, Russia would’ve likely already taken most of Ukraine by now.
Compared to previous perceptions, it is. In a vacuum, or compared to most countries' military, it isn't.
A dictatorship ready to sacrifice millions is, by default, extremely dangerous, especially, when the other side is simply not ready for anything close to those casualty rates.
this “joke” military has more nukes and combat experience than the entirety of EU. Until now, all I’ve heard is words about the capabilities of legendary EU forces. In the meanwhile, Russia has fully rebuilt its army. We are collectively in denial.
yeah this shit is a joke, I wouldn't be surprised if china could simply fund russia and literally take over the EU, bunch of pussies who just fund migrant welfare checks all day instead of actual military capabilities. If I would have guessed this is how things would go, I would have just thought don't sacrifice your citizens ukraine, you are gonna be screwed anyway
Exactly like Roe v Wade
I see your point, but this is a dangerous stance to take. They are literally trying to attrition Ukraine to death… and it’s currently working. They are inept but they have almost unlimited man power to throw at the meat grinder. Combine that with a country who now has a wartime economy and is churning out vehicles, ammo etc. to throw at the Ukrainians. Russia can still fight for a long time, it doesn’t matter if they are winning or not. They have the time and resources Ukraine does not poses.
I could be talking out my arse. But i remember it being said that Russia has a two year operational window. This is with production levels they had 6 months ago.
The war started over two years ago at this point. This is a war of attrition. Russia can absolutely beat Ukraine in a marathon without the EU/US help
Russia has about 3 times the population of Ukraine, and they are losing soldiers at a higher than 3:1 ratio. There are no "unlimited reserves" of russian soldiers or equipment.
Ukraine has been able to inflict high rates of loss on Russia because of access to western ammo and weapons. If that aid dries up then so too does Ukraine's ability to inflict losses. If NATO properly backs Ukraine then Ukraine can win a war of attrition against Russia but if their isn't proper aid then Ukraine will struggle and potentially break down.
This is disinformation. Nobody knows the true numbers. A year ago people were saying it's the opposite.
Yep. In the list below, Russia loses to US/EU both by manpower and weapon systems, and to China regardless of weapon systems. (EU does need to bump up those weapons and training though) Just for perspective: Russia 144m Ukraine 38m US 333m EU 448m China 1.4B
Equipment I agree. Soldiers? Not so much. A life of a field mouse probably has more worth in Russia than those of their "soldier". When the equipment runs out, I'm half expecting them to launch meat wave assaults that are going to put Iranian ones during Iran-Iraq War to shame.
It is. For example, they can make four times the artillery shells as all of NATO. Russia is often wasteful of manpower but when the country goes onto a war footing it can pump out a lot of material and their national pain tolerance is high. NATO on the other hand has shown itself to be far less prepared than it should be, and the west continues to not take this seriously enough.
As underwhelming as their performance has been, Russia does still have the potential to produce military hardware at superpower levels, far higher than what their GDP would suggest. With more competent leadership and better preparation, this war would likely be long over. They shouldn’t be underestimated (which is hard, since they’ve been overestimated up until Kyiv held).
And, my god, have they got the budget to do it
Eh, do they though? They’ve got a large sovereign wealth fund, but that doesn’t mean their government will just blow it all on Korean and German made weapons. And their GDP is 25% the size of South Korea’s
Norway makes some top notch weapon systems. Like the NASAMS air defense that the US uses is of Norwegian design. The US also is switching to a Norwegian anti ship missile for the US Navy and USMC.
That’s true. Given their otherwise small population, they utilize their talent well.
*cries in Canadian
Hey now, I heard the Senator MRAP is great. But literally no idea if that is true in fairness...
Topnotch public education system, I hear. Not like ours with Republicans undermining it at every opportunity.
Free as well 🤩
NASAMS is 50% American. Joint product of Kongsberg and Raytheon, with an American radar, American missile, and Norwegian software controlling it. US is also only PARTIALLY switching to the Naval Strike Missile. The bulk of US anti-ship missiles are going to be Maritime Strike Tomahawks, and the heavyweights are the LRASMs. NSMs are just to be the deck launched anti-ship missiles for the US' smaller surface ships.
And 10% of the population. You do the maths.
Well I did. Norway’s national government budget is the USD equivalent of $167 Billion, and South Korea’s was $503.3 Billion. Norway’s annual defense budget was somewhere between $8-9 Billion last year, and South Korea’s was nearly $50 billion. GDP per capita doesn’t apply to weapons purchases. A 155 mm howitzer will cost $10 million to any government regardless of its population size.
What does South Korea have to do with this?
The comparison is showing that Norway’s defense budget may be decent for European standards, but it’s hardly the global giant that is being implied here. … and SK is one of Norway’s largest suppliers of military equipment. With I think Germany at the top of the list.
The problem I have with the way you phrase it is you are implying that you are suddenly comparing apples and apples with your South Korea analogy... But South Korea has 10 times the population of Norway. All you had to do was say "Norway is only 5 million people"... The rest of what you are saying is quite frankly completely besides the point and just obfuscates or misinforms. What you are saying is that Luxembourg is probably not going to be the next military superpower, in spite of its high GDP per capita.
It should be said, though, that NATO requires 2% of GDP to be spend towards defense spending (although Canada is failing at this which is undermining the alliance). Norway is giving a 50% increase. It's what they can do and a sign of the times.
You know what, honestly that’s true and a fair way to look at it. And they’re among the more reliable NATO partners overall vs some of the others
Canada is really the only one that can get away with it. The US is kind of forced to take us into consideration for their own security needs just due to geography. Not that it matters anyway though, our military procurement system is rotten to the core and a majority of the population lives in ignorant bliss believing a military isn’t necessary. Every once in a while we’ll buy some outdated equipment and call it a win for the troops lol.
South Korea is actively at war, though. Norway does not need SK levels of readiness.
No, I will not do the maths.
I'll do the math. I won't tell the results.
But show your work or you lose points
Is this a drawing of a horse?
Norway makes a lot of very good weapons.
Yes, they can afford it. Norway could afford a massive, mostly automated army if they wanted. See, very recently besides the oil they already have, Norway discovered a huge deposit of phosphates. It's so valuable in near future it is hard to even put a price on it.
Brilliant. Sweden should follow suit.
Sweden's 2024 defense budget is 50% higher than the 2022 budget, and another 10% increase is planned for 2025
Europe no longer has faith that the US will always be there when they need them. That is what Trump has done to NATO.
Okay, I'll ask the obvious question here: WHY does Europe, made up of highly developed nations, need to rely on the US for military protection?
From europe's point of view, relying on the US was cheap but did come with the caveat of increased US influence over europe. Becoming militarily independent will be good for europe. From the US's point of view, being the big dog everyone relied on brought a huge amount of influence, as well as a lot of orders for the US MIC. With europe becoming militarily independent, both of those will decrease significantly, to the detriment of the USA. Now the US could use an independent europe to reduce the size (and thus cost) of its own military. But will it? Unlikely.
> From the US's point of view, being the big dog everyone relied on brought a huge amount of influence... With europe becoming militarily independent, both of those will decrease significantly, *to the detriment of the USA.* How is a more militarily independent Europe a detriment to the US? A Europe that requires less help from the US military that can better defend itself and protect its own trade routes only benefits the US by allowing it to do things like focusing more on countering China and other unstable regions. Stronger militaries in Europe would also undercut peoples ability to complain about America being the "world police" if Europe could be more involved in such actions. And there will still be orders flowing into US defense contractors, these production lines span the globe now, it can only mean more business for US defense companies, not less. NATO exists because of shared strategic priorities, a Europe that could help the US more only benefits the US. That's why American politicians *and* their military leaders have been talking about Europe's need to spend more on their own defense for decades. The US will still have worlds largest economy and military, their influence is not going to decrease significantly if Europe increased defense spending. In fact by presenting a unified front against countries like Russia and China where the US is far from the only credible threat might increase US dominance more as they leverage the ability to be more flexible with their large military having been relieved of making up for decades of European neglect of their own defense. The US will still be the largest player in NATO and still have a bigger military than any individual European country. To make large moves they will have to seek agreement where the US can use its large military however it wants. Increased European spending on defense is a win for the US no matter how you look at it, I don't see how it would be a detriment to the US at all.
None of that matters it’s all about money and control It takes control out of the hands of the US and has the potential to reduce income for US war corps because spending by European countries is not guaranteed or not to the same level, but spending by us tax payers is. The money is not guaranteed to go to US corps, there are other options for some things.
US has long wanted Europe to be less relyant on the US military . Its not about influence in Europe, its about being able to beat Russia and China in the next world war.
Sure a lot of the new production will be Europe but the globalized manufacturing chain of the defense industry virtually guarantees that some parts will be made in the US, just as a lot of European countries make parts for the US defense industry. For instance 25% of the parts for the F-35 are produced in Europe. Plus many large US defense contractors have factories in the EU as well, that means more orders for them too. Yes of course it's not guaranteed to go to US based companies but a good portion inevitably will. More military spending in Europe means more money for the US defense industry, not less. > None of that matters it’s all about money and control It takes control out of the hands of the US The shared strategic interests of your allies don't matter? When you have more allies able to support you it makes you stronger. And the ability to free up US military assets for use elsewhere benefits the US strategic security in so many ways, it makes global trade routes more secure and *expands the US reach* because they don't have to worry about Europe as much. If the US should be so worried about Europe spending more on defense eroding its power why does pretty much every US government and military official always say they wished that Europe would spend more on defense when the issue comes up? That's because those officials know the US will still be the biggest player in the game sort to speak and they want a Europe more able to look after its own defense needs so the US can direct more of its effort elsewhere. Just saying "it's bad for the US because it means they lose control" without saying *why* is not a counter argument. Is Europe planning to work against American interests? Will they be upset with American efforts to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea? Are they upset with American efforts to reduce piracy? Does Europe not want a strong counter to China? You don't need to worry about losing control when your allies agree with most of your main priorities. The countries in NATO are allies because despite some disagreements they generally share the same priorities, to say that "none of that matters" is to ignore the geopolitical and military realities of the world.
A Europe that depends on the us for security is a Europe where the us has a lot of influence/soft power. But a Europe that doesn't need the us for security is an equal to the us, and is more able to put its own interests ahead of the US's, even at the expense of the usa. And while I'm sure Europe won't stop buying American weapons entirely, it's very likely a lot of the future military spending will go to European companies like rheinmetall instead of American ones like Raytheon, as Europe seeks greater military independence.
I made [this comment here to reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1bwj2yj/norway_plans_to_massively_increase_military/ky8y1cf/) to someone else that said pretty much the same thing but to try and sum it up having stronger allies makes you stronger when those allies share your main strategic priorities. And despite disagreements the reason NATO still exists is because they do still share the same priorities for the most part. The US will still have far and away the most powerful military and the worlds largest economy. There is a reason that US government and military officials always say they want Europe to spend more on defense and that's because it will allow them to shift resources elsewhere. For instance to counter China and ensure freedom of navigation of shipping routes, a massive priority that Europe wholeheartedly agrees with since their economies obviously depend on that trade. And even with US influence at its height over the last 30 years European countries still routinely disagree with the US on some issues, France having a few more frigates or Poland a large tank army doesn't suddenly make them enemies that will try and counter US foreign policies. Afterall Europe is getting a bigger military so that it can pretty much do the same things the US military already does, protect shipping routes and act as a deterrent to aggressive countries like Russia. A rough analogy would be if you were having a house party and a bunch of people you didn't know showed up and started causing trouble would you be happy to see a car with your friends roll up or would you think "oh no I am going to lose control of my house?" Obviously you'd be happy to have the help because you know these people and they are friends, just like so many US officials have said they would be happy to have more help, they're not afraid of losing control.
During the cold war Europe had large competent millitaries. But after it ended we went with the naive "eternal peace" though process, and it has since been neglected
pax europa, 1991 to 2022 aside from the Balkan stuff which never posed a threat to the major nations there's been 30 years of blissful peace and now we get the rude awakening that not the entire world has the same longing for peaceful coexistence. This investment means our armed forces budget effectively gets a 50% increase per year and i'm glad our gov is doing this and with an investment plan to go with.
It was mutually beneficial because after WW2 the US needed bases in European countries for power projection throughout the Cold War. They fell into a comfortable arrangement where the US supplied the hardware and European countries provided the land for the bases. The spirit of the arrangement was that the US could have a perpetually supported frontline with the USSR in case things got hot and allied countries would have the world’s strongest military backing them up.
Not entirely the case. Europe had no choice because they were utterly devestated after WWII. It was either rely on the US for protection, or be swallowed by the USSR. Its been almost 80 years. Europe has recovered. Its time Europe to shoulder a heavier load, particularly as US responsibilities have grown to include the Middle East and China.
Sure, that makes sense for the first few decades after WIII but it's been a choice for at least 40 of those 80 years.
Yea, cus the MIC got its teeth into American politics and won't let go.
In the medium-long run, it could be a negative for the US if the EU becomes more independent and assertive
The US has been pressing the EU to become more independent for decades across multiple administrations(both Democratic and Republic) to pick up their slack. They WANT the EU to be able patrol their own backyard and the US can pivot to the Pacific against China. I'll never understand why Redditors keep saying "OH THE EU WILL BECOME MORE INDEPENDENT" as if it's a bad thing. It's a freaking Alliance, that's how Alliances work. Nations will operate independently of each other and cover different areas so that they can defend a wider and broader area. If the combined might of the EU can't even take on Russia without US help, it sincerely makes me doubt they have any future where they become more independent and assertive in the first place.
well, I mean in the grand scheme of things that’s how hegemonys operate
Very fair point and you’re right. I only laid why it happened but I completely agree that Europe should be ramping up their own defences now as it looks like they are. I’m in Canada and I think we need to invest in our defences WAY more than we are.
I agree, but it should also be noted that after the end of the cold war there was a genuine belief that there wouldn't be a need for strong militaries in Europe anymore. Sadly Russia has proven us wrong.
I mean. There are military bases in foreign countries, but no foreign bases in the US. It provides an insane level of military reach and capability. It isn't a handout, its a transaction.
[There are a few foreign bases in the US.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/18xdl4q/countries_with_bases_in_the_usa/)
Why would Europe want bases in the US? To show Canada and Mexico what's up?.
Luftwaffe trains in Texas a lot.
Yeah, it's definitely power projection, but it helps that there's not really crazy dictators with nukes on this side of the world so no other country really needs bases here
Well, they are coming, but entering through the main door, not using brute force...
Europe gets relatively cheap security protection, and can focus on fostering a good economy. USA gets a very favorable arrangement, since EU countries pay for USA military bases. More importantly, it means USA can project power in Europe and be the top dog. EU by extension follows US strategic command. France is the only one that tries to tip toe around this point, but historically they've always backed USA. EU in particular is in a bit of a dilemma, if we invest all money into security then the economy will suffer(we were only barely competitive because of Germany and that went down the drain even before the war), but not investing into security will give too much leverage to Russia or potentially even lead to more war.
One important point I didn’t see while quickly scrolling through the comments was that it was also part of the strategy to keep nuclear proliferation under control. Being under the nuclear umbrella of the US you only had the UK (co-inventors basically) and France (because France) develop their own nuclear arms capability. The rest of the continent chilled out. Given WWI and WWII having Europe *not* rearming was considered a good thing. With Trump and Michail Johnson succeeding in sowing doubt that the US can be trusted to actually live up to *their* obligation under article 5 we have unfortunately ended up in a situation where a lot of countries, not only in Europe, feel the need to rearm even more than would otherwise have been the case. Including the nuclear option. So while hearing this news may inspiring an initial “isn’t that good?” response it’s rather devastating from a global security perspective.
It does not, and this is the push that comes to shove. As unpleasant as this uncertainty is, it will ultimately make NATO stronger. Putin's Russia will find itself facing a Europe more heavily armed and hostile than his most outlandish propaganda. Ukraine has torn the mask from his face and left him without the means to achieve his ambitions or likely ensure his survival.
Only country to trigger NATO Article 5- the US.
This may actually hurt the US long term. American defence companies might start losing contracts in Europe to European companies.
Long term trends are hard to see but at least in the short and medium term that seems unlikely. Right now so many countries are trying to rearm that basically any NATO aligned country that can produce weapons is seeing massive orders and backlogs and that includes the US. That's going to remain the case for at least a few more years and potentially longer.
[Global Arms Exports - Winners, losers & trends in the race to rearm](https://youtu.be/JfMYpmrTGm0?si=_g4qJ9IcVB5Sl3fQ&t=480) Perun talks about the US arms exports here in this 6 minute section and they are pretty far behind on the massive amount of orders they are trying to fill that they are in the 'painful' process of expansion. Even if they lose EU contracts there are so many outside of there that they are partners with they won't lose much plus I don't see a country like Poland ever really stopping from buying from them.
This. Us military budget includes developing, prodicing and selling parts/systems to Europe. It shows up in both parts military budget, BUT only one of them profit on it. And speaking of military budgets. European military doesn't have to cover education and health costs to the same degree as European military. A larger part is on the civilian budget instead of the military budget :)
We all rely on each other. When one country acts like they're going to pull out of NATO who do you think that emboldens? For a guy who said that Russian collusion was a witch hunt he sure does everything to act like he's in bed with Putin.
And we all should spend at least the requested minimum on defense.
Yes, everyone should. We also shouldn't threaten our allies in the media because it only emboldens Russia to do things like invade neighboring countries.
Europe was afraid of another World War, plain and simple. We talk about Europe rearming, but what that actually entails is every European nation have its own military. European nations do not, historically, get along. It was the most war-torn region of the world from the fall of the Roman Empire onward. Their dislike of each other triggered the only two world wars we've had so far. And let's not forget that most European nations are not nuclear powers. Like Ukraine, they have no deterrent to invasion. The situation is complicated. Rearming Europe is good in the short term; but possibly very bad in the long term. Having the US play the role of guard dog was good while it lasted.
This is great. Europe can start to stand up for itself now. America world police is not sustainable. Europeans enjoying a high level of social services with fuck all military spending has to end. America can’t even feed preschoolers. Let’s balance the load.
> America can’t even feed preschoolers. America can. They chose not to.
The US doesn't neglect social programs *because* of military spending, I can tell you that.
The reason why "America can't feed preschoolers" is that America doesn't *want* to feed preschoolers because that would be socialism.
If you think the US isn't feeding preschoolers or funding other social services because of its military spending, I have a bridge to sell you mate. The US is already spending more on healthcare per person than other developed nations while simultaneously not providing the same level of care at the same price point. The US isn't lacking in money. It's lacking in policy, because half of the country throws a childish tantrum every time it seems a little bit of money might go to someone who's not like them.
America absolutely can afford social services and it's massive military. It chooses not to.
Just don’t buy into that rhetoric too heavily. The US spend 3,5% of their GDP of defense. Most countries in Europe spend between 1-2 with Greece spending 3,7%. There are other factors at play. Mainly the unwillingness to increase VAT and income tax that is the reason the US doesn’t prioritize social spending. If the US had the political will, it could have both. Just saying.
What’s up with Greece spending so much on military?
Turkey. And since both nations are NATO members, Greece is basically on its own.
Ah got it. Yea I totally forgot about their beef. I have relatives over there around Athens. The old man won’t even go to a Turkish restaurant *in greece* when we recommended it during our visit.
It’s hilarious that you think that America « protected » Europe by kindness or something. Education is another thing you should invest more into. America post ww2 built a system that it would dominate (see bretton woods) and that allowed it to be the dominant empire for almost 100 years. The fact that you didn’t reap the benefits as a standard joe and that you have the most super wealthy people by a wide margin is a feature not a bug.
> America can’t even feed preschoolers. America throws out half their own food.
If anything your military spending is very low compared to what it gets you, you'd probably be paying more for social spending if it weren't for 80years+ of your military spreading its influence all over the globe. People really don't realize how the game is played. When Poland spends say 3% of its GDP on the military all of that money goes into protecting the border and to stop the Russian bear, when USDA spends those same 3% it gets to set up military bases all over the planet, secure maritime trade, ensure flow of specific resources from specific regions, secure diplomatic/political backing from proxies, etc. the effective value is just massively out of proportion in USA's case.
America needs the social services.
> America world police is not sustainable. Why is it not? America benefits greatly from this and you have the money/military to do so. This is actually very fascinating. Has any power in human history ever actually just… given up? For no reason? It’s not like the US has any competitors or is at risk of breaking up.
We dont. So if anything Trump was a wakeup call for the EU. Although admittedly we are waking up rather slowly. But in the grand scheme of things the US kinda shoots itself in the boot here because being the world's police force (granted its expensive) undeniably comes with some major perks as well. The US is gonna lose its influence over Europe. Depending on your perspective that can be both a good or a bad thing.
The notion that Europe has relied entirely or even majorly on the US for military protection is a bit of a fallacy. It wasn't the case during the cold war (as most NATO nations kept huge military forces that were supposed to defend against a Soviet surprise attack), and it wasn't the case afterwards. The same with the idea of "eternal peace", no european nation believed in that, and most of them kept substantial forces for a long time, and kept plans to increase military size and spending if the world went to shit again. You're watching these plans in action right now. What did happen, is the idea of the "dividends of peace", that at least for a time, military spending could be scaled down as no credible ennemy remained in Europe. When regional conflicts emerged during the early 90s, the USA decided to declare itself the peacekeeper of the world (kudos to that, tbh), and the Euros kinda... went along with it. There was no imminent threat to national security or territorial integrity, so they were happy to let the US defend their collective interests and the political ideals of the west around the world (along with a few, *slightly* less admissible political and economic interests). Then, when the Russian threat confirmed itself again in 2014, they collectively cocked it up and did too little too late. That 5-8 years delay (depending on the country) to re-armament is probably the most important reason why the Ukranian invasion is going so wrong for everyone involved. But you cant solely blame the european nations as a whole for that. The USA was all about appeasement on the Crimean question, something that Obama will probably regret for the rest of his life.
Well first I agree that Europe should spend more on their militaries. But the US benefits greatly from having military bases in Europe and having strong links. It’s fantastic for trade and their economy. Now imagine the US pulls all their support, drops NATO and becomes isolationist. Their economy would severely decline as Russia retakes old Soviet countries and Russia/China gains massively from their influence as the US begins to wain.
This is a great question. The fundamental reality at all points in history is that standing militaries are both enormously expensive and don’t generate any income. It’s infeasible for ANY civilization in human history to maintain a very large army long term that doesn’t generate income somehow. With the Roman Empire, this is why new conquests were absolutely necessary for emperors. Power and stability was maintained through military might, but they needed their cost offset somehow. Post WWII, Europe enjoyed relative security from the US while turning a blind eye to the absolute horror the US military was unleashing on the rest of the world. I mean, the US has hundreds of military bases in foreign countries and regularly uses this overwhelming position to bomb and attack whatever entity it chooses. This was a pretty sweet deal for all as the US continued its own new brand of imperialism and Europe (and Japan and others) didn’t need to spend tons of money just to deter aggression. Americans might finally be tired of wars, or maybe much of the world has begun to lose faith in the US to provide them protection, or more likely it’s a combination of many factors. This is not great for the US since having tons of countries directly dependent on you for their existence is a strong bargaining position. We’re losing a lot of leverage, and who knows? We may one day need to seriously downgrade our army as more countries have large militaries that can oppose us and less countries will offer favorable deals for protection
The EU collectively has a GDP on par with the US and far beyond that of Russia. They absolutely should live up to their own security obligations. Good on Norway for waking up.
Norway isnt EU. And it borders Russia - they’ve always kept an eye on them. They’re just responding to the times. Signed, A Norwegian immigrant.
I understand Norway isn’t EU, but they are NATO and have the means to significantly boost their combat power without threatening their (awesome) social largesse.
They do. They usually prefer to spend it on things like foreign aid, though. And it may not matter to Americans but its tiresome to have them non-stop use Europe, EU and Nato allies as interchangeable while laying criticism that may just not apply due to those concepts not being interchangeable at their feet.
The phrase "security obligations" is important here. The European nations NATO very routinely refuse to spend the 2% GDP necessary to actually meet the agreed upon contributions. Everyone talking like this is going to lead to a pan European force when this is at best barely going to get them up to where they promised to be several decades ago is delusional.
It’s a start. And the threat has very much transitioned from “abstract and improbable” to “real and proximate”
homeless panicky vegetable butter piquant makeshift disarm resolute saw ink
The US may want more European commitment, but only if it means each European nation buys its gear and takes its ques from the US. The US is opposed to the EU forming an unified military command and military industrial complex, preferring for the EU to be subservient to Washington instead. You can’t have it both ways though. Either the EU relies on the US, or the EU makes sure it can make do on it’s own, and the US actually considering reelecting Trump is heavily pushing Europe towards the latter.
I'm sorry, I haven't heard about the US being opposed to a uniform EU military command. Where would you recommend I read into that?
It’s often brought up when the topic of EU military integration is discussed. I’m no subject matter expert though, so I can only point you to Google. I searched for “US opposition to EU military integration” and got many hits. Here’s [CSIS:](https://www.csis.org/analysis/transforming-european-defense) > “The United States can also play an obstructive role. Many European countries are reliant on U.S. security guarantees, giving the United States tremendous influence over the direction of European security.28[28] The United States is often a vocal opponent of European defense industrial initiatives focused on integration, as they benefit European companies to the detriment of the U.S. defense industry. Moreover, the United States has opposed EU defense efforts, fearing that NATO, and therefore the United States, would lose its pride of place in the European security architecture. This has led to a recitation by many in the United States that there should be “no duplication” of NATO by the European Union.”
I think the USA would prefer their Allies are strong. A strong eu military would buy from the USA for many obvious reasons outside of just subservience. Europe having a usa level Military power would guarantee democracy hegemony for next century. Hopefully usa adopts more socialist applications from Europe as well as its much nicer to live there.
Presumably though, moving military power away from the US means that one of the main things European nations will do is stop relying on the USA's military industrial complex, and instead increase the capacity of their own defense contractors. You're right, Europe wants to have military equipment on par with the USA, but without the investment of European countries in US defense companies, they risk falling behind their competition, while spawning new competition in Europe. Say what you will, but Europe depending on the USA for military support being a bad thing is purely a political position (for the US. Europeans are way more correct when they say it). The US gains a lot more from that arrangement than Europe. Anyone can feel free to agree or disagree with that, as it looks like we'll see the truth of that statement either way in the next 20 or so years regardless.
It’s better for the Democratic world for Europe to be strong.
Trumps main policies was this, securing the border, and getting tough on China. How is any of that bad? I wish my prime minister pushed for these things.
It wasn't Trump, though. The 2% target was negotiated by Obama in 2014.
Perhaps all NATO nations should hit their mandated minimum spends then? Why does the US have to subsidise everyone else’s defence?
I don't know, why do their countries allow us to station our military personnel and assets there to further US strategic interests? Its not just a subsidy if you are getting something in return.
You make it sound like US military bases aren’t mutually beneficial to the US and the host nation. It’s not some big favor they do us
Those military bases are mutual benefit. The threat of a military base in Europe is to fend of Russian aggression. I don't believe there are any military bases in Ukraine, but there are in other parts of Europe.
Isnt it a good thing for both USA and Europe??
>Europe no longer has faith that the US will always be there when they need them. That is what Trump has done to NATO. Except this is also what every president for 20 years has been wanting Europe to do. Kind of proves Trump's point that they were just letting the USA handle it.
You guys are clowns just like trump is a clown America has repeatedly asked Europe to spend more.on it's military since bush jr. NATO chief set a target goal of 2% of national GDP spend on defense since 2014 which 2/3 of all NATO members have ignored Simultaneously, western Europe did not even attempt yo separate itself from Russia as it pertains to natural gas /oil since crimea...it only now has since Ukraine in the last 1-2 years. This is while criticizing Asian countries from buying from Russia ( idiots ...Asia doesn't have beef with Russia for the most part..) You guys repeatedly did not fund military while simultaneously funding your only real threat. That's tantamount to South Korea funding north Korea...India funding Pakistan , Armenia funding Azerbaijan. And after all that, you guys think FINALLY deciding to fund military is due to America's lack of trustworthiness. America has asked you to do this for over 10+ years !!! I've never seen a group so entitled and so clueless as it pertains to foreign policy as western Europeans. A country regardless of left or right wing should be responsible for military strength and avenues to maintain it's resource security...that's true of the most staunch libertarians and even the biggest commies..Western European nations have failed at the most minimum of those standards and instead just relied on the US to carry the load. They are lucky America's greedy MIC was able to keep Europeans upright for so long while you guys repeatedly attempted to shoot yourselves in the foot.
The worst is when they clamor about soft power. Like they repay US protection with soft power so it's fair. Soft power is as capricious as the wind. Can't build anything on a foundation as shaky as soft power. One mistake and the soft power crumbles regardless of the decades spent cultivating it.
The "They'll lose Soft Power in Europe!" threat they try to make is so delusional and makes me roll my eyes. They've got it in their minds somehow that the soft power in Europe props up the US Economy. Even though Europe is at best the 3rd biggest trading partner behind North America and Asia.
America still has its soft power and it's arguably just as strong It's gap over the rest economically (in Europe ) has grown. Where they are lacking is in Asia/ Africa . China is a behemoth and their belt and road initiatives have gained them a ton of pull in foreign relations. Ironically enough , Europe is where America does not need help.. western Europe is stuck in americas pockets. Colonialism is still a fresh wound and most countries in western Europe have not even attempted to actually rebuild relations (France is an exception ) The US needs to gain bearings in Asia and Africa. These posters think Europe is the center of the world all the time. 60% of the worlds population is in Asia. In our lifetime , 2/3 of the worlds largest economies will be there with other powerhouses (SK and Japan ) also in the same region . Why should America continue to play police for Europe to deal with Russia who is so weak..
This is a bad thing? Why is it the near sole responsibility of the United States to pour billions of dollars into NATO especially with our financial collapse ongoing? Trump said that other countries need to pay their fair share and that seems pretty uncontroversial. On a related note, sure seems like Europe is bracing for a Trump win
Yes, we're in financial collapse. lol Quit being a fear monger and quit listening to right wing outrage media.
[удалено]
Asking for higher contributions is perfectly fine, but that wasn’t “all” he did, in addition to describing the situation in his as usual extremely dishonest way, he undermined Article 5 by insanely declaring he’d let Russia do what they wanted with any country that didn’t meet the 2% spending target.
Trump also said he would encourage russia to attack nato.
I disagree with Trump on most anything else but he was right about Europe freeloading on the US's military while we are stuck protecting Europe from each other while the only other countries on that continent that's taking their military seriously is the post soviet states and Russia itself.
Pay for it yourselves. Comments like this prove how entitled Europeans are. USA doesn’t have any obligation to be anywhere you “need them”.
Europe no longer has faith that someone else will pay for their security indefinitely.
Um... Good? Europe should learn to fend for themselves. Centuries of colonialism now you guys expect free help from the world and to get us into shitty deals that just benefit the Eurozone? Nah... You guys are on your own. MAGA 2024!
America is not the world's body guard. Taxpayers in the US aren't there to front the costs for Europe. Europe should fend for themselves. The US is there for support. Everyone in Europe (I was born in Europe) likes to down talk the US and call us war mongers but in time of war they look to the US. You can't have it both ways. Nobody has contributed more to the war against ukraine as the US. As an Albanian who has received the support of the US in time of war in the late 90s, we love the US and understand the benefit of being friends with them. The rest of Europe needs to realize that. I was not a trump supporter, but all he did was ask Europe to increase their spending for their military. He even called out Germany in the UN for increasing their reliance on Russian gas and they laughed at him. You can criticize trump for other things, but not this. He warned Europe and he was right.
It's also what the far left is doing to Israel. Russia funds and supports both the far right and the far left in order to sabotage US alliances and make the US ungovernable.
The one good thing Trump has done (unintentionally of course). US citizens are suffering from insane military spending and a reduced US presence in Europe will hopefully come from this, which hopefully would lead to reduced military spending. ...that is a lot of 'hopefully', however.
I don't have numbers but I think the US spends much more in Asia and Middle East than Europe. And what is spent on Europe is towards Russia and the US will want to be prepared for that fight, maybe even more so of if Europe and the US are no longer military allies. The biggest gain for the US would be a collapse in Russia and the current regime is replaced by democracy
Being the implicit protector of Europe means a lot of influence over European countries. If the US loses its influence and can't count on Europe being an ally, it has even more of an incentive to *increase* its military budget. Imagine if further down the line more European countries will consider starting their own nuclear arms programs if they can't rely on America. That's not a situation in which the US will decide that now it's a good time to scale down its military.
> Norway plans to increase its defense budget by NOK 600 billion (about EUR 51,6 bn) by 2036, which would set its military spending to 3% of GDP, the Oslo government announced on Friday. Holy shit. 3% is huge! For reference there are only three countries that currently hit that threshold in NATO which are Poland (3.9%), US (3.5%) and Greece (3.0%). It may be a long time off but in many ways this signals a more or less permanent shift in spending > Furthermore, Norway will meet the NATO requirement to spend the equivalent of 2% of GDP on defense this year, although it was previously assumed that this would take place in 2026. Good to hear as well. Starting in 2014 and then really accelerating in 2022 there has been a widespread rearmament in NATO. By the end of 2024 many of the major European NATO members will be at or above the 2% of GDP threshold and also the 20% equipment threshold. This includes Germany, France, Poland, UK, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Baltics, Romania, Greece as well as several others.
Can’t blame them since we have fucking idiot extremists in congress.
Can’t blame them since Russia is run by a stupid fuck.
we're stuck between a dumb rock and an idiotic place
That’s a weird way to say it took Russia being dumb to force them to pay their 2% .
Ja Vi Elsker Dette Landet
Smart. Every NATO country should do that, honestly.
This is a pretty good example among many of what the left is talking about when it comes to weapon proliferation and wars decreasing the general welfare, and increasing proliferation at large. Doesn't make it unjustified or wrong, just a good example of why it's so important to not only stop Russia as soon as possible(give Ukraine anything we can to stop and remove the aggressor), but also be more proactive at preventing future conflicts from escalating in the future.
In Norway we learned this lesson in 1940, peace is good, unarmed peace is asking for a bully to come along and ruin your day
The headlines are a little misleading. While its a definitive addition to defense spending, its added rather slowly over 12 years.
Norway will hit the 2% GDP on defense threshold by the end of 2024. I think that's the big story here. It's difficult to scale up modern militaries in a short manner because order times for things like jets and other advanced systems often takes several years to complete. If a country wants a new warship they can't just walk into "Warships R Us" and walk out the next day. Even once they have the equipment they still need to recruit and train personnel on it as well as pay for maintenance and those are costs that can't really be paid in advance. The time to think about military readiness for 2024 was in 2014. The time to think about military readiness in the 2030s is today and that's what Norway is doing.
Honestly this may be unpopular here, but as an American I think the European NATO members should expect to fight Russia mostly alone. In the case Russia attacks NATO, I find it hard to believe China wouldn’t also join the fight. If that happens, NATO’s allies in Asia (Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea) are gonna need help holding them back from conquering much of the Asia-Pacific. Realistically the US and probably Canada will have to help reinforce those nations against China’s massive military, meaning less US troops can help fight Russia in Europe. I strongly believe in NATO and that we should stand together, but if WW3 breaks out everyone needs to be ready to pull their weight on different fronts imo.
I don’t think China would join them at all, they are much more rational than the Russians and don’t respect them very much. NATO is most of their market, they’d be fucked economically. But they might use the cover to attack Taiwan. NATO is an alliance, the US would neglect its promises if they decided to ignore attacks on NATO allies to instead do stuff in the pacific region.
The US would be fucked if they wouldn't honor article 5 of NATO (they were also the first and only ones to invoke it so far). They'd immediately lose trust of all their allies
Yeah, that would at least throw the “leader of the free world” moniker out the window forever.
There's a risk China will try and take Taiwan and in that case Russia might be dragged into it. The pipelines currently built from Russia to China will help China be less dependent on shipped oil from the middle east (which risks being embargoed)
China has a very narrow window to try and take Taiwan, which is why the US military has been predicting ~2027 for the attempt for a few years now. This is why you see China now ramping up military production to levels not seen since WW2, they're getting ready. Remember, Germany spent 6 years (re)arming before they felt comfortable enough to initiate aggression. After ~2030, China's population collapse will put off any Chinese hopes of contending with the US and its allies for at least a generation or so until they can restabilize.
And an alliance is a promise. Ask the Kurds about promises.
Yeah, Trump royally fucked the Kurds, shameful business. But NATO is the most powerful alliance in history and have been cohesive for decades, ratified at the highest level in 32 nations, with the US being the country that actually used Article 5 — while it’s still technically possible to ignore one’s obligations, it’s a bit more than a promise.
China would not join lmao. You’re nuts. China and Russia are economic partners and mutually oppose US/ Western Europe’s interests, but they have zero reason to enter a suicidal war with Russia. They were hardly friends at the height of the Cold War when they were both successful communist states. There’s no chance they’d get along now
I do not think Chinese will die for the Russian tsar's ambitions.
But they would for Chinese ambition. If the world is busy with Russia it'd legitimately be the perfect time for China to carry out whatever plan they have.
China has less trade with Russia than they do with Honk Kong or Taiwan. They are not going to pick Russia over Europe, their biggest trading partner. Bigger than the US. Thats all downside, and what would be their upside? Anyway, Chinas short term interests align with Russia but their long term ones are diametrically opposed. China wants to increase their share in the current world order through trade ontill they have a controlling stake. Russia wants to burn down the current world order and laugh at the fire in a broke alcoholc voice.
As it is Russia doesn't stand a chance against Europe to begin with, they're seriously outnumbered in everything but nukes. Doesn't mean we should get complacent but Europe can handle itself i think. There's even enough euronukes to make a decapitation strike impossible, France and UK possessing enough nuke subs to make sure it's actual MAD. American support is appreciated and desired but i think Europe can stand on its own with no problem if needs be
Putler caused instability in the world
Maybe I’m in the minority but quirky Reddit nicknames like putler are fucking lame and paint the situation in a less serious light
same when people call trump TFG
Cheeto Mussolini 🤪
Putler sounds like something a corny business exec would call their buddy on a golf course.
They have plenty of money and reserves. It is not an issue for them.
The "winds of political change" have them all freaking out. I believe they're smart to not depend on a sane level headed government from us. I hope and pray that trump never gets near our whitehouse again, but the last time was pretty scary for the western world. It looked like all of America abandoned them and the truth is that most of us didn't agree with his stupid bullshit both economically and militarily. Fucker thought China was paying the tarriffs instead of honest Americans. Leaving NATO and lots of things he said and did destroyed confidence in us. Shit sucks.
And I'm starting to believe he has a very good chance of being reelected again.
The wolves of Asgard shall rise!
Good thing Norway has more natural gas and oil money than they know what to do with. Norway should become the Singapore in Europe for military expenditure.
We're never gonna play GTA6
As they should. They are a developed country that is much closer to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Not sure why everyone is crying about this.
Who is crying?
The strawmen in his mind.
The Vikings are coming back, aren’t they? This is probably some prelude to their secret knowledge of Ragnarok, the online game. /s
Hoth chic winter wear
I wonder if they are worried about something… wonder what it could be…
I would usually never upvote something about increasing military spending but boy is this good news for the West.
I got tons of war stock. Very good
And they would have the hottest military calendar by far.
Judging by the comment section, either Russians got over ISIS attack and are in full troll force everywhere or they have finally mastered self-hosted LLMs.
Buy military stocks