|
|||||
Nice to see mainstream European opinion coming over to Trump’s way of thinkingTrump has long argued it was unreasonable for US taxpayers to be subsidising Europe’s defence when European governments are unwilling to stump up to defend themselves. It seems that today, many European pundits are now belatedly in agreement with Trump, yet I have encountered quite a lot of annoyance when I point this out. It is hard to not laugh 😀 November 6th, 2024 |
 17 comments to Nice to see mainstream European opinion coming over to Trump’s way of thinkingLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Given the levels of NATO expenditure when Trump made his original argument back in 2016 and where it is today, it seems like most European NATO members have come to Trump’s point of view, NOT because of Trump, but because of the War in Ukraine.
Trump was right, but the War was what made the most difference.
If people genuinely think Russia is a clear & now present threat (as I do) then 2% is derisory, as the Polish government clearly agrees.
@Perry de Havilland (Prague)
If people genuinely think Russia is a clear & now present threat (as I do) then 2% is derisory, as the Polish government clearly agrees.
Especially so if you have been neglecting your military for decades — since the quality of your military is cumulative over a long period of time. Nobody buys their whole airforce and navy in one year’s budget.
And don’t forget my country Canada, where our Dear Bollywood Leader in Blackface has all but ignored our defence commitments.
You know, I believe we might be in for a bit of a reckoning.
A federal election here is more than overdue!
“If people genuinely think Russia is a clear & now present threat (as I do) then 2% is derisory, as the Polish government clearly agrees.”
I do think Russia – as utterly shambolic as it is – is a threat (perhaps all the more so because of its military incompetence) and I agree.
But those governments are spending piles of money to import angry and hostile undocumented young men of military age.
Doesn’t that count as military spending?
I see the arguments that we need to increase military spending.
However, with government spending already cripplingly high – how can this be financed?
I know I sound like a old fashioned record with the needle stuck – but the Western world is going to have an economic crash in 2025, so the financing problem for the military is only going to get worse.
Donald J. Trump, contrary to what many people have been brainwashed into thinking, is a good man – he means well. But President Trump can not repeal the laws of economics – the American economy is going to crash, he would have to be Moses parting the Red Sea to prevent this.
As for Britain and so on – they lack natural resources and industrial strength, and they are making themselves WORSE with terrible policies (on “Green” stuff and so on).
This also applies to Germany.
What the bleep are the Free Democrats doing being in government with the SPD and the Greens?
My observation is that the German parties from the CDU/CSU on the ‘centre right’ all the way to Die Linke on the ‘left’ are wings of an effective uniparty. I’m pretty sure the FDs have collaborated with socialists and/or the greens previously as well. The only genuine opposition parties are AfD on the Nationalist right and the BSW as a socially conservative economically socialist party.
I would agree that it seems highly questionable how mass rearmament in Europe will be realistically paid for. I think there were definite opportunities to have sorted all this out in the early 1990s after Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe, or in the aftermath of the schism within NATO over the Iraq war after 2003. Or even during the first Trump presidency. Sadly none of these opportunities were taken.
Elon Musk is on record as saying that he expects to reduce federal expenditures by $2 trillions per year. That should be enough to pay for defending Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, until the local powers get their own militaries in order.
That is assuming that Elon is not being too optimistic; but who can blame Elon for excessive optimism, given his record?
@Snorri Godhi
Elon Musk is on record as saying that he expects to reduce federal expenditures by $2 trillions per year. That should be enough to pay for defending Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, until the local powers get their own militaries in order.
The purpose of reducing federal spending is to stop spending it, not to spend it on a different government program like military aid to foreign countries. The US government has close to quarter of a million dollars in debt for every american household, and if you include unfunded liabilities it is closer to one and a half million dollars per american household. Someone, sometime needs to start to pay that down, or at least stop adding to it.
Nonetheless, I think all three of these hotspots will be considerably less hot six months from now.
If Europe was serious about increasing defense spending and rearming they would first have to realize this is much easier, if not only possible at all, with a functioning economy and jettison anything that increases the cost of energy, including net-zero nonsense, out the nearest airlock.
Fraser:
Certainly, but refusing to pay for the defense of allies (especially allies who have historically made major concessions to enemies of the West at the behest of the US, such as Israel and the Ukraine) is a false economy.
I think so too. At the end of January, we’ll have a POTUS whose idea of negotiations does not reduce to demanding unconditional surrender from allies in return for enemies signing a piece of paper. But there is no guarantee.
The lower the cost of energy, the better for the West and the worse for Russia and Iran.
Trump is merely saying out loud what, I expect, many senior US policymakers have said, more or less in private, for decades. I recall reading Mark Steyn talking about this issue 25 years ago. P J O’Rourke used to point this out, in his inimitable way, as far back as the 1980s.
A long-term problem is that the European countries (with certain exceptions) got very comfortable with the US doing the heavy lifting on defence. Europe built a large, generous welfare state, avoiding the difficult choices because of the post-Cold War dividend. Countries were able to indulge in 35-hour weeks (France), long paid holidays (most of them), rising benefits of all kinds, etc. In tandem, an infantilised political and chattering class, influenced by the religions of environmentalism and so on, have deindustrialised their countries and just assumed that the good side of industry could keep going, somehow. But look at where we are: Germany’s car production industry is in deep trouble and the country is not replacing its nuclear power stations. Our ability to produce munitions is low if we cannot manufacture steel at a reasonable price.
A “precautionary principle” approach to innovation means Europe, while it does still do good stuff, is way behind the likes of the US in terms of ability to produce lots of cutting-edge AI and related tech that is going to be crucial in future conflicts.
Sure, this is a generalisation – Italy, for instance, produces excellent helicopters, and the UK has some good anti-missile tech. The Finns and Swedes are very capable (Sweden’s shallow water submarines are excellent). But this is every uneven.
We have developed a sort of “learned helplessness” in Europe, and this has to change. It requires an act of will. When I look at the kind of clowns in office in the UK, I don’t see the necessary seriousness.
I have my reasons for disliking Mr Trump, and I don’t resile from that even though he deservedly beat an awful opponent. But if there are some redeeming qualities he has, it is that he scares the shit out of a complacent political class on issues such as this. Long may he and his colleagues continue to do so.
I repeat – both the European countries and the United States are already in a financial crises, and that crises is going to get worse, vastly worse.
So how can higher military spending be financed?
I am not a Rothbardian – I do not blame the West for historic or present conflicts, quite the contrary. But I do not think people have yet grasped just how bad the economic situation is and how it is going to get vastly worse.
How about President Trump offers a new NATO deal; mutual defence for mutual tariff-free trade, and let the EU nations take their pick.
New NATO: mutual defence and free trade, no freedom of movement.
Old EU:no defence, no free trade, plus freedom of movement.
As Paul said – Europe is not capable of defending itself (let alone the Ukraine). Not economically and not mentally. Europe is a hopelessly rotten carcass.
The US is not in much better shape.
It will take maybe 10 Trump-like presidencies to change course. It won’t happen.