Looks like Team Europa is getting ready to step up to the plate and get back in the game in a major way, sports fans ! Recent reports would seem to indicate that the "Continental Combatants" have their work cur out for them if they're going to go once more for Big League status. Are they up to the task ? Time will tell ! https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-aims-shift-european-arms-industry-war-economy-mode-2024-03-04/ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/03/05/eu-proposes-16-billion-plan-to-prop-up-defense-industry/
Yes, Europe needs to rearm, because of the twin threats from Trump and Putin. Trump has just destroyed the deterrence of NATO and the US Republican party seems happy to throw Ukraine to the wolves, so Europe needs to look to its own defence much more seriously.
How far across Europe will the conventional war go, before the The UK and France decide to go Nuclear?
I guess the EDIP and procurement acts like EDIRPA have more or less been serving as welfare program efforts for bolstering capability gaps in the European defence industry. Since many taxpayers in the EU countries may be ideologically averse to paying more for military spending (i.e., the more direct approach). NATO membership wise (second half below), it's surprising that Canada is in the group not fulfilling the 2% agreement of 2014. Which sounds loose or semi-voluntary, anyway. Understanding the EU’s New Defense Industrial Strategy https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/...u-s-new-defense-industrial-strategy-pub-91937 EXCERPTS: More than three-quarters of the defense acquisitions by EU member states between the start of Russia’s invasion and June 2023 were made from outside the EU, with the United States alone representing 63 percent. But buying from third countries involves minimal European technology and intellectual property content and poses a risk to local skills and knowledge. It can also be harder to justify before European taxpayers who are asked to accept higher defense spending. The strategy envisions that by 2030, at least 50 percent of member states’ procurement budget (60 percent by 2035) should go to EU-based suppliers and that at least 40 percent of defense equipment should be procured in a collaborative manner. [...] The EC cannot do much about the fact that European countries still look to the United States for protection. Although the new strategy does point out the fragility of this arrangement, that same tenuousness might be even more reason for some governments to try to curry favor in Washington. The EC can, however, work to increase European defense supply chains’ reliability. Now that war has returned to the continent, defense planners want to make sure their own militaries have access to all necessary defense equipment in times of crisis. The EC is keen to establish European security of supply, irrespective of the member state in which suppliers are located. It wants intra-EU defense trade to represent at least one-third of the value of the EU defense market. = = = = = = NATO: Which countries are paying their fair share on defence? https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence EXCERPTS: One trend seen is that countries bordering Ukraine, Russia, or its neighbour and ally Belarus are spending increasingly more following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Estonia (2.73%), Lithuania (2.54%), Finland (2.45%), Romania (2.44%), Hungary (2.43%) and Latvia (2.07%) are all exceeding the alliance's guideline for defence expenditure. [...] The nations falling short of the alliance's target in 2023 were France (1.90%), Montenegro (1.87%), North Macedonia (1.87%), Bulgaria (1.84%), Croatia (1.79%), Albania (1.76%), the Netherlands (1.70%), Norway (1.67%), Denmark (1.65%), Czech Republic (1.50%), Portugal (1.48%), Italy (1.46%), Canada (1.38%), Slovenia (1.35%), Turkey (1.31%), Spain (1.26%), Belgium (1.13%) and Luxembourg (0.72%). - - - - - - - - - Fact-checking Trump's comments urging Russia to invade 'delinquent' NATO members https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ging-russia-to-invade-delinquent-nato-members EXCERPT: NATO members don’t pay to belong and don’t owe the organization anything other than contributions to a largely administrative fund. Trump clearly wasn’t referring to those administrative payments. His frequent complaint during his presidency, and now, has been how much NATO countries put into their own military budgets. U.S. presidents before him raised that concern. In fact, it was in 2014, during the Barack Obama administration, that NATO members agreed to move “toward” spending 2 percent of GDP on national defense by 2024. Stoltenberg also has said members needed to invest more in their militaries._
I find it difficult to believe that Crazy Ivan's got the mojo to take their dream of empire much further than they've already gone. A determined foe being supplied from outside its own resources has all but stopped them in their tracks. They might be able to take the Baltic states, but then it's on like Donkey Kong, if you'll pardon the expression, with NATO presumably pitching in fully. Further, I suspect that the Western powers would be loath to use nuclear weapons even if Russia did so first. I mean - how far does it go at that point ? One for one - and what do they target ? Launch everything and damn the world to Hell ?
I agree. However I am concerned that the end game for Ukraine is undefined. If Ukraine insists on retaking all lost territory, including Crimea, I do not believe it will ever end. I think the pope has a point. Ukraine is not going to conquer Russia. So what is the practical, achievable goal that would enable fighting to stop? And if it stopped, how could Ukraine be sure Putin would not rebuild his forces and have another go in a gear or two? Seems to me the only way is to yield Crimea, and maybe even the Donbas, stop the war and then admit Ukraine to NATO to prevent Russia restarting it. But for that to work, NATO must be a credible deterrent to Putin. If Trump is re-elected that will be hard to sustain.
The UK Prime Minister, when they take office, has to write four letters ("Letters of Last Resort") as to whether or not they would retaliate to a nuclear strike with our own nuclear weapons, in the event that the British Government and both the PM and their deputy/second have been taken out. The letters are sent to our nuclear subs, who would open the letters once confirming that they have become applicable, and carry out the orders. The letters can set out one of four options: retaliate, not retaliate, use own judgement, or place themselves under allied control. So it's quite possible that Sunak has ordered our subs to retaliate in the event of such "Last Resort".
The US State Dept. web page offers the following on the stated aims of our assistance to Ukraine: The United States reaffirms its unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters. https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%2C%20our%20allies,seizure%20of%20Crimea%20in%202014. This would seem to indicate that the intended goal is the restoration of all occupied territory to Ukraine. It's admittedly vague, and I can't recall any US official stating anything more clearly than the President declaring that we will support Ukraine for "as long as it takes". Presumably this meant as long as it takes to eject the Russians, but one wonders at this point if the Ukrainians are capable of doing so - even if the proverbial taps were opened wide as far as supplying them with weapons is concerned. I agree with your take as far as a diplomatic solution is concerned. No doubt a bitter pill for Ukraine to swallow, but the longer the conflict drags on, the more a wreck is being made of their nation. One way or another, guess who's likely to be asked to foot the bill for some sort of latter-day Marshal Plan to rebuild the place ? I'd like to see them admitted to NATO as well. Even if only to spite that S.O.B. Putin. We've in a sense already failed to live up to the bargain we made with them to guarantee their security in exchange for giving up the Soviet nukes they inherited when the USSR collapsed. It seems the least we can do is live up to said agreement in the aftermath of this conflict - whatever it might look like. I believe that strategic doctrine is still in place - even if it's not referred to as such any longer. I'm nutty enough to say vaporize Moscow straightaway should the Russians employ nuclear weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine - or against any NATO nation. Presumably, cooler heads than mine are running the US, though, and I have to wonder whether or not we would respond in kind - or even what precisely that might consist of. The thought of using tactical nuclear weapons against Russian invasion forces comes to mind, but that would mean using them on or near occupied Ukraine. Sounds like a dicey proposition even if it would end the conflict. I guess we can only hope that Ivan's not quite crazy enough to use the Red Pill. I wonder which alternative he's recommended. As a submarine commander given even just the latitude to act on my own judgement, I'd be inclined to blow the piss out of them, just for the sake of striking back.
