Off-Topic General Discussion - Page 4556

I tend to agree with him. Beyond the impracticality of having a common EU defense force and the multiple redundancies it has with NATO institutions, it still doesn't address the issue that Europe as a whole not only spends significantly less than the US both in absolute and relative terms, and a capabilities gap between the US and Europe has existed for the entirety of NATO's history (and indeed what the alliance was predicated on anyways).

Recent European defense cuts are rather eye-brow raising however. At a time when the US would much rather like to focus on areas other than Europe and Russia, thank you very much (perennial issues in the Mid East, ensuring that East Asia remains peaceful in the short/medium term, until after China reaches their Lewis turning point, yada yada), European defense capabilities continue to atrophy, with the likelihood of British defense cuts to below the symbolic 2% GDP commitment being the most concerning, which would basically leave France as the only major European country to meet NATO requirements. All this makes it even more unlikely that other NATO members are going to get motivated to spend more than, say, 1% GDP, Libya already highlighted the shortfalls European NATO members had to conduct an extended intervention, and that was before budget cuts.

Unfortunately, much as I'd like to bitch about us subsidizing European security and welfare, that's what being the world's hegemon entails. Still rather peeved about the Ukraine mess (this entire kerfuffle could've been avoided if the new Ukraine government had an ounce of foresight and political acumen), but eh. Still, that the capabilities gap is growing, not shrinking or staying roughly even, is rather concerning.

Well that was a rant out of nowhere. I'll just conclude with something less bitchy.
+ Show Spoiler +