This is a list of military spending by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
If you count only France and Germany they spend already more than Russia. The European Union together spend more money in defense that any other country in the world except the USA (and around the same that China).
So, what's the reason for demanding more spending?
Recently, there was a decision to increase spending at the European level, but the project was to spend it in local industry instead of buying the weapons to the Americans. The pentagon reacted really offended (1).
This "you should spend more in defense" is not about defense, it's about money, and where that money goes.
I think a better question that why the Europeans don't spend more in "defense", it's: why the Americans spend so much?
(1) - https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/pentagon-nato-warn-europ...
If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!
If NATO is no longer relevant, then nations should drop out of it. There is a clear path to this. If they want to be members, they should honour their obligations.
> Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them
Australia didn't need a nuclear power industry during this era, it was a major coal producer and nobody cared about emissions.
The non-proliferation cause it's another way of saying "we are the only one that should have nuclear capability". It doesn't look like to me that the USA is interested in a world without nuclear weapons (1), only in a world where the others don't have nuclear weapons.
>>"If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!"
If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead of "business", why being against spending the money in European military industry?
I notice that you don't address the question that Europe already spend more than Russia.
I think you forgot your links in your answer.
(1) - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...
> only in a world where the others don't
> have nuclear weapons
> If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead
> of "business", why being against spending the money
> in European military industry?
On this theme - there was an interesting Foreign Policy paper arguing that the F35 program serves as a US version of the belt-and-roads initiative. Still, it must be half-decent or countries would not buy it. e.g. Australia is licensing its recent sub design from France. But, it is buying the F-35, despite the lock-in problems. Israel produces an astonishing amount of its own tech but, likewise, is buying the F-35.
> I notice that you don't address the question
> that Europe already spend more than Russia.
My themes in the original comment was the notion of the European military on two grounds. (1) If military goals were important, nations would/should have been lifting their weight in NATO. (2) There are obstacles to creating a command structure for a European military, which is a very weak federation.
The US is absolutely right to be upset that it's NATO partners isn't fulfilling their part of the deal and instead rely on US tax payers for their defense.
Economically, Russia is a midget compared to the EU. They do have lots of nukes, though.
>> The European group have no history of coordinated executive action.
Yeah, perhaps they should start working on a coordinated executive action(i.e an EU army) or...just accept US protection for a "fee". It's been a good trade so far anyway. The only issue is that recently US started to double guess its past agreements.
You are not alone. That's why some EU countries prefer to buy US millitary equipment(often at inflated prices), support US's interests in the region and beyond(i.e Iraq invasion), accept US's interferences and be done with it. The EU army project is too risky politically and strategically. Things may change if US becomes too erratic(i.e think of a super Trump presidency)
What makes you think that ? I often read those sorts of reactions from Eastern Europeans (yes, yes, I know Poland is in « Central Europe ») but that's just giving us intentions we don't have. One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry.
Speaking from a French perspective, we'd be completely comfortable sending people fight for the sake of Poland, Romania or any EU member without too much of a second thought. We already send people to Africa all the time.
Most recently Macron's overtures towards Russia, so much so that even the Financial Times [1] felt the need the to blame it in one of its opinion pieces, and that is saying something (they generally are pretty neutral to "liberal" European leaders like Macron, even more so when they happen to be former investment bankers).
> One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry.
That does indeed happen and it's an active concern, one of the scandals that is about to erupt here in Romania is of the Romanian Army buying military stuff without following proper procurement procedures directly from an US company (via some Swiss and Israeli intermediaries/shell companies, depending on how you look at them). The French are fuming because apparently they were in contention for that contract, too.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/168243c2-bac4-404c-843a-ca1f61196...
But yes, I agree (partly) with your assessment, there doesn't seem to be a lot of willingness in the Western nations to support Eastern Europe militarily (or sometimes, to even acknowledge they have a military). However, when it comes to it, they may not have a choice: an occupied Poland puts the enemy within striking distance of Berlin, so defending Poland is of strategic importance. The same applies (to a lesser extent) to Finland and the Baltic states, losing them means losing control of the Baltic Sea.
I'm not sure exactly how that would work out for Romania, from a purely West-European point of view I would draw that line across Slovakia/Hungary rather than further to the east, however as things as are now, Hungary and the former Yugoslavian nations would be a liability, so Romania may be essential to defending Italy and Austria.
That being said, I very much hope the above remains idle speculation.
The Russia GDP is less than 10% of the GDP of EU, or the same size as the Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries.
Its population is shrinking rapidly due to low birth rates and very high death rates.
Its ruled by a totalitarian dictator that regularly tries to murder his opponents.
It seeks by all means to stir up unrest in its surroundings by misinformation.
Its one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
All of these are good reasons why the EU should rapidly invest in its own defense force. Putin will step-down one way or another the next 20 years and then it may get ugly, nobody knows who are waiting in the wings...
But if not for Russia, why does Europe need a military? To get strategic independence from the US? In that case, where is the money? Why the howling about Trump wanting to reduce the US contribution?
And how is the command going to work?
These are rhetorical questions. I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience.
I guess Turkey is the obvious other candidate. Not so many nukes, of course, but invaded a now EU member in 1974. Plays games with the edges of Greek airspace every week or so? Officially still in NATO but who knows what that means.
> I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience.
Yes.
Why does the US need a military? Canada? Mexico?
Its a global world, EU as one of the biggest blocks needs its own military for many reasons. Its time to cut the reliance of the US, but remain very close allies.
If defense spending is done right, purchased locally by local companies, a lot of the money circles back into the economy.
If you want peace, prepare for war. In 1939 we weren't prepared for war, that didn't turn out so well.
That "treaty" was pushed to European nations, mafia style, and voted in by right-wing parties and politicians (sometimes right-wing to the point of dictatorship), in the Cold War era, as protection against USSR.
It's still pushed now through diplomatic pressure, profitable handouts to vote in favor, etc., not because those nations really want it.
[1] One can of course speculate what would have happened if the cold war would have turned hot. Would ostensibly neutral Finland have been left alone, or would both NATO and the Warsaw Pact have nuked it just to be sure. Or would the massive nuclear strikes on the nearby Murmansk and Leningrad areas have caused such massive fallout that it would have been a moot point anyway?
The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum.
Meanwhile, Russia, a less prosperous nation with a history of muscular military engagement, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDP on military.
Due to its regular shadow operations in other countries, Russia has a ready supply of veteran soldiers who could be drawn on in a hostile engagement. European nations could have used the ‘NATO’ Afghanistan invasion as an opportunity to develop a similar pool, but made only token efforts.
Germany is even worse than Denmark. It is laughable for Merkel to make these comments. She has been in power for fifteen years. All through that time, Germany has been amongst the worst NATO members against it’s treaty obligations.
Beyond the realities of military capability, there are the political problems. The European group have no history of coordinated executive action. Structurally, they are in a weaker position to coordinate a war even than the US was in its articles of confederation era.