Europe at War

[71 dB]

The tenth country seems to have ratified you know what: Thank you Netherlands! 
🇳🇱

[Todd]

Which ones? I'm really interested in your point ---- but please, Todd, make it explicitly, don't just send me to various links and references. Please, explain it in your own words. Thank you.

I have for years, maybe more than a decade, in dozens or hundreds of posts.  Search "offshore balancing" to start. 

I don't post on demand.

[Johnnie Burgess]

The tenth country seems to have ratified you know what: Thank you Netherlands! 
🇳🇱

Do any of those 10 nations spend 2% of their GDP like they agreed to?

[Todd]

Do any of those 10 nations spend 2% of their GDP like they agreed to?

Poland, Estonia, and the UK.  Eastern Europeans are desperate for US protection, and fearful of Russia, hence the willingness to spend, and the UK is almost a vassal state.  It is unreasonable to expect Canada to devote 2% of GDP to defense since the US would automatically and properly treat any attack on Canada as an immediate threat to US security.  As Trudeau demonstrated publicly, Canada's PMs will sign whatever important agreements they are told to sign.  When it comes time, they will do whatever they are told on Arctic matters.  Canuckians get a pass.  Most European countries act in bad faith now and always will.  Americans cannot trust Europeans, generally speaking.

[Madiel]

For all the alleged ineptitude of the Russians, they now have complete control over 20% of the Ukrainian territory. If the war stopped now, there is a high probability that after a negotiated settlement this percentage could be lower, for instance if Russia agreed to keep only Crimea and Donbas and return the Azov coastline and hinterland (which at this moment seems to be the best outcome for Ukraine and equivalent to a victory, especially if Russia also agreed to pay war reparations). But if war goes on undefinitely, there is a high probability that this percentage would be larger and their access to the Azov Sea, or even the Black Sea too, cut off permanently.

Do you know what the percentage was before this year, from Crimea and the Donbas rebels?

[71 dB]

Do any of those 10 nations spend 2% of their GDP like they agreed to?

I'd rather live in a peaceful World where there was no need to waste 2 % of GDP on defence. So much good could be done with that money.

[Florestan]

Poland, Estonia, and the UK. 

Romania too.

[Florestan]

Do you know what the percentage was before this year, from Crimea and the Donbas rebels?

Actually Crimea is not included in the 20% percentage.

I don't know the exact percentage before the war but given that the rebels controlled only a part of the Donbas, not the whole region, I guess it was much less than 20%.

[Florestan]

I don't post on demand.

It was not a demand but a polite request (I used "please" and "thank you"). I'm fine with you refusing to answer, though, no problem at all.

[Johnnie Burgess]

I'd rather live in a peaceful World where there was no need to waste 2 % of GDP on defence. So much good could be done with that money.

So when someone attacks you have to beg others to defend you.

[Todd]

So when someone attacks you have to beg others to defend you.

European members of NATO have developed a sense of entitlement to US defense.  The Russo-Ukrainian War has exposed with perfect clarity how feeble European countries have become, but how bold they are in making demands on the US.

[ritter]

O ciel, che noia!

Some European countries are not making any "bold demands on the U.S.", and were almost begged —by the US— in their day to join NATO.

[Todd]

Some European countries are not making any "bold demands on the U.S.", and were almost begged —by the US— in their day to join NATO.

True, some have not made demands in this war.  Yet none are willing to exit NATO, which they can opt to do.  They remain security consumers content to rely on the US.

As to the US begging them to join NATO, that is the wrong verb.  Coerce or blackmail or force are all better choices.

[ritter]

As to the US begging them to join NATO, that is the wrong verb.  Coerce or blackmail or force are all better choices.

Yeah, it was carrot and stick tactics....

[Madiel]

Actually Crimea is not included in the 20% percentage.

I don't know the exact percentage before the war but given that the rebels controlled only a part of the Donbas, not the whole region, I guess it was much less than 20%.

Okay.

From what I was looking at recently they still don't control the whole Donbas (all of Luhansk oblast but not all of Donetsk). In some ways the bigger worry is how much of the south they control outside of that.

[Florestan]

Okay.

From what I was looking at recently they still don't control the whole Donbas (all of Luhansk oblast but not all of Donetsk). In some ways the bigger worry is how much of the south they control outside of that.

They basically cut off Ukraine's access to the Azov Sea.

[71 dB]

So when someone attacks you have to beg others to defend you.

Finland has strong defence for its size, but against Russia size terror states additional protection is wise.

The purpose of military spending of the US is to enrich the military industry which bribes the politicians, NOT to protect European countries which is "added value". So, American taxpayers pay the same regardless of how many European countries are part of NATO. In my opinion the US could easily half its military spendings and use the saved money elsewhere such as intuition free higher education. If anything, the US might even have a easier time protecting Estonia, because as part of NATO Finland might become responsible of Estonia.

It is not that we can't defend ourself. It is NOT WANTING TO NEED TO DO THAT!!! WAR SUCKS!!! Being in NATO keeps Russia AWAY!! We want to live in peace!!! Simple as that! WE don't want Americans to need to protect us. That's the point. Russia knowlng the US WOULD protect us keeps them away

[Todd]

If anything, the US might even have a easier time protecting Estonia, because as part of NATO Finland might become responsible of Estonia.

Some of the ideas on the internet are rather disconnected from practical reality.

[Johnnie Burgess]

Finland has strong defence for its size, but against Russia size terror states additional protection is wise.

The purpose of military spending of the US is to enrich the military industry which bribes the politicians, NOT to protect European countries which is "added value". So, American taxpayers pay the same regardless of how many European countries are part of NATO. In my opinion the US could easily half its military spendings and use the saved money elsewhere such as intuition free higher education. If anything, the US might even have a easier time protecting Estonia, because as part of NATO Finland might become responsible of Estonia.

It is not that we can't defend ourself. It is NOT WANTING TO NEED TO DO THAT!!! WAR SUCKS!!! Being in NATO keeps Russia AWAY!! We want to live in peace!!! Simple as that! WE don't want Americans to need to protect us. That's the point. Russia knowlng the US WOULD protect us keeps them away

Since February the US has given 7 billion dollars in military aid. Has anyone else given that much?

[Todd]

Since February the US has given 7 billion dollars in military aid. Has anyone else given that much?

This understates US aid rather a lot.

Kiel Institute for the World Economy: Ukraine Support Tracker

Statista: Total bilateral aid commitments to Ukraine between January 24 and July 1, 2022, by country and type

Japan has given more aid, though humanitarian aid, than almost all European countries.  On a percentage of GDP basis, Poland is shelling out the dough.