Alliances are only healthily maintained when both parties are of similar strengths. The EU standing up for itself should be good for American and the future of the transatlantic relationship.
A blueprint for a force much much smaller than the original 1999 proposal. Why is that? In 1999 the UK alone committed to providing a rotating pool of 20,000 with 12,000 ready to deploy at any given time.
5000 soldiers will barely touch the sides. So what has changed?
Is it like one army or is it made up of Soldiers from all the members? because if it is the first option where do i sign up?
The problem for the EU as NATO found is that most nations aren’t interested in contributing their fair share of GDP to defence spending and those who are have mostly weaker militaries and less recent experience of active service in a proper conflict.
Also despite having a much larger population you’re not going to find the EU willing to have anything like the size of military that the US can bring. So whilst the EU recognises it can’t rely in the US for protection it’s going to be very unlikely to put together anything meaningful itself. They’re certainly not going to be putting together something that Putin will give a shit about.
Without the US we would be speaking Russian
come to turkic concoul we will be safe togather
Okay, perhaps it’s just me, but it feels like I see articles like this at least once every other week or something.
They’re going to be too uninspired/inoffensive to want to LARP as Romans, won’t they? What a missed opportunity…
It isnt America’s job to protect Europe, they’ve been asking nicely for you to spend 2% of your budgets on your own defence but most of you would rather bitch about the Americans while they do the spending for you
9 comments
Alliances are only healthily maintained when both parties are of similar strengths. The EU standing up for itself should be good for American and the future of the transatlantic relationship.
A blueprint for a force much much smaller than the original 1999 proposal. Why is that? In 1999 the UK alone committed to providing a rotating pool of 20,000 with 12,000 ready to deploy at any given time.
5000 soldiers will barely touch the sides. So what has changed?
Is it like one army or is it made up of Soldiers from all the members? because if it is the first option where do i sign up?
The problem for the EU as NATO found is that most nations aren’t interested in contributing their fair share of GDP to defence spending and those who are have mostly weaker militaries and less recent experience of active service in a proper conflict.
Also despite having a much larger population you’re not going to find the EU willing to have anything like the size of military that the US can bring. So whilst the EU recognises it can’t rely in the US for protection it’s going to be very unlikely to put together anything meaningful itself. They’re certainly not going to be putting together something that Putin will give a shit about.
Without the US we would be speaking Russian
come to turkic concoul we will be safe togather
Okay, perhaps it’s just me, but it feels like I see articles like this at least once every other week or something.
They’re going to be too uninspired/inoffensive to want to LARP as Romans, won’t they? What a missed opportunity…
It isnt America’s job to protect Europe, they’ve been asking nicely for you to spend 2% of your budgets on your own defence but most of you would rather bitch about the Americans while they do the spending for you