The Military Weakness of Europe: A Serious Global Security Concern

Setting aside all politics, when one takes a scrutinizing look at the militaries of European nations some glaring and frightening readiness issues begin to arise. Despite some narratives, the world is not a nice place where military power serves no purpose. If the EU ever had to implement its common defense pact, would EU Nations be ready to respond? That is a question asked by Nic Watkins of the Atlantic Community foreign policy think tank:

The Sorry State of European Military Strength

For one moment indulge me and put aside the plethora of political and operational issues relating to EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and just imagine a scenario in which the member states put aside their sovereignty concerns and their geo-political ambitions and committed to launching a large scale military operation. Do member states have the military capabilities to run an operation?

For all of CSDP ambitions there is one fundamental drawback, it's all talk and no ‘teeth', the EU members lacks fundamental military capability.

But these are broad terms. Even the article itself only looks generally at macroeconomic indicators, causes, and implications of European military weakness..But there are microeconomic indicators as well.

I refer to Zaphod58's thread Germany 2014. In this thread Zaphod58 points out that Germany is a serious economic power. We're not talking about a crumbling Eastern European economy here. But their military is in disrepair and I personally believe that their ability to respond to a legitimate military crisis is marginal at best.

While Europe has been disarming and neglecting their military organizations China and Russia have been building up. Most of the global shipping lane protections are conducted by the United States, and the only nation capable of dealing with a serious military emergency with speed and urgency, at this point, is the US.

Beyond that...The disrepair of military organizations in Europe are so absurd that it makes you wonder what the hell they could be thinking that makes this sort of thing ok in their minds...That they would cede their defense to a proverbial "someone else"..Which is all they really have. But anyone that they could cede their defense to is just as incapable or worse. Exhibit number two is the Czech military:

Czech military running out of ammunition

The Gripen squadron from Caslav, central Bohemia, does not have any ammunition for ground attacks and only a few missiles for air duels, LN writes.

The squadron is not the only unit of the Czech military without the necessary reserve of ammunition, it adds.

The military lacks cartridges for the mortar turrets of its Pandur armoured personnel carriers and tank guns, LN writes.

The same is true of the rapid response forces that will be sent by the Czech Republic to help an allied country if attacked, it adds.

It is quite unrealistic for a military with empty stores to be able to fight for 30 days, LN writes.

This is absolutely pathetic. No military should ever allow this to happen. The fact is the issues in Europe that have led to this aren't just economic, they are social as well. European society generally does not value military service, and certainly do not hold military readiness in the same regard as they do other aspects of government administration.

There is often talk of NATO surrounding Russia. That they stand as a buffer against potential Russian expansion. My question is, with WHAT are they surrounding Russia?

Shrinking Europe Military Spending Stirs Concern

BRUSSELS — Alarmed by years of cuts to military spending, the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, issued a dire public warning to European nations, noting that together they had slashed $45 billion, or the equivalent of Germany’s entire military budget, endangering the alliance’s viability, its mission and its relationship with the United States.

This article was written back in 2013 highlighting comments made by the NATO Secretary General in 2011. Today the situation in Europe is MUCH worse.

This kind of military gutting, while palatable to some, leaves Europe vulnerable. I'm not just talking about threats from Russia and China either. The Middle East is a powder keg and the fuse is so obviously lit. If current trends continue in Europe, within a decade, the conflagrations in the Middle East will start to spread into European countries. It is high time for the nations of Europe to get their crap together. They cannot rely on US military power in the future. While our military is still strong, perhaps. But in reality we have budgetary concerns that will far outweigh the needs of Europe in the future and we can no longer reliably pick up the slack of failing European military policy.

Either fix your militaries, or you will be conquered.

a reply to: projectvxn

The EU is an economic powerhouse, not a military one.

Merkel probably has her own safe house in the Alps readied for the time the S hits the fan. And If that fateful day comes who do they turn to when they've turned upon themselves?

a reply to: projectvxn

Does it really boil down to boots on the ground or doesn't it still boil down to one real weapon and that's the nuclear warhead. If you have a variety of those and they are well maintained and ready for deployment at any moment, you are a power to be reckoned with regardless of how many trucks, big guns, soldiers and whatever you put into your army.

The technology is changing so fast with drones taking away some of the soldiering and even satellite observations so if countries like Germany don't have the full armaments her allies have nuclear weapons and I suspect with the threat of groups like al quaeda and isis these weapons on a small scale would be used without hesitation.

Also regardless of how much propaganda and rhetoric is spewed manyhcountrties have chemical and biological weapons so again the normal guns and whatever are not the total end of the matter.

So far we have seen ISIS threaten Kurds and small minority religious groups, were they to face into europe I doubt they would find europe a push over where they could simply bimble in and start beheading people. Those sleeper terrorists which have crept in and sympathisers are being rooted out especially in the UK and I expect other country's secret services have their hands on the pulse of the majority of threats.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

That is precisely my point.

Generally, if the S does hit the fan the people of Europe will suffer while the shambles of what is left of their various military organizations either ruck up or give up.

I don't know if Europeans really care about the state of their military organizations.

It's a representation, in my view, of the prevailing view of arms, self defense, the purpose of warfare, and the lack of national pride. Since WW2, albeit not without merit, Europe has been extremely paranoid of nationalism in any form. But this has led to a lack of interest in national service. It is also reflected in military policy and traditions.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Nuclear arms does not a military make.

Not all military emergencies can be handled via nuclear weapons.

Several of those examples have been made.

The rest of your post tells me just how little people really understand about what it means to have a ready and capable military force.

a reply to: projectvxn

Meanwhile the US is crumbling apart financially and militarily. What would happen when America starts retreating? How long would it take before Russia launches its invasion of Europe?

a reply to: projectvxn

I don't know if Europeans really care about the state of their military organizations.

And why should they when they know if it get's real bad the US will be there to help, or NATO depending on the circumstances.

The other big problem the US has...sometimes we are to nice when asked for help.

a reply to: projectvxn

Nuclear arms does not a military make.

No, but it does make one hell of a deterrent from other countries wanting to play in the deep end of the pool.

The military spending is, like most things these days, dependent on the amount of fear the politicians and military corporations can drum up among the populace.
The idea that if we don't increase the military spend year upon year then the Russkis will invade is laughable. Any sane person knows this, so do the Russians. Why spend yourself into oblivion with invasions and occupation, when simply trading for the things you want, or others want from you works so much better and is of course much cheaper.

Where no enemies exist they are created. Where no conflict exists, we'll go stir things up and create it. Death, destruction and suffering for profit.

I also keep waiting for a leader with some backbone to tell the US forces here they are no longer needed / welcome and to go home. We're nothing more than a launchpad for their conquests for corporate profit anyway so we can do without their presence painting a big target on these shores.

I think the European outlook and indifference / rejection of military might, in favour of trade and negotiation is far more civilized than the childish gung-ho attitude of many Americans. After all, the blow back never hits their shores!

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't know if Europeans really care about the state of their military organizations.

And why should they when they know if it get's real bad the US will be there to help, or NATO depending on the circumstances.

The other big problem the US has...sometimes we are to nice when asked for help.

The US is NATO. Without the US NATO would completely fall apart.

a reply to: Britguy

The only reason why Europeans can hold on to fallacious military beliefs like this is because there is someone else doing the heavy lifting.

What happens when Europe must carry its own military weight?

a reply to: projectvxn

The US is NATO. Without the US NATO would completely fall apart.

I understand that, but there are sometimes the US does things without NATO.

And there are some things NATO can do without american troops to help, something like a small peacekeeping task that can be handled by other NATO countries, but yes agreed upon by the US.

I guess I should have been a bit more specific.

a reply to: projectvxn

What happens when Europe must carry its own military weight?

Russian vodka becomes a hell of a lot cheaper for them.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Britguy

The only reason why Europeans can hold on to fallacious military beliefs like this is because there is someone else doing the heavy lifting.

What happens when Europe must carry its own military weight?

Conversely, what happens when Europeans tell the US to go p*ss up a rope and refuse to have anything to do with their manufactured wars?

As you already stated, US is NATO, thus just an extension of the US military machine. As such, why would Europeans want to keep propping up US wars at their own expense, or following harmful US sanctions against those the US has a beef with?

The world is NOT America and the time is coming when many Americans are going to have to face up to the fact that many in Europe don't wish to follow American orders any more.

a reply to: Britguy

Conversely, what happens when Europeans tell the US to go p*ss up a rope and refuse to have anything to do with their manufactured wars?

Is there a reason why you're avoiding the question? I am not taking a political approach to this at all. Quite frankly I don't really care about it. What I do care about is under what conditions does Europe take care of its own military strength? Right now the EU as a collective is highly dependent on the US for its military protection.

You may think that Russian aggression is a pipe dream. But tell that to the front line countries. Tell that to Ukraine.

As you already stated, US is NATO, thus just an extension of the US military machine.

Wrong. NATO is an alliance. At least its supposed to be. When you have an alliance you're supposed to all have skin in the game. Instead Europe has elected to forego its obligations as signatories to the NATO treaty and heap all of the responsibility on the US.

As such, why would Europeans want to keep propping up US wars at their own expense,

Politics aside, WHAT EXPENSE?

The world is NOT America and the time is coming when many Americans are going to have to face up to the fact that many in Europe don't wish to follow American orders any more.

The US is the one doing all the heavy lifting militarily. If anything we're being used so that EU governments can save face when the ugly business needs to get done.

a reply to: Britguy

The world is NOT America and the time is coming when many Americans are going to have to face up to the fact that many in Europe don't wish to follow American orders any more.

Last time I checked the US wasn't part of Europe, although most want to think the US tells the world what to do...we don't we make suggestions.

Got nukes. Do not need any other weapons. While US destroys their economy with insane weapon expenditure. Eu will keep it on a lower percentage and thereby have a better economy.

Some military are needed for disaster help as engineer corps and home guard but you could in theory have that without having it weaponized as a civilian disaster relief.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Instead Europe has elected to forego its obligations as signatories to the NATO treaty and heap all of the responsibility on the US.

Maybe if the USA didn't go round starting pointless wars Europe would be more willing to take more responsibility?

Anyway Europe would have more money to spend on its military if the US banks hadn't run off and lost everyone money in 2007. Most of our country's have had to make cuts to pay the bills thanks to that.

a reply to: projectvxn

The US is NATO. Without the US NATO would completely fall apart.

No it would not. UK/France/Germany would still be allies and keep Europe safe and EU would still be there. The biggest reason we have problem with Russia in EU is because of US meddling in Syria/Iran/Russia/Ukraine for economic reasons and trying to get gas/oil under control for Saudi Arabian interest.

Eastern Europe and Nordics are not Ukraine. Ukraine have people that are Russian within their borders and the creation of Ukraine was insane if you go back historically to when Soviet collapsed when you look at demographics. But then at that time Ukraine was pro Russia so the borders where not important.

China need EU for now to sell the merchandise so Russia will not attack EU. Russia attacking EU would also be a propaganda nightmare that even could destabilize the Russian people. For now the Russian people live as not being the aggressor in wars where US is seen as a imperialistic corrupt war machine. That would change if Russia attacked any Nordic or eastern member of EU.

a reply to: crazyewok

Maybe if the USA didn't go round starting pointless wars Europe would be more willing to take more responsibility?

So what you're saying is that because the US is involved in wars Europe doesn't have to meet its NATO requirements and take responsibility for its own defense?

Interesting that.

Anyway Europe would have more money to spend on its military if the US banks hadn't run off and lost everyone money in 2007

This literally has ZERO to do with military readiness.

Most of our country's have had to make cuts to pay the bills thanks to that.

To illustrate the above point, European governments have been cutting military budgets for DECADES as the US has taken more and more of the EUs NATO responsibilities.