“The time when we conveniently let the United States carry the burden for our security is over. The US is absolutely committed to NATO, but this commitment comes with a clear and long standing expectation, that Europe and Canada take more responsibly for their own security, and I believe that is only fair.”
-Mark Rutte
I suspect that this has more to do with Ukraine than it does the USA. Russia seemed like one of those plastic owls to fend off birds then suddenly turned its head and ate one.
I don’t think Trump is particularly crazy like a fox, but Europe taking its defense into its own hands in a coherent, credible manner has been the goal of US European policy across at least the last six or seven administrations of both parties.
It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciate how bad that could be.
As an American, if an outcome of the Trump administration is even a slight deterioration of the US military industrial complex, I don’t think I’ll mind that. I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.
That money isn’t going to hang around for us to spend on other things though, we are just going to be poorer for it because our economic influence and reach are deteriorating at the same rate as our overall leadership clout.
I agree 100%. I find it odd how many people will claim to be against the MIC and promote a drop in military spending, yet they act how Europeans spending money with European defense companies rather than American ones is a terrible thing. I suppose they think that we'll just spend less money and nothing will happen otherwise?
The military is a huge jobs program though, it does provide a way out if you are low income. Some of my good friends had bad childhoods and 4 years in the military (navy, marines) did work out a lot of their issues, pay for their college and get them on some kind of path.
It would be way better if we had jobs programs that built infrastructure and improved public works, but I don't know if converting from `military` -> `direct handouts` would be an improvement.
Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation?
It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have enough capability to assist the US, but not to go off on adventures of its own and certainly not (going all the way back to the Washington Naval Treaty here) enough military might to resist the US or start another European empire.
That is, the strategy from WW2 until fairly recently was to prevent Germany re-arming. Just as the large deployment in Japan is to prevent Japan from re-arming just as much as it is there to defend the Pacific from China.
The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately. Compare a lit of the world's largest economies from 40 years ago to now.
> Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago.
That turns out to be easier than I thought thanks to [1]. In 1986 it looked like this (PPP, million USD):
China: 647,219
USA: 4,579,625
EU ex UK: 4,368,019
UK: 805,518
EU total: 5,173,537 [2]
The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
> Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be. Feel free to post your own calculations if you want, but be careful with dates and exchange rates; the USD index is down about 9% over the past year.
[2] In 1986, the EU had 12 members: Belgium (161,613), Denmark (100,996), France (866,333), West Germany (1,319,247), Greece (120,566), Ireland (40,169), Italy (953,257), Luxembourg (10,542), Netherlands (246,164), Portugal (92,824), Spain (456,308) and UK (805,518):
Your link to the list of past PPP GDPs does not say what unit is used - it says "international dollars" without specifying an year.
> but be careful with dates and exchange rates
The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
> I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be
Not my intention at all. My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures" - i.e. the ability to project military and economic power. Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
> The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated. If you look at this list of countries by PPP GDP you will see India, Indonesia and Brazil are ahead of the UK and France. The only European country in the top five is Russia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
> Your link to the list of past PPP GDPs does not say what unit is used - it says "international dollars" without specifying an year.
Irrelevant since we are comparing relative sizes, like EU vs US, now and then.
>> but be careful with dates and exchange rates
> The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
Indeed, that's why I use them instead of the nominal ones you requested. My warning was about the latter.
> My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures"
Your claim, quoted verbatim, was this:
> The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately.
The GDP figures say otherwise: US and EU were and are roughly equal, EU + UK were and are larger.
I am willing to grant you half a point: neither US nor EU are large enough to separately dominate the world like they once did. Together, they are still #1.
> Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
The EU is a little more than "potential". Currently ineffective, yes, but that's the topic of the article. Says right in the subtitle: "Without America to rely on, the EU is gearing up to be a global power in its own right."
> The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated.
If that is the case, then it's evident from the relative GDP figures now and 40 years ago that the US has stagnated just about as much, which contradicts your original claim.
> The only European country in the top five is Russia!
Breaking out individual European countries instead of considering the EU as a whole (the topic of the article you are ostensibly commenting) makes about as much sense as breaking out individual US states instead of considering the US as a whole.
It seemed like it was the past, but it might become so again.
Europe will never trust the US for defence again, which means it has to build up all defence capabilities internally.
This will take many many years, but it seems almost inevitable now that it will happen.
When enough time has passed with Europe self sufficient in defence, there might arise cases where US and Europe has a conflict of interest that results in an armed conflict. Perhaps at first via proxy states depending on the type of conflict.
I would also say (d) make it clear to the Soviet Union that, if they invaded West Germany, it would not just be an intra-European war; it would be a world war.
"huge number of troops in Germany in the first place?"
I wouldn't call 35000 troops of mostly non-combat specializations a "huge number". In the Cold War, the American presence in West Germany was an order of magnitude larger, about quarter a million soldiers.
"Defence, or occupation?"
Neither/nor. Logistics for various distant operations. Rhineland is a very practical stop located between the US and the Middle East + North Africa (MENA), closer to MENA, with highly developed maintenance and repair facilities, communication facilities, top-notch hospitals for casualties etc.
If a GI Joe gets seriously injured in Kabul or Baghdad or now possibly Tehran, they are airlifted to Ramstein. If an armored vehicle gets damaged by a roadside bomb and the local mechanics cannot fix it on the spot, dtto.
General Hodges wrote several articles on how dumb the current administration is to alienate Europe, because without access to such facilities, any deployment in the wider region becomes very challenging. Even the original invasion of Iraq was somewhat complicated by the Irish refusing the use of Shannon airport for US military aircraft.
This reminds me of Afghanistan. It was a very difficult war for the US because they had no bases in the region and Afghanistan was surrounded by hostile/unstable nations.
No I disagree.
The goal was Europe spends more on defence while be dependent on the US.
What happens: Europe spends more on defence while be less dependent on the US.
Trump and many Americans think the US is some kind of special country and will be always on the top. Quite the opposite.
Nobody ever is. You’re forced into it by external events, and you either kinda make it work, or don’t. It was, after all, changing times and dumb moves by a mad despot that caused the US to revolt and form a country.
The US makes up approximately 15% of NATO funding and I don't think the EU is in an economic position to make that up any time soon. NATO is arguably underfunded as is.
I'm not so sure - everyone goes on about the EU's relative lack of GDP growth as though it's a death sentence, which is obvious hyperbole.
In any case, numerically I'd imagine that 15% being made up by spending increasing by 2-3 times by the remaining 85% (from 2% previous target to 5%, or 3.5% more realistically).
https://youtu.be/NFw7ZifqhTg?si=IujBLjIsaQysNHmp&t=267
4:27
“The time when we conveniently let the United States carry the burden for our security is over. The US is absolutely committed to NATO, but this commitment comes with a clear and long standing expectation, that Europe and Canada take more responsibly for their own security, and I believe that is only fair.” -Mark Rutte
Notably Mark Rutte in the role of Secretary General of NATO, no longer as Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
I suspect that this has more to do with Ukraine than it does the USA. Russia seemed like one of those plastic owls to fend off birds then suddenly turned its head and ate one.
I don’t think Trump is particularly crazy like a fox, but Europe taking its defense into its own hands in a coherent, credible manner has been the goal of US European policy across at least the last six or seven administrations of both parties.
It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciate how bad that could be.
As an American, if an outcome of the Trump administration is even a slight deterioration of the US military industrial complex, I don’t think I’ll mind that. I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.
That money isn’t going to hang around for us to spend on other things though, we are just going to be poorer for it because our economic influence and reach are deteriorating at the same rate as our overall leadership clout.
I agree 100%. I find it odd how many people will claim to be against the MIC and promote a drop in military spending, yet they act how Europeans spending money with European defense companies rather than American ones is a terrible thing. I suppose they think that we'll just spend less money and nothing will happen otherwise?
> I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.
Me too, but that's not how things would play out.
The military is a huge jobs program though, it does provide a way out if you are low income. Some of my good friends had bad childhoods and 4 years in the military (navy, marines) did work out a lot of their issues, pay for their college and get them on some kind of path.
It would be way better if we had jobs programs that built infrastructure and improved public works, but I don't know if converting from `military` -> `direct handouts` would be an improvement.
Military and defense contractors are two separate things. Both are jobs programs, the latter for upper middle class white people in flyover states.
Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation?
It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have enough capability to assist the US, but not to go off on adventures of its own and certainly not (going all the way back to the Washington Naval Treaty here) enough military might to resist the US or start another European empire.
That is, the strategy from WW2 until fairly recently was to prevent Germany re-arming. Just as the large deployment in Japan is to prevent Japan from re-arming just as much as it is there to defend the Pacific from China.
A.k.a. "Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
https://unherd.com/2017/10/keeping-russians-americans-german...
The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately. Compare a lit of the world's largest economies from 40 years ago to now.
In purchasing power parity terms, a glance at Wikipedia yields
China: $43.491 trillion [1]
USA: $31.821 trillion [2]
EU: $30.184 trillion [3]
UK: $4.59 trillion [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago.
Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
> Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago.
That turns out to be easier than I thought thanks to [1]. In 1986 it looked like this (PPP, million USD):
China: 647,219
USA: 4,579,625
EU ex UK: 4,368,019
UK: 805,518
EU total: 5,173,537 [2]
The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
> Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be. Feel free to post your own calculations if you want, but be careful with dates and exchange rates; the USD index is down about 9% over the past year.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_...
[2] In 1986, the EU had 12 members: Belgium (161,613), Denmark (100,996), France (866,333), West Germany (1,319,247), Greece (120,566), Ireland (40,169), Italy (953,257), Luxembourg (10,542), Netherlands (246,164), Portugal (92,824), Spain (456,308) and UK (805,518):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_enlargement_of_the_Europe...
Your link to the list of past PPP GDPs does not say what unit is used - it says "international dollars" without specifying an year.
> but be careful with dates and exchange rates
The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
> I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be
Not my intention at all. My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures" - i.e. the ability to project military and economic power. Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
> The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated. If you look at this list of countries by PPP GDP you will see India, Indonesia and Brazil are ahead of the UK and France. The only European country in the top five is Russia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
> Your link to the list of past PPP GDPs does not say what unit is used - it says "international dollars" without specifying an year.
Irrelevant since we are comparing relative sizes, like EU vs US, now and then.
>> but be careful with dates and exchange rates > The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
Indeed, that's why I use them instead of the nominal ones you requested. My warning was about the latter.
> My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures"
Your claim, quoted verbatim, was this:
> The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately.
The GDP figures say otherwise: US and EU were and are roughly equal, EU + UK were and are larger.
I am willing to grant you half a point: neither US nor EU are large enough to separately dominate the world like they once did. Together, they are still #1.
> Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
The EU is a little more than "potential". Currently ineffective, yes, but that's the topic of the article. Says right in the subtitle: "Without America to rely on, the EU is gearing up to be a global power in its own right."
> The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated.
If that is the case, then it's evident from the relative GDP figures now and 40 years ago that the US has stagnated just about as much, which contradicts your original claim.
> The only European country in the top five is Russia!
Breaking out individual European countries instead of considering the EU as a whole (the topic of the article you are ostensibly commenting) makes about as much sense as breaking out individual US states instead of considering the US as a whole.
It seemed like it was the past, but it might become so again. Europe will never trust the US for defence again, which means it has to build up all defence capabilities internally. This will take many many years, but it seems almost inevitable now that it will happen.
When enough time has passed with Europe self sufficient in defence, there might arise cases where US and Europe has a conflict of interest that results in an armed conflict. Perhaps at first via proxy states depending on the type of conflict.
Europe is taking over America's back yard as we speak. Power isn't just raw numbers. It's bureaucracy and shaping the rules of engagement.
https://apnews.com/article/mercosur-european-union-trade-agr...
I would also say (d) make it clear to the Soviet Union that, if they invaded West Germany, it would not just be an intra-European war; it would be a world war.
Sure, but that rationale went away in the early 1990s and they stayed for thirty years longer than that.
True. Institutions like that have a lot of momentum, and they sometimes outlive their original rationale.
But on the other hand, Russian aggression is back in the headlines these days...
Aircraft carriers cannot replace military bases. That is why they stayed.
The US can support all of its military operations in Africa and the Middle East from its vast cold war era infrastructure in Europe.
An intricate plan designed to further US interests, wrecked by an ignoramus who didn't understand it.
"huge number of troops in Germany in the first place?"
I wouldn't call 35000 troops of mostly non-combat specializations a "huge number". In the Cold War, the American presence in West Germany was an order of magnitude larger, about quarter a million soldiers.
"Defence, or occupation?"
Neither/nor. Logistics for various distant operations. Rhineland is a very practical stop located between the US and the Middle East + North Africa (MENA), closer to MENA, with highly developed maintenance and repair facilities, communication facilities, top-notch hospitals for casualties etc.
If a GI Joe gets seriously injured in Kabul or Baghdad or now possibly Tehran, they are airlifted to Ramstein. If an armored vehicle gets damaged by a roadside bomb and the local mechanics cannot fix it on the spot, dtto.
General Hodges wrote several articles on how dumb the current administration is to alienate Europe, because without access to such facilities, any deployment in the wider region becomes very challenging. Even the original invasion of Iraq was somewhat complicated by the Irish refusing the use of Shannon airport for US military aircraft.
This reminds me of Afghanistan. It was a very difficult war for the US because they had no bases in the region and Afghanistan was surrounded by hostile/unstable nations.
No I disagree. The goal was Europe spends more on defence while be dependent on the US. What happens: Europe spends more on defence while be less dependent on the US. Trump and many Americans think the US is some kind of special country and will be always on the top. Quite the opposite.
They are not in a position to do that successfully
Nobody ever is. You’re forced into it by external events, and you either kinda make it work, or don’t. It was, after all, changing times and dumb moves by a mad despot that caused the US to revolt and form a country.
Care to expand?
The US makes up approximately 15% of NATO funding and I don't think the EU is in an economic position to make that up any time soon. NATO is arguably underfunded as is.
I'm not so sure - everyone goes on about the EU's relative lack of GDP growth as though it's a death sentence, which is obvious hyperbole.
In any case, numerically I'd imagine that 15% being made up by spending increasing by 2-3 times by the remaining 85% (from 2% previous target to 5%, or 3.5% more realistically).
[dead]