who's that short gremlin rubio?

[Geronimo]

The problem is political (lack of integration, difficult joint programs), not financial.

then my post would have been merely incomplete rather than "could not be more wrong". In any case compatible joint programs especially, will not occur without large new investments.

It all smacks of the usual wishful thinking. The premise is that:

Yeah, and the US regime is an existential threat to us all. And the excuses are pathetic. If Canada has the backbone to start to break away despite their heavy trade integration with the US then a coordinated Europe has no damn excuse. Especially as the US is now a pariah and everyone is looking for alternatives. From Europe to Brazil to Japan to Canada to Australia there is opportunity there for us to do better without the US siphoning everything off. But it requires will, ambition and a vision.

No amount of political integration and jointly compatible programs will make that plan work without a large increase in defence spending. I'll grant that it does have to be effective defence spending and not just money down a black hole of non accountability but I think NATO countries are already well above average in that regard.

[Geronimo]

Does anybody think that Ukraine (let alone the rest of Europe in general) would have been more secure today if only the rest of NATO had formed without the US in it and had kept their current and historical levels of defence spending? If so, how exactly? Is the idea that without so much dependence on US systems that NATO deterrence would be more real since it would not have any large US systems holes in it threatening to appear when the US ignores a hypothetical article 5 invocation? The huge problem with that idea is that those systems obviously aren't free. What's more, while there would no longer be such a large basket of defence investment eggs threatening to break out of NATO with a single state departure, the task of peeling away critical members would arguably be even easier than it is now even disregarding that 68% of NATO member defence spending consisted of US defence spending. The smaller the collective defense mass the more appealing jumping ship when the going gets tough somewhere can become. Why wouldn't there be even more Turkiyes choosing the nonaligned non comittal path when the going gets tough somewhere in the north atlantic area defence sphere?

[Dauphin]

Does anybody think that Ukraine (let alone the rest of Europe in general) would have been more secure today if only the rest of NATO had formed without the US in it and had kept their current and historical levels of defence spending? If so, how exactly?

Historical what-ifs. So many possible outcomes and so many competing views of reality. The question is also pre-supposing that US did not benefit from the NATO arrangement and would not have spent money on defence regardless. I don't think the US would be more secure today had the US not joined NATO or maintained its level of defence spending. Maybe it spends the money on a different theatre, but the threat was the USSR and Europe was the best place to spend those defence dollars.

NATO has been symbiotically beneficial to Europe and the US. That Europe would be worse off without the US in the post-WWII era should be clear to all. That the US would be worse off without European allies should be equally clear, unfortunately it seems lost on many people in the US. You can argue where between commensalism and mutualism that relationship lied, but the US wanted NATO and European allies to protect against 'the Evil Empire'. No-one forced the US to provide support - the US saw it is a strategically best course of action.


I assume your consternation is that many don't appreciate the US contribution and just complain about the US. And I would agree with that. Just pointing out it runs both ways. Both sides are complaining about a mutually beneficial relationship for some stupid reason.

[Geronimo]

My consternation (if you want to call it that) is that for those in the rest of NATO that would like to use the current administrations antipathy to NATO as a good excuse to complete a clean break between the US and the rest of NATO, that they don't appear to understand how much more expensive that will likely be to maintain the same level of security and that if they are willing to settle for whatever their current spending would allow how much less secure that would be. I don't think it is nearly as big a deal for the US as it is for the rest of NATO or for Russia.

[Dauphin]

Not today, given the US doesn't see Russia as the same threat it was.

[N35t0r]

My consternation (if you want to call it that) is that for those in the rest of NATO that would like to use the current administrations antipathy to NATO as a good excuse to complete a clean break between the US and the rest of NATO, that they don't appear to understand how much more expensive that will likely be to maintain the same level of security and that if they are willing to settle for whatever their current spending would allow how much less secure that would be. I don't think it is nearly as big a deal for the US as it is for the rest of NATO or for Russia.

I don't buy that a "NATO without the US" equivalent for Europe would be a lot more expensive than current military funding levels, let alone much more expensive.

[Provost Harrison]

mainly it will require defence spending. lots of it. Doing things purely to spite the US government will do jack to ween Europe away from dependence on the US.

It just takes time but, remember, the US only spends 3.4% on defence, and that includes a lot of welfare programs for veterans.

It's not to "spite" the US government, you just cannot be trusted. You are treacherous and perfidious as a nation. We just want you to go away and never come back. Cut the self-importance and arrogance. Again, even a supposed "moderate" like you still exudes that attitude.

I mean, even for the disgusting behaviour you display, somehow it's still all about you. Main character syndrome.

[Provost Harrison]

Does anybody think that Ukraine (let alone the rest of Europe in general) would have been more secure today if only the rest of NATO had formed without the US in it and had kept their current and historical levels of defence spending? If so, how exactly? Is the idea that without so much dependence on US systems that NATO deterrence would be more real since it would not have any large US systems holes in it threatening to appear when the US ignores a hypothetical article 5 invocation? The huge problem with that idea is that those systems obviously aren't free. What's more, while there would no longer be such a large basket of defence investment eggs threatening to break out of NATO with a single state departure, the task of peeling away critical members would arguably be even easier than it is now even disregarding that 68% of NATO member defence spending consisted of US defence spending. The smaller the collective defense mass the more appealing jumping ship when the going gets tough somewhere can become. Why wouldn't there be even more Turkiyes choosing the nonaligned non comittal path when the going gets tough somewhere in the north atlantic area defence sphere?

It wouldn't be. I don't think anyone would've taken a different path historically speaking. But it's the betrayal. Your nation betrayed its allies.

[Provost Harrison]

My consternation (if you want to call it that) is that for those in the rest of NATO that would like to use the current administrations antipathy to NATO as a good excuse to complete a clean break between the US and the rest of NATO, that they don't appear to understand how much more expensive that will likely be to maintain the same level of security and that if they are willing to settle for whatever their current spending would allow how much less secure that would be. I don't think it is nearly as big a deal for the US as it is for the rest of NATO or for Russia.

Not much of an argument. As posted above the US doesn't spend "huge" amounts as a proportion of GDP. Not compared to Russia. And even then with the DoD not having every passed an audit we don't know what the effective spending of the US is. Plus you've had the benefit of the economies if scale of many other nations buying countries trillions of military supplies from you, now evaporating at a rapid pace. And once capabilities to replace yours appears it will be deadly to your defence. Bear in mind we are not even two years into this "rupture". And for us, multiplier effect. Again the curse of the yank brain - everything is a zero sum game, everything is what you can take to the point of extreme counterproductivity.

Basically, you had it all but you couldn't contain your hubris.

[Geronimo]

I don't buy that a "NATO without the US" equivalent for Europe would be a lot more expensive than current military funding levels, let alone much more expensive.

how convenient.

[Geronimo]

can you refrain from addressing comments directed at the US in general as "you" when responding to my posts? I'll try to extend the same courtesy.

[Provost Harrison]

how convenient.

Again the US spends a (dubious) 3.4% so...

[Geronimo]

Again the US spends a (dubious) 3.4% so...

In terms of deterrence and overall security percentages don't matter that much. Ukraines 30% of GDP and even Russia's 6% of GDP may seem absurdly high and yet overall contributions from states with much smaller percentages but much higher cumulative totals mean that most military expenditures on Ukraine's behalf come from states with defence as fraction of GDP percentages far lower than Russia's.

The bottom line is about absolute totals available not about percentages. Percentages are relevant for budgeting a sustainable target in peace time. After that a state needs to determine for itself how many other budgets it will have to effectively combine with via treaties and alliances to acquire an acceptable level of deterrence and security via absolute effective investment, not via percentages as a fraction of GDPs. Europe seemed like a safe neighborhood for a while. now, not so much.

[Provost Harrison]

In terms of deterrence and overall security percentages don't matter that much. Ukraines 30% of GDP and even Russia's 6% of GDP may seem absurdly high and yet overall contributions from states with much smaller percentages but much higher cumulative totals mean that most military expenditures on Ukraine's behalf come from states with defence as fraction of GDP percentages far lower than Russia's.

The bottom line is about absolute totals available not about percentages. Percentages are relevant for budgeting a sustainable target in peace time. After that a state needs to determine for itself how many other budgets it will have to effectively combine with via treaties and alliances to acquire an acceptable level of deterrence and security via absolute effective investment, not via percentages as a fraction of GDPs. Europe seemed like a safe neighborhood for a while. now, not so much.

OK honey, keep squirming. Economies of scale are conveyor you are looking for and we should be exploiting that more.

It just sounds like more of the same paranoid crap the MAGA come out with. Suddenly we're not "pulling our weight", ie, not spending enough on yank weaponry to line your billionaires' pockets.

You manage to encapsulate perfectly that yank condescension, even though your military, obsessed with pyrotechnics, has proven to be rather ineffective in the modern theatre of war. And how are you stockpiles of Patriots and THAADs in a drone war?

[Geronimo]

OK honey, keep squirming. Economies of scale are conveyor you are looking for and we should be exploiting that more.

It just sounds like more of the same paranoid crap the MAGA come out with. Suddenly we're not "pulling our weight", ie, not spending enough on yank weaponry to line your billionaires' pockets.

You manage to encapsulate perfectly that yank condescension, even though your military, obsessed with pyrotechnics, has proven to be rather ineffective in the modern theatre of war. And how are you stockpiles of Patriots and THAADs in a drone war?

I am personally not your enemy. I would rather see Europe thrive progressive and free than the US have extended overseas defence commitments and investments better protected. In many contexts I'm more on the side of non-US NATO and allies success in defence and stability than I am on the side of US defence goals.

Consider whether or not the fact that something as odious as the MAGA movement wants Europe to spend more on defence necessarily means that Europe spending more on defence is bad for Europeans. Maybe that's not the best way to tell that increased defence spending by Europe is undesirable.

As to your last set of points, I'd like to share that personally I believe drone centered warfare that Ukraine and Russia and a few early adopters like Denmark are investing in is the next decisive development in warfare and it is here and obsoleting tons of sunk cost military spending far faster than anybody expected. This is a serious opportunity for Europe and also a desperate need with Russia as its neighbor. If Europe attempts to both maintain defence spending and break away from the US and put the US in its place while shoring up Ukraine, well things will get ugly quick and I don't see anything condescending about pointing that out.