The war was a wake up call for many, but it’s not creating the intended effect, as they are getting even more reliant on US, not vice versa. US is the biggest winner so far as far as increasing its footprint on the continent goes.
EU ARMY EU ARMY EU ARMY EU ARMY EU ARMY
She’s not wrong.
So true.
It showed Europe that it’s too weak, not that it’s too reliant on the US. We’d be fucked if the US hadn’t stepped up.
Also could in other words say that it showed that “EU lacks a spine on its own”.
Why is it bad? This conflict showed us that you US is more reliant than many major European countries.
The problem of the EU military is (mostly) Germany.
We have amazing tech with the Leopard 2, PUMA and Eurofighter but our stuff is too expensive and too slow to produce.
The US builds thousands of Abrams and F-35 thus making everything cheaper (economy of scale) and more available.
We only produce a few hundred units, making everything more expensive and leaving us with no capacities to quickly fullfil orders.
Maybe the government will notice that we need a strong military AND a strong military industry.
The other problem is that joint-EU projects often fail because no agreement can be reached between countries (France leaving Eurofighter project, problems with the next-Gen tank etc.)
All of this makes us far too dependent on US military industry.
10 comments
I agree
The war was a wake up call for many, but it’s not creating the intended effect, as they are getting even more reliant on US, not vice versa. US is the biggest winner so far as far as increasing its footprint on the continent goes.
EU ARMY EU ARMY EU ARMY EU ARMY EU ARMY
She’s not wrong.
So true.
It showed Europe that it’s too weak, not that it’s too reliant on the US. We’d be fucked if the US hadn’t stepped up.
Also could in other words say that it showed that “EU lacks a spine on its own”.
Less talk, more action please.
Here are some quotes from *1998* after the NATO intervention:
> In a Europe that is increasingly concerned about unilateralism and resurgent isolationism in the United States, France seized the moment this week to urge the European allies to develop a more independent defense and foreign policy. {[x](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/world/france-presses-for-a-power-independent-of-the-us.html?searchResultPosition=3)}
#
> Defense Minister Alain Richard, speaking of lessons the Europeans learned from Kosovo, where only the United States was quickly able to mass the sophisticated precision-guided weapons needed for the NATO bombing campaign, urged Europeans to cooperate and build forces for similar missions. {[x](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/world/france-presses-for-a-power-independent-of-the-us.html?searchResultPosition=3)}
#
> Britain accepted a longstanding French proposal today that calls for the 15-nation European Union to be able to conduct military actions on its own in situations where the United States and other NATO allies do not want to become involved. {[x](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/05/world/britain-joins-france-s-call-for-european-force.html?searchResultPosition=13)}
Why is it bad? This conflict showed us that you US is more reliant than many major European countries.
The problem of the EU military is (mostly) Germany.
We have amazing tech with the Leopard 2, PUMA and Eurofighter but our stuff is too expensive and too slow to produce.
The US builds thousands of Abrams and F-35 thus making everything cheaper (economy of scale) and more available.
We only produce a few hundred units, making everything more expensive and leaving us with no capacities to quickly fullfil orders.
Maybe the government will notice that we need a strong military AND a strong military industry.
The other problem is that joint-EU projects often fail because no agreement can be reached between countries (France leaving Eurofighter project, problems with the next-Gen tank etc.)
All of this makes us far too dependent on US military industry.