The EU still has more soldiers, tanks, planes and so forth then Russia, even without the US. The reason to increase military spending is mainly to make sure Russia does not attack, as that would be even more expensive.
At the same time talking about capabilities is important. However there also needs to be a discussion about potential threats. For example the EU imports nearly all of its fossil fuels, mainly from countries it does not like too much. So reducing fossil fuel consumption might be a better investment, then military spending for some foreign mission. Similar story with China and manufacturing.
Or both, military spending because there is a war in Europe, more renewables (I think nuclear is late to the party, and we import the fuel from not the nicest countries too) so that we can phase out lots of oil, coal, gas consumption.
Canada and Australia have significant Uranium reserves, it doesnt need to come from Russia and Kazakhstan. One of the African nations is also a significant source iirc
They don’t have more tanks, or many other types of munitions than Russia.. And their production of key things like artillery shells is a fraction of that of Russia. If Russia is able to fight each country in Europe without the help of the others, it would eventually win all the fights and get stronger as it went along. A united Europe would win, but a divided one would likely fall.
Europe’s plan for war didn’t need lots of artillery shells. However Europe isn’t providing Ukraine with the air power needed to fight without lots of artillery which makes one wonder if they have enough capacity to build more if a competent Russia had attacked Europe instead.
The EU still has more soldiers, tanks, planes and so forth then Russia, even without the US. The reason to increase military spending is mainly to make sure Russia does not attack, as that would be even more expensive.
At the same time talking about capabilities is important. However there also needs to be a discussion about potential threats. For example the EU imports nearly all of its fossil fuels, mainly from countries it does not like too much. So reducing fossil fuel consumption might be a better investment, then military spending for some foreign mission. Similar story with China and manufacturing.
Or both, military spending because there is a war in Europe, more renewables (I think nuclear is late to the party, and we import the fuel from not the nicest countries too) so that we can phase out lots of oil, coal, gas consumption.
Canada and Australia have significant Uranium reserves, it doesnt need to come from Russia and Kazakhstan. One of the African nations is also a significant source iirc
Yep, in africa the Russians are fighting the French for the uranium. Nigeria IIRC.
They don’t have more tanks, or many other types of munitions than Russia.. And their production of key things like artillery shells is a fraction of that of Russia. If Russia is able to fight each country in Europe without the help of the others, it would eventually win all the fights and get stronger as it went along. A united Europe would win, but a divided one would likely fall.
Europe’s plan for war didn’t need lots of artillery shells. However Europe isn’t providing Ukraine with the air power needed to fight without lots of artillery which makes one wonder if they have enough capacity to build more if a competent Russia had attacked Europe instead.
Fair point. A united Europe can certainly defeat Russia, it’s only a divided one I’m concerned with.