Comments by "Paul Aiello" (@paul1979uk2000) on "Warfronts"
channel.
-
24
-
@blackoak4978 That's the case for many countries, if you have the economy to back it up, you can quickly adapt and put your economy to work on a war footing quite quickly if the need arises.
In the case of Canada, there is no threat for now but if that were to change, military spending would change and things can change quickly, same in Europe, for most countries, especially western European countries, there is little threat to them, even with Russia making a lot of noise in the east, there not really a threat, but many are seeing this as an opening to boost military spending and many are seeing the opening on integrating the militaries into an EU based one, first starting with arms production, support among the people and many political circles seems to be growing on that, so we could be seeing the early signs of that.
The irony is, I think Trump is the one that's far more effective in reshaping European thinking than Putin is.
2
-
In the case of South Korea, it's easy to understand why they would want to be able to defend themselves, especially with some of the hostile countries around them.
With everything that's going on in the world, I wouldn't put too much stock in NATO being that useful for defending its members, we keep seeing with both the EU, US and the west where they keep making excuses to limit what help they are willing to do and keep watering down support, if it comes to the crunch, would they really come to the aid if the stakes are high? The US is already making excuses on Ukraine, who is to say they wouldn't do the same on South Korea or Taiwan?
As for the EU and it's members, I don't think they need to worry, because of how integrated those countries are, both politically and economically, it puts far more pressure on other EU members coming to the aid of the other out of self-interest, because attacking one EU member would do a lot of damage to other members because of how tied together those countries are, this is in contrast with NATO, which the countries have nothing holding them together, so we only have the world that if a NATO country is attacked, others would come to the aid in a direct way, and honestly, with how the US is behaving, I wouldn't put too much faith in that for defence.
As for the EU, well, it's more complicated, they have the potential, but they need to speak more with one voice through the EU, they need to pool more resources together on the military and forign policy side, there are signs of building an EU arms industry, but we'll see how that goes, so the potential is there to be a major military power but the political and public will need to be there to make it happen, and probably many countries around the world would want that as an extra option away from the US which is becoming more radical, less trustworthy and unpredictable, but on the plus side, Putin, Trump and China are focusing minds in Europe, so we might start seeing real movement in areas to really make a difference, something that's long overdue, something you've got to respect the French on, because they've been pushing on this for a long time whereas Germany keeps showing weakness, Germany needs to grow a pair and wake up to the realities of how the world is changing or get left behind by other EU members.
As for South Korea, there are limited in what they can do with the resources they have, especially when it comes to China that is far bigger, that doesn't mean they should not try, but really, they need the US, but with how the US is changing, I think we need a strong EU as another option, being they have the economic power, as well as population size to be a major power, if they get there act together, and because of how the US is going, especially with the likes of Trumps, we need another powerful alternative, and the EU is the only potential credible one, which is where Trump winning the next US elections would be good news for the EU to push more aggressively on integrating EU arm forces, they need that wake-up call to get the political and public will to get some real change, Trump, Putin and China are very likely that call, and we are seeing early signs of that, but there's still a long way to go for it to become a superpower in military, forign policy terms and with the way the world is shaping up, we need another option on the world stage.
2
-
@traestorm He does have a point, military spending is all based on risk to one country, the risk to Canada and many EU countries is quite small, hence the lower military spending.
The US on the other hand wants to project power around the world, it uses military bases as a form of doing so, it's also got to contend with China, which by the way, is far bigger of a problem for the US then it is for other, being as China wants to take the number one spot in the world away from the US, that puts far more pressure on the US then it does on others.
As for the Europeans, part of boosting military spending is because of Putin warmongering, but if you ask a lot of Europeans, especially in the western part, they see the US as becoming more unstable, polarise and less trustworthy, so basically, Trump and Putin are doing wonders for the EU, but not for the reasons many think.
Russia is more of a risk to eastern European countries that are not in the EU or NATO, but Russia isn't really a risk to EU or NATO members, countries that are not in the EU or NATO are usually far poorest and a much easier target, EU and NATO countries both have a defence clause that an attack on one is an attack on all, so the risk to them is quite remote, but I understand why there's more panic in eastern EU countries, they were after all behind the iron curtain decades ago, but it's understandable with them, but for western countries, Russia isn't really seen as much of a threat to them, the US on the other hand, especial a Trump US is being seen as a far bigger threat.
So this isn't about European countries pulling their weight, this is more about an unstable, erratic US that's reshaping minds in Europe, as for what that will do to transatlantic relations, it's too early to say, but I do know one thing, the US is likely going to need a strong EU to contain China long term, the problem for the US is that they want European countries to spend more but as individual countries, not as a single EU entity, as that would be far more powerful than what any of the EU members can offer on their own, it would also compete more directly with the US in many areas, especially arms sales, which could force the US to either have to spend more or to cut the military budget if the EU is taking a slice of arms sales around the world, probably why the EU is focusing on arms production first, it basically boils down to a lack of trust in the US from a lot of Europeans, and if Trump were to get into power, that would be the icing on the cake the EU needs.
From a geopolitical sense, both the EU and US really need to stand together because of a rising China, because overall, we are not that different, but a Trump president would likely wreak any of that from happening, it could even get to the point of that NATO could fall apart if Trump had his way, which again would fall in line with pushing what the EU wants, after all public views are gaining traction of more EU military and forign policy matters thanks to Trump and Putin.
1
-
It's nothing to do with being lazy, it just that since the end of the Cold War, there's not really been any threat to European countries, especially western ones, the US on the other hand constantly sees threats all over the world, mainly China now, so they have to keep spending to project it's interest around the world.
Europeans on the other hand don't, but there is a divide, western European countries don't see Putin as a threat, whereas eastern Europeans do, a lot of the change that's going on in western EU countries is actually more to do with the US then it has with Russia, specifically, Trump, not Putin, so Putin got the ball rolling but most in the western European countries are more concerned with Trump, that's focusing minds, public views are changing as well as political views, Trump is also playing into the hands of what the EU wants, a single EU military, starting with arms production.
A single military would be a lot stronger than 27 individual ones, it would also cut out a lot of waste and duplications, there are good and bad points for the US on that, an EU military would be a lot stronger than any of the EU countries ones, it would give them a far bigger say on forign policy matters, the arms industry would very likely compete with the US arms industry on selling arms, so taking a slice away from US arms which could make US military spending even higher or that they might have to reduce spending, but on the plus side, as long as the EU and US are on friendly terms, they would be far more effective in containing China, but ultimately, an EU military would be a big win for Europeans, they wouldn't need to listen to the US, they can do their own thing, even if it's not in the interest of the US, and it would allow countries that want options around the world to choose sides or keep their options open, where now, the US is the only real option, there could in time be 2 credible options, that could reshape the world's geopolitical landscape in ways we can't see for now.
With that said, the EU and US are not that different from each other, so it's unlikely they would turn on each other and will likely be allies, but Europeans will likely not listen to the US as much in many areas and very likely not to do US bidding, which could be costly for the US as that would weaken US voice in Europe, whiles the EU offers the world an alternative voice, which I suspect a lot of countries around the world will find attractive.
But on the plus side for the US, it does mean they don't have to share the burden as much around the world and could spend less on its military, but it will also weaken US power around the world, there are trade-offs across all this.
In any case, another strong democracy can only be a good thing for the world with how unstable parts of the world are getting with the likes of Russia, China and what's going on in the Middle East, Africa.
1
-
It really all depends on the threat, for most Europeans in the west, there ism't really much of a threat, even today there isn't much of a threat from Russia, hence defence spending, but the further east you go, the higher the spending goes with it, and it's understandable why considering there history with Russia, but honestly, I don't think there's a threat to EU or NATO countries, being that both have a defence clause that an attack on one is an attack on all, and in the case of EU members, they are far more integrated into each other than NATO members, so they would be far more compelled to come to the aid of the other in a direct way if war were to break out.
With that said, I do think EU countries should spend around 2% but I don't think they should follow the US in spending so much, there isn't really much need, 2% would be fine, but I do think EU countries would be far better off if they integrate there militaries into one EU one, that would reduce a lot of waste and duplications, it would also be a far more powerful and effective military and forign policy then having 27 separate ones pulling in all directions, 2% of a single military would be more than strong enough, whereas 2% or more on the smaller countries is better than nothing but the effectiveness is still going to be limited, and in a changing world with the US, China and Russia, Europeans need to think big, and they've got the institution to make it happen with the EU if there is enough political will, and the irony is, momentum does seem to be building on this with the public and in political circles of an EU military, mostly thanks to Trump and Putin, and it looks like an arms industry could be the first step.
1
-
Putin underestimated western resilience when it comes to adapting and changing to whatever is thrown at them, it's why the west are so successful, they change and also change the pace of change depending on need.
In the case of the Ukraine war, Putin forced the Europeans to change on energy a lot sooner than they normally would, which is likely going to kill the fossil industry much sooner than it would and is likely going to put constant downwards pressure on the price point.
The real mistake Putin made, the ones buying are the ones with the power, basically, the EU countries were buying the fossil fuels from Russia, Putin thought the EU countries had no choice but to continue to buy from them, that's where the major underestimating comes from, and the end result is that the EU and much of the world are now actively going out of their way to secure energy from other sources and to generate a lot more internally, the real losers here are fossil producing nations whereas the real winners are the ones that produce very little of it.
Putin has done more for clean energy over the last 15 or so months than Greenpeace could ever have done, and all it took was a threat to energy security to do it.
Another thing some should remember, especially on western countries, their pace of change or adapting might seem slow at times to things, but it really does depend on urgency, the more urgent something is, the quicker the pace they'll act on it, basically as we saw with Covid and the war in Ukraine.
Another factor in all this, the tough response from the west has likely given China pause on what it wants with Taiwan, because make no mistake, the west would likely have a much tougher response on Taiwan then it's doing on Ukraine, simply because of the tech sector.
So this was partly a message to China to tell them, we're not as soft as you like to think we are, Putin clearly fell for that trap and is paying the price for it now, with basically being squeezed from the west and being taken advantage off by the east, which is the last thing Putin wanted.
As for LNG, that's only a short term thing to fill the void, unless the produces of that find ways to lower the price a lot, it's very likely that European countries will look for cheaper alternatives, whether that be from other markets or renewable energy, LNG was always competing on price and it's at a major disadvantage on that, which is why if the likes of the US wants to continue to benefit from that, they are going to need to find ways to lower the cost a lot as consumers are very sensitive to these things and will shift towards cheaper options on the world market, so that was always only a short term benefit for the likes of the US, to fill the void, probably for less than 5 years as a lot of the other things come online.
Also, was LNG being used that much? From what some of the media were saying, ships were floating around the sea of Europe, not docking because the energy wasn't needed because of the mild winter and because of the cuts EU countries made, that and the gas tanks were filled up higher than expected that they ended up buying more energy than needed, good in a way as it put less pressure on the economy and also makes sure that by next winter, the gas tanks are filled to the brim, but it could also be an early indicator that LNG is less important than realised and likely to get less so as the years go by, unless the price of it becomes a lot cheaper.
1