The Military Weakness of Europe: A Serious Global Security Concern

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?

If that time comes EU nations will look for protection from someone else than the US/NATO.

Our polititions can always Sway the propaganda machine to faivour a change of sides and build New relationships.

a reply to: projectvxn

Would we rather spend U.K. Taxpayers money on military hardware or free health care ?

The answer to that is simple.

a reply to: Britguy

So, why should we bankrupt ourselves and cut services to other more urgent and needy recipients just to please the USA?

No one says you have to, but obviously the NATO countries see it as a security blanket of protection from certain dangers.

Here's the thing nobody is forcing anyone to stay in NATO, but the big reason countries don't leave is the fact that protecting a country by itself is a very expensive and time consuming process, which takes time to do.

Now in that time what stops other countries such as say Russia from pulling a Crimea on that country...Nothing does which is why NATO is useful.

Also know that without NATO funding the cost of protecting yourself just went through the roof.

a reply to: Britguy

Increasing military spend is pointless when we don't have any wars to fight or enemies trying to invade us.

Cut that spending in half and you will be.

Without proper military spending you set yourself up for failure in a very short time.

a reply to: Britguy

Maybe Europeans should just disband NATO as it stands right now and take care of their own business, without American inclusion. Lets face it, recent NATO action has been to simply prop us US led aggression to spread the cost and attempt to give some legitimacy to US led assaults, even if it goes against International Law.

Once again, this isn't about America. This is about Europe.

The fact that some Euro flunky says we need to spend more is nothing more than protectionism and giving the US what they want, at the expense of taxpayers in Europe.

It is more of a waste of taxpayer money to let ones own military fall apart.

It is not needed, nor is it in our interests to fight in American led wars. NATO, as an extension of the US military machine DOES NOT fight wars to protect Europeans, as we have seen in recent history.

European nations, by and large, can afford their domestic policy because their military costs are taken care of.

All while Russia is threatening Balkan states, Ukraine, scaring the hell out of Poland, and waging economic war against the EU.

Once again, this isn't about America.

So, why should we bankrupt ourselves and cut services to other more urgent and needy recipients just to please the USA?

Or to protect yourselves.

Increasing military spend is pointless when we don't have any wars to fight or enemies trying to invade us.

Many civilizations have made those assertions before without paying attention to the moves of potential enemies.

The scare stories of reds under the bed, Islamic bogeymen and other such threats are often fictional and not based in reality, or are so overblown it's comical. Those pushing the narrative all have a stake in pushing it for financial or political gain!

This attitude is a product of a comfortable and happy umbrella placed over Europe a long time ago. There will come a day of reckoning.

a reply to: alldaylong

Cameron would rather spend it on neither.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: projectvxn

Would we rather spend U.K. Taxpayers money on military hardware or free health care ?

The answer to that is simple.

Your healthcare isn't free. You pay for it.

There is no reason, if your programs are handled intelligently, that you can't have both.

It hurts to see this attitude from a Brit. I've gone to war with Brits and have seen first hand the caliber of soldier the UK can produce. Don't throw that tradition away and don't marginalize your military. It is the only thing, in the future, that will protect you. It may not be today, or even a decade from now. But someday.

While some of Europes forces have been a great decline it is not like they have an real threat. Russia has tried very hard to reform it forces but, they have failed time and again. All the problems the Germans have the Russians have worse. Read about the mess that was Russian invasion of Georgia and things have not gotten much better. So most of Europe simply does not have a major threat. On top of that the UK and France remain the only European nations with any global reach. Outside of the UK and France nobody in Europe is going to get involved in Asia. NATO has secured deal with the Afircan Union and thus secured Europes southern flank, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia triangle not only act as containment to the mid-east but flank Russia as well. Of Russia could ever get its act together and the US were leave NATO the Europe would have something to worry about. However that is unlikely in both accounts.

Would it be nice to see more of Europe carry its own weight? Sure. The Dutch, Danes, Noregians, and Beguins often contribute toward coalitions along side the UK and France. However the only that is going to kick Europes defense bugets up is a legit threat. And Russia for all its bluster is not one.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: projectvxn

Would we rather spend U.K. Taxpayers money on military hardware or free health care ?

The answer to that is simple.

Your healthcare isn't free. You pay for it.

That's why is said " Tax Payers Money"

Health care is free for those who have never paid income tax, i.e people who have never worked because of severe disability.

a reply to: spy66

Capitulating your way of life when the troops come marching in demanding it?

There are about 5000 in the Nato ready reaction force at the height of when Putin was sabre rattling around Ukraine he had 40000 combat ready troops in the area all Nato had at the time was airpower which against the new generation of Russian fighters might not be dominant and hot air

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: LittleByLittle

But then you are the kind who is so uniformed that you do not know Saudi Arabia is part of the Wahabbi/salafi problem that US keep hunting in ISIS or other fundamentalist form

Again...What does this have to do with European military readiness, and the unilateral slashing trend of military budgets that have plagued individual European countries for decades?

From my point of view if Saudi Arabia and US/CIA where not playing proxy war with Russia over Ukraine/Syria/Iran and the middle east then business with Russia would just be economic trading like it has been the last 2 decades. No need for much military when both sides are focusing on building their economy and growth instead of wasting money/resources on military hardware. EU is more important to China and Russia as a trading partner than something to conquer.

US/CIA/Saudi Arabia poked the bear let US/CIA/Saudi Arabia deal with their own mess.

a reply to: projectvxn

And to add to the mess, a major manufacturing flaw in the Typhoon has led to Germany suspending new deliveries, and both Germany and the UK cutting flight times in half. They're looking at a major engineering exercise to fix them. That's become the workhorse of several European air forces.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It seems the cost of "protecting" ourselves went through the roof way back and currently is even higher after the mad decision to sign up to buy crappy aircraft from the USA.

See, another part of it all is the idea of normalizing NATO equipment. In other words, the USA wants to flog us all what they say we need, thereby boosting it's own military sales even more. That part is a biggie that they try to bury quite a lot. Best to keep up with the bogeyman stories instead.

Bottom line, nobody is threatening us, or intent on invading us, it's simply financial suicide to think it could be done. Hence all the scare stories about Russia. They are not a threat but have been hyped up as such by the US specifically and the compliant corporate press. The emergence of such a hyped up threat is then followed by the scare stories about our inadequate military spending, as Obama spouted I believe not so long ago.
Create the problem, then hype a solution..... and make a lot of money in the process of course!

I am no more afraid of a Russian invasion than I am of brain eating lizard people from some far off galaxy landing and taking over the planet. It's just another money making / control exercise.

a reply to: spy66

If that time comes EU nations will look for protection from someone else than the US/NATO.

Not many countries that can fill that tall order. Russia and China would be the most plausible, but can they provide the same amount of protection NATO currently offers?

All while Russia is threatening Balkan states, Ukraine, scaring the hell out of Poland, and waging economic war against the EU. Once again, this isn't about America.

Us wanted a economic war and EU was to dumb to say to US to go to hell and continue trade. If US wants to fight Russia then fight Russia but leave the EU out of it. We have no need of US stupid wars.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: spy66

Capitulating your way of life when the troops come marching in demanding it?

You never know how the future will play out. But if the US/NATO is not going to work out. Nations will begin to look for other solutions for protections. And trade deals are often how it is done.

If the US can not protect the EU nations, and the EU cant protect it self. It is logical that they will change sides, because many EU nations are so far behind militarly that they dont have a Budget to Upgrade.

If this should take Place the US better look out. Because the propaganda machine will turn on them.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: spy66

If that time comes EU nations will look for protection from someone else than the US/NATO.

Not many countries that can fill that tall order. Russia and China would be the most plausible, but can they provide the same amount of protection NATO currently offers?

No, But that is also why no one have changes sides yet. NATO is still capable.

a reply to: spy66

You never know how the future will play out.

Capitulation and relying on others to protect you can cost you dearly.

a reply to: Britguy

It seems the cost of "protecting" ourselves went through the roof way back and currently is even higher after the mad decision to sign up to buy crappy aircraft from the USA.

Which is my point.

Having to spend extra money to be able to protect yourself would be way more than what it takes to be part of NATO.

As for the plane...I can't help you there as that falls directly on the government.

See, another part of it all is the idea of normalizing NATO equipment.

That would be because when you have the same equipment you save money and time on maintenance and cost of keeping things going.

Hence all the scare stories about Russia. They are not a threat but have been hyped up as such by the US specifically and the compliant corporate press.

Does the name Georgia ring a bell, and most recently Ukraine...not hype but real as they did happen.

Also know there are many more sources other than compliant corporate press to get your info.

I am no more afraid of a Russian invasion than I am of brain eating lizard people from some far off galaxy landing and taking over the planet.

Depending on who you talk to this is already happening.