Sky Views: Europe is not pulling its weight on defence

[Vergennes]

@flamer84 @Blue Marlin @Kaptaan @mike2000 is back @Technogaianist
-
Donald Trump is right - European nations must start spending more on defence. If a member state can't be bothered to spend its fair share on protecting itself, why should it assume America will cover its back?

Too many rely on America and, to a lesser extent, the UK to provide their security. US President Barack Obama made no secret of his frustration at this, but might President-elect Mr Trump be the one to finally get tough with the freeloaders?

For context, only five NATO members spend 2% of their GDP on defence as NATO rules stipulate. They are: US (3.61%), Greece (2.38%), UK (2.21%), Estonia (2.16%) and Poland (2%).

ncouragingly, collective NATO spending is rising for the first time in a decade in response to the Russian threat, but some members still spend a disgracefully low amount: Germany (1.19%), Spain (0.9%), Belgium (0.85%), Luxembourg (0.4%).

The bottom line is that 2% should not be a target. It should be the absolute minimum.

"You're worried about an invasion from Russia, so why don't you spend your fair share?" I asked a defence analyst in Latvia this week.

"We know America will protect us and we have other important things to spend our budget on, like education and health," was the apologetic reply.

Indeed.

The US spends more than double the rest of the 27 other countries put together - it's no wonder Mr Trump used that as a campaign tool to win over a disillusioned electorate suffering high-unemployment and low wages, many of whom frankly couldn't care less about European security.

The argument that NATO has guaranteed peace in Europe is flawed. The blunt truth is that it's America, not NATO, that has guaranteed European peace, with the UK and one or two others being mentioned in dispatches.

NATO would be nothing without America, and it knows it. The alliance is still a team built around one star player, and those kinds of teams are structurally weak.

At the 2014 NATO Summit Wales, and then again in Warsaw this past summer, leaders pledged to increase spending - in the two years since, and despite such public commitments, only Poland has graduated to the 2% club. It's unacceptable and it should be an embarrassment to those who have failed.

To top it all, the European Union is now ploughing ahead with a proposal for a common EU defence policy which is the next step on the road to a combined European military. It is impossible to imagine how an EU Army might exist alongside NATO.

If most of them can't meet current NATO spending targets, how can they also expect to commit money to a second alliance? Europe can't have it both ways.

And what does it say about the collective strength of NATO that, with a few negative words from Mr Trump, Europe flies into a panic? It is an unequal partnership and it is weak as a result.

The European end of the alliance needs to wake up and start taking membership seriously, otherwise face break-up.

Either way, the Trump presidency is the right moment from Europe to wean itself off its American safety blanket - it would benefit everyone.

http://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-europe-is-not-pulling-its-weight-on-defence-10655677

 

[flamer84]

Totally right.He's not even asking much,no 3%.....at least 2.....if that's to much for your security,well.....you don't deserve security.

 

[jamal18]

That's if you believe in the Russian 'threat'......

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Either way, the Trump presidency is the right moment from Europe to wean itself off its American safety blanket - it would benefit everyone.

Not going to happen. Many countries in Europe have become reliant on US security architecture. Much as Trump might threaten but he is NOT going to remove/reduce US assets. Not because of being charitable but because of US self interest. If US pulls out Russia might become emboldened and down the road Chinese influence will creap up from Saharan Africa in North Africa and the Med.

 

[flamer84]

That's if you believe in the Russian 'threat'......

Yeah,let's ignore the former superpower rearming itself like there's no tommorow which sits next door.Right now,somewhere in N Africa,Egypt with a....brace yourselves.....12 % budget deficit,buys weapons like 2020 is destined for Apocalypse.

The funny thing is that we're not even investing money in what counts like welfare programs for supporting child raising,as an example.No.....we're planning a Marshall plan for Africa....let s give money to a wasteland.....

 

[jamal18]

No, I don't believe the Russians are looking for war. Check US defence spending, they far outstrip that of Russia.

I cannot comprehend why the Russians would invade Europe.

Marshall plan to Africa? Never heard of it. How much is that compared to total spending?..... 0.5%

Are the black folks to blame for everything?

 

[Fenrir]

That's if you believe in the Russian 'threat'......

Believe it or not, European nations do have militaries for reasons other then Russia. Helping out in Mali for instance:

Keeping Kosovo (and the Balkans beyond) peaceful - it was necessary to escort Serbs through Albanian areas of Kosovo because of the danger posed to them.

Ensuring vital waterways remain transitable:

Participating in international counter-terrorism responses:

Hosting international delegations from certain South Asian nations beginning with a "P" and ending in "akistan":

Nations within Europe have interests across the world, in varied nations and waters, and a desire to keep belligerents out of our continent. Russia is the most prominent irritant, but it's not the only threat.

Donald Trump is right - European nations must start spending more on defence. If a member state can't be bothered to spend its fair share on protecting itself, why should it assume America will cover its back?

He's most certainly not wrong, though his evolving stance on NATO isn't pleasing either. He quickly needs to clarify that, as a solid stance will provide Europe with a working direction with which it can build on. Regardless though, European nations must, absolutely must increase their defense readiness and capabilities, especially in logistics (transportation, refueling, rapid response) which has been a critical weakness of European defense for some time. During operations in Libya, before the operation's command was handed over to NATO, European nations taking part in the operation relied heavily on NATO tanker assets from Norway and the US, largely because there is no European wide tanker network outside of NATO:

This has been a critical weakspot for Europe.

Readiness too. Remember last year's exercises in Norway?

Soldiers in the Panzergrenadierbataillon 371 took part in the exercises last September in Norway.

The troops were missing 31 per cent of their MG3 general-purpose machine guns, 41 per cent of their P8 handguns, and more than three-quarters of their Lucie night-vision devices.

Soldiers resorted to painting broomsticks black and attaching them to Boxer armoured vehicles to simulate gun barrels.

If war broke out tomorrow would they resort to using broomstick then too? Given their lack of readiness, I'd say it's not as implausible as you'd think.

Increased spending makes up for training gaps, procurement shortfalls, logistics-supply concerns and improves Europe's overall capabilities to defend itself for itself. An increase in R&D spending would be nice too.

I cannot comprehend why the Russians would invade Europe.

Need history lesson? Try asking the Baltics or Finland about Russia not invading Europe... or even look back 30 years at the state of Europe. Russia is a major source of anxiety in LLE and Poland for a reason.

Ignorance on the matter doesn't change this.

.
Marshall plan to Africa?

That's a bit of an exaggeration on Flamer's part, but Europe is supporting rebuilding in Mali, Libya and other nations like C.A.R., nations hit by strife, civil war or militancy.

UN authorized missions in Mali are ongoing and a number of European nations are contributing assets, funding and material to them:

These include funding for healthcare, education, infrastructure, military training and humanitarian support and Peacekeeping. Some nations like France are also supporting their own parallel operations in theater.

I believe Flamer is suggesting the money spent on such operations would be better served being spent in Europe instead.

"We know America will protect us and we have other important things to spend our budget on, like education and health," was the apologetic reply.

Indeed.

Oi.

Look, I trust the Americans to come to our defense, so to does the UK since we've very strong relations with them (honestly, if Europe goes ahead with an EU Army, I expect the UK and Norway to join up with a US-led initiative instead - perhaps a mini-NATO or Arctic Nation Defense Initiative or something - @waz probably feels the same. Both our nations are more US centric when it comes to defense.), but on the same token, Europe can't afford to lapse on its own defense anymore then it already has and using this excuse just sets it up for long-term failure.

Irrespective of whether or not the Americans hang around or refocus elsewhere, we need to step up and look out for ourselves.

At the end of the day we can only trust Europe to look out for itself.

 

[Penguin]

THe non-US line is slightly flatter compared the to nato total, but not much. Non-US spending is way more stable though than NATO total and fluctuations coincide with Korean War, Vietnam war build up an draw down, the Reagan years buildup and the post CCCP-collapse drawdown, and the aftermath of 9/11.

Which shows US spending jumps and drops eratically, when it is in the US interest.

Even more evident in per capita

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/28/defense-spending-in-the-u-s-in-four-charts/

 

[mike2000 is back]

To be honest, it's a tricky topic.
Thing is EUROPEAN COUNTRIES have been used to living in peace and stability for decades now Since the fall of the Soviet union. This has led to complacency. On the other hand western European countries don't have any immediate threat,(apart from eastern European countries vis a vis Russia and Greece vis a vis Turkey) in their neighbourhood. So it's difficult for Western european nations to justify high defence spending to their public. So this perpetuates complacency. U.K and France to some extent are abit an exception, since they have interests , bases and influence in several countries around the world to protect due to their colonial legacy.
So all these complicates a drastic increase in Europe's defence spending and preparedness.

As for the so called E.U army , it's an even bigger joke. especially when thee countries can't even meet their NATO defence commitments. Lol Reason we have been the most vocal critic of this delsional project, which will only duplicate NATO and divert scarce resources available to E.U countries. In short it will only make things worse.

 

[Penguin]

2% is fine. But even with all NATO countries at (at least) 2%, there will remain an imbalance because US defence spending, because the national interests of the US are global, will always be (far) more. Not to mention more erratic over time.

To be honest, it's a tricky topic.
Thing is EUROPEAN COUNTRIES have been used to living in peace and stability for decades now Since the fall of the Soviet union. This has led to complacency. On the other hand western European countries don't have any immediate threat,(apart from eastern European countries vis a vis Russia and Greece vis a vis Turkey) in their neighbourhood. So it's difficult for Western european nations to justify high defence spending to their public. So this perpetuates complacency. U.K and France to some extent are abit an exception, since they have interests , bases and influence in several countries around the world due to their colonial legacy.
So all these complicated a drastic increase in Europe's defence spending and preparedness.

As for the so called E.U army , it's an even bigger joke. especially when thee countries can't even meet their NATO defence commitments. Lol Reason we have been the most vocal critic of this delsional project, which will only duplicate NATO and divert scarce resources available to E.U countries. In short it will only make things worse.

It is not a matter of being able. It is a political choice not to (i.e. to spend the money on other things than defence. Hence, with military being used more actively abroad, defence money is tight and there is economizing on parts, munitions and maintenance. It used to be we had a lot more gear but not a lot of active use of it.)

 

[mike2000 is back]

Believe it or not, European nations do have militaries for reasons other then Russia. Helping out in Mali for instance:

Keeping Kosovo (and the Balkans beyond) peaceful - it was necessary to escort Serbs through Albanian areas of Kosovo because of the danger posed to them.

Ensuring vital waterways remain transitable:

Participating in international counter-terrorism responses:

Hosting international delegations from certain South Asian nations beginning with a "P" and ending in "akistan":

Nations within Europe have interests across the world, in varied nations and waters, and a desire to keep belligerents out of our continent. Russia is the most prominent irritant, but it's not the only threat.



He's most certainly not wrong, though his evolving stance on NATO isn't pleasing either. He quickly needs to clarify that, as a solid stance will provide Europe with a working direction with which it can build on. Regardless though, European nations must, absolutely must increase their defense readiness and capabilities, especially in logistics (transportation, refueling, rapid response) which has been a critical weakness of European defense for some time. During operations in Libya, before the operation's command was handed over to NATO, European nations taking part in the operation relied heavily on NATO tanker assets from Norway and the US, largely because there is no European wide tanker network outside of NATO:

This has been a critical weakspot for Europe.

Readiness too. Remember last year's exercises in Norway?

Soldiers in the Panzergrenadierbataillon 371 took part in the exercises last September in Norway.

The troops were missing 31 per cent of their MG3 general-purpose machine guns, 41 per cent of their P8 handguns, and more than three-quarters of their Lucie night-vision devices.

Soldiers resorted to painting broomsticks black and attaching them to Boxer armoured vehicles to simulate gun barrels.

If war broke out tomorrow would they resort to using broomstick then too? Given their lack of readiness, I'd say it's not as implausible as you'd think.

Increased spending makes up for training gaps, procurement shortfalls, logistics-supply concerns and improves Europe's overall capabilities to defend itself for itself. An increase in R&D spending would be nice too.



Need history lesson? Try asking the Baltics or Finland about Russia not invading Europe... or even look back 30 years at the state of Europe. Russia is a major source of anxiety in LLE and Poland for a reason.

Ignorance on the matter doesn't change this.



That's a bit of an exaggeration on Flamer's part, but Europe is supporting rebuilding in Mali, Libya and other nations like C.A.R., nations hit by strife, civil war or militancy.

UN authorized missions in Mali are ongoing and a number of European nations are contributing assets, funding and material to them:

These include funding for healthcare, education, infrastructure, military training and humanitarian support and Peacekeeping. Some nations like France are also supporting their own parallel operations in theater.

I believe Flamer is suggesting the money spent on such operations would be better served being spent in Europe instead.



Oi.

Look, I trust the Americans to come to our defense, so to does the UK since we've very strong relations with them (honestly, if Europe goes ahead with an EU Army, I expect the UK and Norway to join up with a US-led initiative instead - perhaps a mini-NATO or Arctic Nation Defense Initiative or something - @waz probably feels the same. Both our nations are more US centric when it comes to defense.), but on the same token, Europe can't afford to lapse on its own defense anymore then it already has and using this excuse just sets it up for long-term failure.

Irrespective of whether or not the Americans hang around or refocus elsewhere, we need to step up and look out for ourselves.

At the end of the day we can only trust Europe to look out for itself.

Exactly. In fact, is not just t he U.K who is against this E.U army folly. May other countries are against, but since they are small and not powerful enough, they often are less vocal about it for fear of upsetting Germany and France.

In fact, Europe *does* have an integrated military, but it’s part of NATO rather than the EU, and includes the USA. It’s structured around a mutual defence alliance, and so has strict limitations on its use, but it’s extremely powerful and provides a very high degree of integration, up to and including integrated supply, command, and communication lines. There are a number of very large buildings across Western Europe dedicated to operating it. Any argument for an EU military has to handle how NATO plays here - the UK could not allocate forces that NATO cannot access under treaty, but not all EU member states are NATO states.

The UK already has a military spend exceeding - just - the NATO requirement, unlike most NATO signatories, and any EU military would need roughly the same amount - actually significantly more to begin with. Integrating militaries is a very expensive operation - it’s astoundingly expensive to re-equip militaries in order to combine supply lines.

Funny enough, Within the lifetime of the EU, the UK is the only power to have had its territory attacked. Would the EU military defend the Falklands? Spain actually supports the Argentine claim there(not like we care.lol) - would Spanish troops from an EU army be willing to lay down their lives for something their own Government doesn’t believe in? Hard to expect that.@waz, @Vergennes

In addition, consider the countries that have neutrality embedded in their constitutions or political make-up; these include a number of EU member states. Although strict neutrality isn’t quite possible in the EU (since there’s a common foreign policy), it’s difficult to see how you could persuade those states into anything more than a mutual defence treaty - and for that, there is NATO… which those states have historically not joined.

Ultimately, though, I think the largest argument by far is that the EU has been most successful when operating as a purely economic super-state(which is what we in the U.K always wanted and voted to join in the beginning for) where it can wield considerable - but soft - power via trading requirements and sanctions. It has, and I hope it will continue, achieved far more in terms of encouraging strong acceptance of broad human rights across the world by this soft power than any other bloc has ever achieved through military power. Its lack of overtly using military power (bar U .K and France to some extent) prevents it from being seen as a military adversary, potential or otherwise, and that, I believe, enhances its soft power and effectiveness.

Soft power is where it’s at; it is where the EU excels, and it is where the EU should concentrate for now. While also boasting it's defence pending and commitments.

 

[waz]

Look, I trust the Americans to come to our defense, so to does the UK since we've very strong relations with them (honestly, if Europe goes ahead with an EU Army, I expect the UK and Norway to join up with a US-led initiative instead - perhaps a mini-NATO or Arctic Nation Defense Initiative or something - @waz probably feels the same. Both our nations are more US centric when it comes to defense.), but on the same token, Europe can't afford to lapse on its own defense anymore then it already has and using this excuse just sets it up for long-term failure.

Irrespective of whether or not the Americans hang around or refocus elsewhere, we need to step up and look out for ourselves.

At the end of the day we can only trust Europe to look out for itself.

Spot on! It's NATO or nothing, what on earth is this EU malarky business? Are we going to see Junker and Tusk signing up, if so I'm all for it.

On a serious note, Trump is right, what the hell do many European nations think they've joined, some of sort of subsidised defence club? As I understand May will plan to visit Norway soon and defence is at the top of the agenda, along with trade, time tested dear friends we are.

Funny enough, Within the lifetime of the EU, the UK is the only power to have had its territory attacked. Would the EU military defend the Falklands? Spain actually supports the Argentine claim there(not like we care.lol) - would Spanish troops from an EU army be willing to lay down their lives for something their own Government doesn’t believe in? Hard to expect that.@waz, @Vergennes
.

Ha! This was the red line for me. I was already a committed Brexiter a decade ago, but these EU army plans just hardened my stance. We love our forces, the history, and for many of us including myself, our families have worn the Queen's uniform.

Anyway, I'm listening to the Colonel Bogey March, be proud folks!!

Oh by the way Spain, Gibraltar is ours, keep crying.

 

[KediKesenFare3]

Would Turkey profit if Europe becomes more independently from US in terms of military power?

 

[mike2000 is back]

Spot on! It's NATO or nothing, what on earth is this EU malarky business? I we gong to see Junker and Tusk signing up, if so I'm all for it.

On a serious note, Trump is right, what the hell do many European nations think they've joined, some of sort of subsidised defence club? As I understand May will plan to visit Norway soon and defence is at the top of the agenda, along with trade, time tested dear friends we are.



Ha! This was the red line for me. I was already a committed Brexiter a decade ago, but these EU army plans just hardened my stance. We love our forces, the history, and for many of us including myself, our families have worn the Queen's uniform.

Anyway, I'm listening to the Colonel Bogey March, be proud folks!!

Oh by the way Spain, Gibraltar is ours, keep crying.

There are a ton of reasons why a combined European army makes no sense, and couldn't work

Some European powers maintain a strong nuclear deterrent, namely France and Britain. Others are strongly anti nuclear, Germany for example. Given that there is no way the nuclear powers would disarm, how to you square this? Merge the armies but not the air forces? Maintain separate central commands? Etc etc

Taking that point further, Germany is close to pacifist nowadays. Many Germans believe that their constitution forbids use of military force other than in self defence. Britain and France are actively interventionist. How do you square that?

Next we have decision making. The way in which the EU operates, it requires unanimous consent from its nearly 30 members to make any serious decisions. As it proved during the Balkans war, it is incapable of rapidly agreeing contentious issues which carry historical baggage, especially when that baggage points its members in different directions. Any war effort has to be able to react hour by hour. How would the European army be allowed to make decisions? Where would that power sit within the EU?

Next, why would the people who have to pay the most agree to it? Britain and France are still among the top 5 military powers in the world and are far higher up(just behind the U.S) , when it comes to power projection/military deployments/presence/bases around the world(I'm not including the maturity of their advanced defence industry and technology) only Russia is up there as well when it comes to this. They dwarf those of the rest of Europe. Britain and France frequently project their military power around the globe, without requiring consent from other EU members, as part of their foreign policy. Why would they give this up this ability in order to merge their armed forces into a body which they would continue to be the principal providers, but that would no longer serve the national interest? This E.U army is, a folly. Lol
Anyway, to be honest I do not believe that we have to aim that high nowadays, but so long as we can defend our islands spread around the globe, maintain our foreign and intelligence military bases while reassuring our allies and adequately equip our personnel, then we do not care.

 

[Louiq XIV]

Need history lesson? Try asking the Baltics or Finland about Russia not invading Europe... or even look back 30 years at the state of Europe. Russia is a major source of anxiety in LLE and Poland for a reason.

Ignorance on the matter doesn't change this.

Well in this case you should really do what you advise to others and open an history book. History is complex and ironic sometimes. A country can be one day a friend and become an enemy another one. Last time I've checked Russia was fighting with France and the UK in WW1. Same thing during WW2 and If I were to follow your biased logic then what should I think of Germany the one country which killed most of my French fellows in the last century ?

I won't even talk of the UK a kingdom with whom we've been at war so many time during almost a millennium.

History should be there to recall us that Russia is a European country by essence. We should make Russians our allies and friends and not push them to become our enemy.

And to be back on the topic I think that to define defence spending by a % of the GDP is the worst way to do.

First the threat has to be identified an quantified at 5 years 10 years etc

Second we need to define the relevant power force needed to face that threat

Once that's done you can define your defence spending and schedule it properly.