• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it about time that all democratic European countries create a joint European military to counter Russian/Belarussian aggression ? (1 Viewer)

?


  • Total voters
    13

Tender Branson

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
7,070
Reaction score
4,227
Location
🇦🇹 Austria 🇦🇹
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yes.

The 600 or so million Europeans living in democratic Europe must create a joint military now and place 1-2 million soldiers and equipment on standby along the Russian/Belarus border from Finland to Bulgaria/Greece, if not in Turkey and the Caucasus countries too.

This would show Putin who has the longer dick.
 
Excluding neutral countries like Austria, Switzerland, Ireland and Sweden, it would mean ca. 200.000 troops from Germany and Turkey each, 150.000 each from the UK, France, Italy, 100.000 each from Spain and Poland and the rest from the smaller countries.

Finland might join it and NATO too, as recent surveys have shown, maybe even Sweden.

Austria, Switzerland and Ireland might remain militarily neutral for sure, but might contribute financially.
 
Yes.

The 600 or so million Europeans living in democratic Europe must create a joint military now and place 1-2 million soldiers and equipment on standby along the Russian/Belarus border from Finland to Bulgaria/Greece, if not in Turkey and the Caucasus countries too.

This would show Putin who has the longer dick.
The reason they will not do so is that they spend the money on single payer healthcare systems and other entitlements and rely on US military logistics.
 
The reason they will not do so is that they spend the money on single payer healthcare systems and other entitlements and rely on US military logistics.

No, healthcare spending has nothing to do with it.

It has to do with the fact that we Western Europeans have become quite non-chauvinist and pacifist the past 80 years and most of us regular citizens and politicians shiver at the fact of arming ourselves or spend more than 1% of GDP on the military (Russia & US: 4%).

Another thing is that after 80 years and EU integration measures, there still is no USE, because people in the 40+ European countries do not want it and continue to like their nations over a supranational entity.
 
Yes.

The 600 or so million Europeans living in democratic Europe must create a joint military now and place 1-2 million soldiers and equipment on standby along the Russian/Belarus border from Finland to Bulgaria/Greece, if not in Turkey and the Caucasus countries too.

This would show Putin who has the longer dick.

silly submission
 
Yes.

The 600 or so million Europeans living in democratic Europe must create a joint military now and place 1-2 million soldiers and equipment on standby along the Russian/Belarus border from Finland to Bulgaria/Greece, if not in Turkey and the Caucasus countries too.

This would show Putin who has the longer dick.
More Fourth Reich nonsense from Adolf Land .

He does not even know that Turkey and Russia are 'best pals ' .rofl.
Greece hasn't the bus fare to get to the border .
AND they all want Russian gas
 
About time. Germany, Italy, France, Spain, England, Belgium, greece, Poland, and the rest should be able to combine a force to adequately repeal the ruskies with out having to look over here.
Do you really want to see the money required to do that shifted from current planned priorities to the MIC? Do you really expect the MIC dependent on US defense-intelligence spending to sit idly by while US spending is slashed using this proposal as justification?

Would it not be cheaper and more effective to subject the Putin led oligarchy to the economic treatment Venezuela has been experiencing
after getting serious about negotiating a deal resulting in restoration of Iranian petroleum exports and production and pressuring Israel to
stop offering political and financial refuge to Putin's oligarchs?

Would it not results be quicker by committing to as near as a total economic boycott of Russia as possible than by attempting to build
European forces superiority on the European continent. China's growth is slowing and cannot offset what Europe, Japan, and the U.S. have
the potential to do to Russia, economically? Simply make their exports the imports of last resort and stop assisting Russia's oligarchs, seizing
control of their assets wherever possible and impeding their ability to transact internationally and they may be influenced to solve the world's "Putin problem".

February 18, 2022
" The French government is set to pump more than €2bn into EDF in an effort to restore the state-controlled energy group’s finances, which are suffering due to nuclear reactor outages and production declines just as it gears up for investment in new plants. EDF, which on Friday reported a rise in profits and revenues for 2021, faces big setbacks this year. Its electricity production forecasts have dropped to their lowest point in three decades, with five of its 56 nuclear reactors offline as it inspects flaws in pipe weldings. The company will also shoulder some of the cost of government measures to cap electricity bills for households and businesses this year at 4 per cent — a move that senior managers had argued against, people familiar with the matter said..."

The rise and fall of fracking in Europe - The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com › sustainable-business › sep
Sep 29, 2016 — After years of early hype, shale gas companies appear to have lost hope of an energy revolution in most countries in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Excluding neutral countries like Austria, Switzerland, Ireland and Sweden, it would mean ca. 200.000 troops from Germany and Turkey each, 150.000 each from the UK, France, Italy, 100.000 each from Spain and Poland and the rest from the smaller countries.

Finland might join it and NATO too, as recent surveys have shown, maybe even Sweden.

Austria, Switzerland and Ireland might remain militarily neutral for sure, but might contribute financially.
Belgium tried to claim neutrality in WWII. It didn't help them.
 
Yes.

The 600 or so million Europeans living in democratic Europe must create a joint military now and place 1-2 million soldiers and equipment on standby along the Russian/Belarus border from Finland to Bulgaria/Greece, if not in Turkey and the Caucasus countries too.

This would show Putin who has the longer dick.
Two great armies within one another's gunsights. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Do you really want to see the money required to do that shifted from current planned priorities to the MIC? Do you really expect the MIC dependent on US defense-intelligence spending to sit idly by while US spending is slashed using this proposal as justification?

Would it not be cheaper and more effective to subject the Putin led oligarchy to the economic treatment Venezuela has been experiencing
after getting serious about negotiating a deal resulting in restoration of Iranian petroleum exports and production and pressuring Israel to
stop offering political and financial refuge to Putin's oligarchs?

Would it not results be quicker by committing to as near as a total economic boycott of Russia as possible than by attempting to build
European forces superiority on the European continent. China's growth is slowing and cannot offset what Europe, Japan, and the U.S. have
the potential to do to Russia, economically? Simply make their exports the imports of last resort and stop assisting Russia's oligarchs, seizing
control of their assets wherever possible and impeding their ability to transact internationally and they may be influenced to solve the world's "Putin problem".

February 18, 2022
" The French government is set to pump more than €2bn into EDF in an effort to restore the state-controlled energy group’s finances, which are suffering due to nuclear reactor outages and production declines just as it gears up for investment in new plants. EDF, which on Friday reported a rise in profits and revenues for 2021, faces big setbacks this year. Its electricity production forecasts have dropped to their lowest point in three decades, with five of its 56 nuclear reactors offline as it inspects flaws in pipe weldings. The company will also shoulder some of the cost of government measures to cap electricity bills for households and businesses this year at 4 per cent — a move that senior managers had argued against, people familiar with the matter said..."

The rise and fall of fracking in Europe - The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com › sustainable-business › sep
Sep 29, 2016 — After years of early hype, shale gas companies appear to have lost hope of an energy revolution in most countries in Europe.

About time for Europe to be100% responsible for their own defense their own freedoms. Let them pony up 100%. You can’t tell me that they couldn’t combine their economic might and become a counter to the ruskies.
 
On paper, with an aggressive, wreckless criminal such as short in physical stature Putin in charge, Russia cannot be beaten on the ground.

1 During the Cold War, the United States possessed large numbers and a wide range of non-strategic nuclear weapons, also known as theater or tactical nuclear weapons. Since 1991, the United States has retired and dismantled nearly all of those weapons. Note, non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons are non-accountable systems under the New START Treaty

The United States has one type of nonstrategic nuclear weapon in its stockpile, the B61 gravity bomb. The weapon exists in two modifications: the B61-3 and the B61-4. A third version, the B61-10, was retired in September 2016. Approximately 230 tactical B61 bombs of all versions remain in the stockpile. Aug 27, 2021

The most powerful U.S. nuclear bomb appears to have little or no current "delivery capability"!
"...The bomb weighs approximately 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb). The location of the lifting lugs shows that the greater part of the total mass is contained in the nuclear explosive. It has a variable yield: the destructive power is adjustable from somewhere in the low kiloton range up to a maximum of 1.2 megatonnes of TNT (5.0 PJ)....
About 650 B83s were built, and the weapon remains in service as part of the United States "Enduring Stockpile".[2]

Aircraft capable of carrying the B83[edit]​

The following aircraft are certified for carrying the B83 bomb:

Nuclear capability has been removed from the B-1B,[8] and the B-52 no longer carries gravity nuclear bombs.[7]

For comparison's sake,

..9,700 lbs,, It exploded with an energy of approximately 15 kilotons of TNT (63 TJ)

Estimates vary, but experts believe Russia still has between 1,000 and 2,000 warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Some experts argue, however that Russia seems to have increased its reliance on nuclear weapons in its national security concept.Jul 15, 2021

The art of negotiating non-strategic nuclear weapons

https://www.brookings.edu › opinions › the-art-of-nego...
Jun 4, 2021 — Russia's nuclear stockpile numbers just under 4,500 warheads, with some 1,900 categorized as non-strategic or defensive. Russia's diverse NSNW ...
 
Last edited:
Yes.

The 600 or so million Europeans living in democratic Europe must create a joint military now and place 1-2 million soldiers and equipment on standby along the Russian/Belarus border from Finland to Bulgaria/Greece, if not in Turkey and the Caucasus countries too.

This would show Putin who has the longer dick.
We already have that. It's called NATO. Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?
 
About time for Europe to be100% responsible for their own defense their own freedoms. Let them pony up 100%. You can’t tell me that they couldn’t combine their economic might and become a counter to the ruskies.
Why would the U.S., aside from Trump, want that?
 
So, the EU? That supranational entity that all the nationalists loathe?
 
The reason they will not do so is that they spend the money on single payer healthcare systems and other entitlements and rely on US military logistics.
On average their healthcare costs those nations close to 50% of what the US spends pp, so I doubt that is the issue. In fact, if they spent the money they are saving (vs the US) on healthcare on extra military they could have huge defence forces.
 
The reason they will not do so is that they spend the money on single payer healthcare systems and other entitlements and rely on US military logistics.

On average their healthcare costs those nations close to 50% of what the US spends pp, so I doubt that is the issue. In fact, if they spent the money they are saving (vs the US) on healthcare on extra military they could have huge defence forces.
I wonder if any volume and intensity of verifiable facts could ever reduce the thoroughness of LetsGoBrandon's RWE radicalization.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

The 600 or so million Europeans living in democratic Europe must create a joint military now and place 1-2 million soldiers and equipment on standby along the Russian/Belarus border from Finland to Bulgaria/Greece, if not in Turkey and the Caucasus countries too.

This would show Putin who has the longer dick.

A few comments:

First, Europeans already have a joint military, it's called NATO. Save for the vainglorious French it already has an integrated Nato command structure with the US and it has 8 combat divisions, roughly equal to the Russian forces arrayed against Ukraine.

Second, on paper the military manpower (not counting the US) for the major countries (France, Poland, Italy, Spain, Germany, and the UK) are about 1.35 million, Russia's is 1.45 million.

Third, Russian tactical nuclear weapons in the theater seriously exceeds that of NATOs, with far more effective delivery systems.

Four, it has been suggested that Russia's paranoia drives it to have a false perception, that NATO conventional forces are a major threat with greater power than Russian conventional forces. As such it has driven its investment in it's far larger number of tactical nuclear weapons and far more delivery platforms and options.

If Europeans wanted to show some backbone, the European deadbeats in the NATO alliance would have met their financial commitment. To my knowledge only the UK and Poland have done so among the major nations.

Economic sanctions to help return conquered territory has been as effective as would have been threatening such after Austria's annexation or the taking of the Sudetenland.

Europeans, even without the US, have had the economic power, technology, production, intelligence, and means to crush Russian adventurism. What they lack is courage and will. A European military force replacing NATO won't change that.
 
The reason they will not do so is that they spend the money on single payer healthcare systems and other entitlements and rely on US military logistics.
Those countries all spend a smaller share of GDP on healthcare than the US. They could still afford more military spending if they thought the need arose.

It is very that the NATO alliance depends heavily on American input. Take that away and you’d see those countries spend more; even those who are not members benefit peripherally and would be forced to expand their militaries if America was no longer a factor and they still fear Russia.
 
Those countries all spend a smaller share of GDP on healthcare than the US. They could still afford more military spending if they thought the need arose.

It is very that the NATO alliance depends heavily on American input. Take that away and you’d see those countries spend more; even those who are not members benefit peripherally and would be forced to expand their militaries if America was no longer a factor and they still fear Russia.
You just proved my point. Thanks to the US footing the biggest share of the bill for NATO, those countries can let their own military spending slide.
 
On average their healthcare costs those nations close to 50% of what the US spends pp, so I doubt that is the issue. In fact, if they spent the money they are saving (vs the US) on healthcare on extra military they could have huge defence forces.
With the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, and government contributing to the cost of healthcare for the indigent, It's primarily US citizens spending healthcare dollars, all of which has nothing to do with the budgets of nations with single payer healthcare systems. They can in most cases barely afford those systems, however they are only able to due to the US covering the lions share of costs for NATO. If they had to spend seriously for their own defense, they could not afford those bloated single payer healthcare systems.
 
I wonder if any volume and intensity of verifiable facts could ever reduce the thoroughness of LetsGoBrandon's RWE radicalization.
Yawn.....
 
No, healthcare spending has nothing to do with it.

It has to do with the fact that we Western Europeans have become quite non-chauvinist and pacifist the past 80 years and most of us regular citizens and politicians shiver at the fact of arming ourselves or spend more than 1% of GDP on the military (Russia & US: 4%).

Another thing is that after 80 years and EU integration measures, there still is no USE, because people in the 40+ European countries do not want it and continue to like their nations over a supranational entity.
Those pacifist attitudes would disappear if they had to seriously budget for their own defense. Even the USA was pacifist in the lead up to WW2. The attack on Pearl Harbor changed that.
 
Excluding neutral countries like Austria, Switzerland, Ireland and Sweden, it would mean ca. 200.000 troops from Germany and Turkey each, 150.000 each from the UK, France, Italy, 100.000 each from Spain and Poland and the rest from the smaller countries.

Finland might join it and NATO too, as recent surveys have shown, maybe even Sweden.

Austria, Switzerland and Ireland might remain militarily neutral for sure, but might contribute financially.
Ireland may profess neutrality but we’ve been letting the Americans refuel at Shannon for decades and even during the war, we were more allied than axis.

I very much support the idea of an EU army with all member states providing troops and financial support. We’d need the Brits to do the heavy lifting though, along with the French. Someone mentioned Turkey earlier, what about Canada? They’ve always stepped up.
 
You just proved my point. Thanks to the US footing the biggest share of the bill for NATO, those countries can let their own military spending slide.
I agreed with part of it: NATO depends on the US. America depends on the alliance as well for a foothold in Europe to stop it going to shit.

However the other premise - that NATO countries' military spending is hobbled by its healthcare commitments - doesn't hold up at all. Health is not prohibitively expensive there.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom