| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? 20:49 - Jan 13 with 490 views | NthQldITFC |
...particularly in regard to Russia?
from https://www.worldometers.info/
Population [GDP]
1. US ~350m [$30t]
2. Western Europe Germany+UK+France+Spain+Italy+Netherlands ~350m [$18tn]
+ another ~70m [maybe $2t] of traditionally 'Western' European nations (i.e. non Soviet bloc)
3. Strong Western Allies - Canada, Australia, Japan, NZ + ~200m [~$10t]
4. Eastern bloc ~180m [?]
5. Russia ~140m [$2t]
6. China ~1,400m [$19t]
7. India ~1,400m [$4t]
I know GDP is a highly flawed metric of anything much, and I know debt and independent nukes aren't considered in this ^, but why, in principle, shouldn't 2. and 3. together be capable of forming an alliance strong enough to at least give 1. 5. and 6. a little more pause for thought? |  |
| |  |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 20:53 - Jan 13 with 460 views | redrickstuhaart |
We absolutely can.
The idea that Europe is hopeless is US nonsense narrative.
I wouldnt mess with Poland, let alone the whole block. |  | | |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 20:55 - Jan 13 with 448 views | WeWereZombies |
What nations are included in the Eastern Bloc ? And where does Turkey fit into this ? Or the World's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia ? Not to mention that nuclear power Pakistan, and the complex beast that is Brazil. |  |
| |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 21:18 - Jan 13 with 372 views | J2BLUE |
Trump knows a united Europe could stand up to the US which is why he's so anti the EU.
Labour should ask the EU if they would take us back on the terms we had (maybe without some of the grants but broadly) then have a referendum. The world has changed. Our future lies with Europe.
Voting for Brexit was a massive mistake. I deeply regret my vote.
Another thing I would like to see is another 1p on income tax to fund defence. We need to buy drones and equipment and pay the salaries of anyone who would like to join the army. I would much rather pay extra now to get a strong army to deter Russia than face war in the future. |  |
| |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 21:30 - Jan 13 with 333 views | Guthrum |
Lack of homogenity and of common goals.
European countries (and their predecessors) have been commercial and military rivals for so long that it is still hard to put down ancient prejudices and contests.
Within Europe, there is a strong layer of national interest and a desire to keep governance in their own capitals, not giving decisionmaking over to the centralised authority necessary for coordinated policy, planning and action. At best it is a fractious and unruly committee, at worst deliberately trying to undermine things.
Some countries feel stronger affinities with outside powers than towards their European brethren (e.g. the UK with the USA and Hungary with Russia).
Economic inequalities across the region are accentuated by, again, the lack of centralised authorities. Poorer countries have equal say in the EU with rich ones. Not the case in the USA, China or Russia.
Military unification is even more contentious than the economic one. The polite fiction that any of the European countries might be capable of self defence with only their own forces carries a lot of weight.
A herd of 30 cats facing off against a bear, an elephant and a dragon. [Post edited 13 Jan 21:31]
|  |
| |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 21:42 - Jan 13 with 288 views | Kievthegreat |
Some things hurting European armed forces:
1 - Fragmentation
Europe's military development programmes and procurement are deeply fragmented. There are three 4th/4.5th gen fighter programmes and two 6th gen programmes. There are multiple Tank programmes that are developed. Apply all this to literally every system that European countries build, and you have a huge amount of wasted potential.
2- Poor strategic decisions of the past decade
European countries enjoyed the peace dividend, but never reacted to the changing world around them. Post Cold War, there was far less need for maintaining high levels of spending, so it was easy to shift that money into healthcare, social programmes, infrastructure etc... (which is a very good thing when geopolitics allow as it's better for economies and society as a whole). However rather than see the writing on the wall with events like the 2014 invasion of the Donbas, the tough decisions were constantly put back.
3 - Comparative costs
Countries like Russia can produce cheaper than the West. Labour costs are higher in Europe, so your soldiers need higher wages, the people building your weapons need higher wages so your weapons cost more. £1 of spending in Europe with high labour costs and inefficient procurement is worth far less than the equivalent value spent in Russia and China.
Europe could very easily get to the level of Russia. They possibly already have it given the attrition of highly trained soldiers and equipment that Russia has suffered in Ukraine. However if I look at the 3 things I pinpointed, 2&3 are resolvable by just putting in the money (we have so much more than Russia and China is far more remote a threat due to distance), but 1 is frankly unresolvable.
If you want to resolve problem 1, you'd have a unified procurement process. Develop 1 tank programme which can then be produced at volume for all countries, same logic with fighters, ships, submarines, etc... Thing is that's an earth shattering decision which every country will reject out of narrow self interest. Could be done with more collaboration short of a unified procurement process. There is decades of experience showing how hard international consortiums developing things are to keep all parties happy though, and now you want to do it on Steroids. There is so much horse-trading to make sure their country gets enough of the work, or the production to protect native industry that you end up with politicking and massive inefficiencies still. |  | | |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 21:53 - Jan 13 with 249 views | NthQldITFC |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 20:55 - Jan 13 by WeWereZombies |
What nations are included in the Eastern Bloc ? And where does Turkey fit into this ? Or the World's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia ? Not to mention that nuclear power Pakistan, and the complex beast that is Brazil. |
I know. It was just a very rough and ready ten minute job. I also left out all of Africa and most of Asia. The main point was western Europe, albeit with much higher welfare costs and expected standards of living ought to be able to quite easily get its sh!t together to kick Russia's arse if necessary, albeit we might get nuked in the process.
As others have said, it's the fragmented nature of WE in terms of policy, equipment and command which makes us look weak - can we bite the bullet and put ego and vested interest aside if we need to? In theory yes, in practice... | |
| |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 22:02 - Jan 13 with 208 views | bsw72 |
Not sure I would look at Europe rather NATO excluding the US.
Even without the United States, NATO would be a first-tier military coalition capable of defending Europe and, in a conventional war, likely overmatching Russia through economic scale, industrial depth, and coordinated air and naval power.
The true limitation of a NATO-minus-US force is not so much military capability but the political cohesion and the absence of US-provided strategic enablers, meaning such a force could fight, but escalation would carry catastrophic consequences with no meaningful winner.
Remember that NATO without the US still has 2 nuclear powers (UK and France) but with only 500 warheads vs the 6000 held by Russia still, and the 5200 held by the US. |  | | |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 23:45 - Jan 13 with 69 views | WicklowBlue |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 22:02 - Jan 13 by bsw72 |
Not sure I would look at Europe rather NATO excluding the US.
Even without the United States, NATO would be a first-tier military coalition capable of defending Europe and, in a conventional war, likely overmatching Russia through economic scale, industrial depth, and coordinated air and naval power.
The true limitation of a NATO-minus-US force is not so much military capability but the political cohesion and the absence of US-provided strategic enablers, meaning such a force could fight, but escalation would carry catastrophic consequences with no meaningful winner.
Remember that NATO without the US still has 2 nuclear powers (UK and France) but with only 500 warheads vs the 6000 held by Russia still, and the 5200 held by the US. |
One question on the above I have re. Nukes is really are we at a stalemate whether you have several hundred warheads vs thousands. Ultimately if anyone presses the trigger on 10 let alone a hundred isnt everyone in a no win situation.
From my limited perspective isnt the new battleground in new tech warfare, drones, cyber etc. That is where you can continually weaken or distract the enemy? More of a gradual grinding down, undermining country/state security while influencing politics to move people over to your viewpoint. Much more insidious than just the last person standing element of obliterate your enemy? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 00:55 - Jan 14 with 12 views | IPS_wich |
| A very simplistic view of world blocs - why does 'Europe' feel so weak? on 21:30 - Jan 13 by Guthrum |
Lack of homogenity and of common goals.
European countries (and their predecessors) have been commercial and military rivals for so long that it is still hard to put down ancient prejudices and contests.
Within Europe, there is a strong layer of national interest and a desire to keep governance in their own capitals, not giving decisionmaking over to the centralised authority necessary for coordinated policy, planning and action. At best it is a fractious and unruly committee, at worst deliberately trying to undermine things.
Some countries feel stronger affinities with outside powers than towards their European brethren (e.g. the UK with the USA and Hungary with Russia).
Economic inequalities across the region are accentuated by, again, the lack of centralised authorities. Poorer countries have equal say in the EU with rich ones. Not the case in the USA, China or Russia.
Military unification is even more contentious than the economic one. The polite fiction that any of the European countries might be capable of self defence with only their own forces carries a lot of weight.
A herd of 30 cats facing off against a bear, an elephant and a dragon. [Post edited 13 Jan 21:31]
|
To build on your comment.
The unspoken issue is that by any measure, the 'biggest' (and implicitly the most powerful) country within Western Europe is Germany, and the earth will need to spin many more thousand times on its axis (pun intended) before France, UK, Poland, Belgium and Netherlands will accept a united Europe (from a defence perspective) that sees Germany as the major player.
It's one of the reasons NATO is so reliant on the US being part of it and why it will collapse if the US stepped away - as long as the US is involved then Germany are not front and centre. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
