Unfortunately, we also have to manage without the United States. And why give away thousands of jobs and billions of Euro? But we need to coordinate research and manufacturing to be efficient enough.
@@nilswedin8480 PAUL🇬🇧 Again if your from Europe. Defend your own Continent. The United Kingdom can defend ourselves, trade with Europe and the rest of the World. But stay out of your Wars and problems.
Its OK to have 17 different tanks, but they should all use the same standard ammunition... face it, there is no such thing as really indigenous tank for any country in the world (except the US maybe), the main manufacturer depends on many other sub manufacturers and so on, at the end of the day you have hundreds of suppliers from all around the world that are the supply chain to build this tank
@@catmonarchist8920 I think 9 of the nations failed to meet the agreed 2%, it may be more. My point is the structure is there within NATO, but not being taken seriously by some EU nations.
This is nonsense. The USA pays no more, pro rata, towards the cost of operating NATO than any other nation. Nations have agreed to spend a minimum of 2% of their gdp on their own military. The only ones not yet at that level are awaiting supply of F35s from America which will take their expenditure over that 2% target. That America spends more than 2% is YOUR choice. You decided to become the world’s policeman. You have interests to protect in the Caribbean, Central and South America and Asia/Pacific. Besides which, a significant percentage of your military budget is VA expenditure which other nations don’t include as military expenditure. The USA has been far and away the largest beneficiary of the post Breton Woods world order. NATO is a central part of that world order and has been the most effective DEFENSIVE treaty ever. Mess with it at your (and the World’s) peril. Then, of course, you’ve had Britain as a giant aircraft carrier since 1942 and bases in multiple European countries since 1945. Plus, the American MIC has been the major supplier of the arms bought by NATO countries. 9/11 was an attack on America. It was the only direct attack on a NATO member since the treaty was begun in 1949. The USA invoked article 5 and every single member stepped up. European soldiers fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
@@q.e.d.9112 Im not an American. The US pay more, pro rata, than all but 2 nations. The insufficient funding from EU nations has lasted for many years, it's not an aircraft purchasing issue. There's a deep seated anti US feeling in many EU governments. Without the US, NATO is nothing.
We have to start joint production of our future military hardware with the other EU countries. We just don’t have the industrial capacity anymore to produce these new designs on our own, we have to start pooling our military industrial capabilities with our European allies to ween ourselves off the US. The peace dividend is over and Europe has to begin operating as a unit in this field at least or we will end up being torn apart by Russia and China or anyone else who sees us as weak.
@@justint7460I agree just look at Poland who jumped in a war to help okraine instead of Poland forcing okraine to solve their past problems and issues….. ohh wait it’s exactly what Poland did 😅
Europe needs to look to Argentina, scrap many questionable government departments to generate a budget surplus to allow ramping up military/industrial capacity. Lets us not forget energy, jets, ships and tanks aren't driven by windmills and solar panels.
If anyone from anywhere can move to Europe you don't really have a border so you don't need a military except to protect your curropt government think about that 🎉
The real question is "are the NATO countries other than the USA committed to NATO"? When you fail to spend the agreed upon amount for NATO defense because you always know the USA will cover for you it's quite clear you are not committed. Why should the USA taxpayers have to protect Europe from itself? Trump 2024.
The last thing anyone wants in a corrupt political snout in the trough. Europe works best in defence by co-operation through NATO which is building defence relationships through Germany, France, uk and Italy without politics and discord. Europe is coming together as a result of a common threat, more than the failing EU could ever achieve. The only idea the ambassador should be moving towards is civil defence of Europe borders not EU political borders,, border security, civil resilience from the UK ,transport efficiency and logistics. Remember wars are technology races with the flag of diversity, not consolidation which brings entrenchment and corruption.
OK, I like what I hear, but two precent may be much in a big ecconomy, but in a small ecconemy it is two prencent of less. You know 2/100? Max Planc, where did that guy go?
"If you look for example the US has one main battle tank, I think Europe has 17 different models..." I'm oversimplifying greatly here, hopefully my point will not get lost: The US is one country. On the federal level, that's one Army, one global goal for protecting the US and its allies. That, ultimately, translates into one main battle tank design that the Army has settled on to efficiently address all future anticipated needs. This design was arrived at after countless hours of negotiations between many different departments at the federal level; taking into account future political issues and alliances. The European Union ( EU ) is an economic and political union of 27 countries. All with their own Armies, with their own global goals, alliances, and rivals. Similar to the US, each country spends countless hours negotiating between different departments, within their respective countries, taking into account future political issues and alliances. From this they arrive at decisions for military equipment acquisition. Sometimes different EU members agree and "go in together" on R&D for a new main battle tank, for example; most of the time it doesn't work out. Is it any wonder there's 17 different models with 27 different countries all with different alliances, global strategic goals, and local issues/problems? If the EU wants to tackle this issue they need to figure out how to overcome this.
PAUL🇬🇧 From Blair every UK as had their Political heads up the European Union A - hole their first language is European. I would not joint an European defence pact. Let's see the Europeans defend, fund, and fight their own wars. I'm UK first policy guy.
Then you've got your head in the sand mate, the UK hasn't got the money, the manpower or the markets to go it alone , cooperation is the only way the UK will stay relevant as an arms manufaturer. You could start by cooperating more with friendly countries likw Australia and Canada
@@farnarkleboy PAUL🇬🇧 The UK can defend our own Country. We do not need the European Countries. The European Union is an crooked leg. They have got to defend their own lands. Look at Norway they are sitting on 200 - 300 billion pounds of funds. France, Poland, Baltic states and other shoot their mounts off about Russia, let's see them defend their own lands. Again I believe the UK first policy, let's defend our own Country.
@@MrEstrax Its starting , but it needs to happen more , supply chains are too long for most products and unfriendly players hold major parts of the supply chains
@@farnarkleboy Agreed, I can def see that. UK, CAN, NZ, AUS, & US should come up with some sort of economic trade deal that benefits everyone. (free trade?)
@goranzuber250 You’re so wrong it’s hilarious, the UK was the only country in Europe other than France that didn’t let it’s military capacity completely rot. It has nothing to do with the UK all these other EU countries decided they wanted to spend the money they should have spent on their militaries on other things, it was their decision and the UK just decided to fulfil the NATO requirement of 2% of GDP.
UK belong to democratic countrys, EU has it good and bad things. Its politic games to misstrust democratic countrys in all aspects. In a sharp time we stand together anyway.
Who leads a so called EU army? A 27 nation army won't work. These nations must work inside NATOs sphere and the UK is 100% behind that. Unlike some EU nations, the UK pays its 2%.
Imagine if European countries worried about strengthening their own military rather than depending on others
"We just don't have that much money..."
Correction: "We just don't have that much commitment....."
Yeah, Europeans say a lot of things.
Great point.. 100%
Unfortunately, we also have to manage without the United States. And why give away thousands of jobs and billions of Euro? But we need to coordinate research and manufacturing to be efficient enough.
We have been trying to tell you that for years. . 2 and 1/2 years in to the Ukraine War and you are just now talking about this?!? Uff
@@Lynette.usa. Not really , the USA has for decades been actively working against Indigenous arms manufacturers so as to favour their manufacturers,
@@nilswedin8480 PAUL🇬🇧 Again if your from Europe. Defend your own Continent. The United Kingdom can defend ourselves, trade with Europe and the rest of the World. But stay out of your Wars and problems.
@@farnarkleboy I disagree.
@@Lynette.usa. On what basis do you disagree ?
Its OK to have 17 different tanks, but they should all use the same standard ammunition... face it, there is no such thing as really indigenous tank for any country in the world (except the US maybe), the main manufacturer depends on many other sub manufacturers and so on, at the end of the day you have hundreds of suppliers from all around the world that are the supply chain to build this tank
If certain EU/NATO states had been paying their fair share and stopped short changing the US...
NATO doesn't involve paying the US and most countries meet the 2% commitment
@@catmonarchist8920 I think 9 of the nations failed to meet the agreed 2%, it may be more. My point is the structure is there within NATO, but not being taken seriously by some EU nations.
@@catmonarchist8920 in 2021 only 8 nations met the agreed spending of GPD on their military.
This is nonsense.
The USA pays no more, pro rata, towards the cost of operating NATO than any other nation. Nations have agreed to spend a minimum of 2% of their gdp on their own military. The only ones not yet at that level are awaiting supply of F35s from America which will take their expenditure over that 2% target.
That America spends more than 2% is YOUR choice. You decided to become the world’s policeman. You have interests to protect in the Caribbean, Central and South America and Asia/Pacific. Besides which, a significant percentage of your military budget is VA expenditure which other nations don’t include as military expenditure.
The USA has been far and away the largest beneficiary of the post Breton Woods world order. NATO is a central part of that world order and has been the most effective DEFENSIVE treaty ever. Mess with it at your (and the World’s) peril.
Then, of course, you’ve had Britain as a giant aircraft carrier since 1942 and bases in multiple European countries since 1945. Plus, the American MIC has been the major supplier of the arms bought by NATO countries.
9/11 was an attack on America. It was the only direct attack on a NATO member since the treaty was begun in 1949. The USA invoked article 5 and every single member stepped up. European soldiers fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
@@q.e.d.9112 Im not an American. The US pay more, pro rata, than all but 2 nations. The insufficient funding from EU nations has lasted for many years, it's not an aircraft purchasing issue. There's a deep seated anti US feeling in many EU governments. Without the US, NATO is nothing.
The hour is late. All of Europe needs to have urgency on this.
Just keep democratic countrys together.
We have to start joint production of our future military hardware with the other EU countries. We just don’t have the industrial capacity anymore to produce these new designs on our own, we have to start pooling our military industrial capabilities with our European allies to ween ourselves off the US. The peace dividend is over and Europe has to begin operating as a unit in this field at least or we will end up being torn apart by Russia and China or anyone else who sees us as weak.
Why would the UK want to distance itself from the most powerful military and its ally?
Pfff... Europe is so united... lol
How long is this going to take, complete fantasy 😂
@@justint7460 they call it a Europe Union for a reason
@@justint7460I agree just look at Poland who jumped in a war to help okraine instead of Poland forcing okraine to solve their past problems and issues….. ohh wait it’s exactly what Poland did 😅
Cooperate with EU, hand over your sovereignty plz, just don't tell anyone..
Get over your paranoia
@@farnarkleboyit's not paranoia, it's right out in the open
And needlessly alienate the Americans for an EU that how many nukes and aircraft carriers? Madness.
@@adamyoung9132 Do you work in trade or defence manufacturing ?
@@farnarkleboy do work round the local chippy or howdens?
Europe needs to look to Argentina, scrap many questionable government departments to generate a budget surplus to allow ramping up military/industrial capacity. Lets us not forget energy, jets, ships and tanks aren't driven by windmills and solar panels.
If anyone from anywhere can move to Europe you don't really have a border so you don't need a military except to protect your curropt government think about that 🎉
The real question is "are the NATO countries other than the USA committed to NATO"? When you fail to spend the agreed upon amount for NATO defense because you always know the USA will cover for you it's quite clear you are not committed. Why should the USA taxpayers have to protect Europe from itself?
Trump 2024.
Take u.s. out of NATO and Canada still 30 countries still in NATO how can we be defenceless. 30 militaries working together.
Genuinely interesting, thanks.
The last thing anyone wants in a corrupt political snout in the trough. Europe works best in defence by co-operation through NATO which is building defence relationships through Germany, France, uk and Italy without politics and discord.
Europe is coming together as a result of a common threat, more than the failing EU could ever achieve.
The only idea the ambassador should be moving towards is civil defence of Europe borders not EU political borders,, border security, civil resilience from the UK ,transport efficiency and logistics.
Remember wars are technology races with the flag of diversity, not consolidation which brings entrenchment and corruption.
You're just talking about this now?!? Jesh
This all sounds like a 'dangerous fantasy'...
OK, I like what I hear, but two precent may be much in a big ecconomy, but in a small ecconemy it is two prencent of less. You know 2/100?
Max Planc, where did that guy go?
"If you look for example the US has one main battle tank, I think Europe has 17 different models..."
I'm oversimplifying greatly here, hopefully my point will not get lost:
The US is one country. On the federal level, that's one Army, one global goal for protecting the US and its allies. That, ultimately, translates into one main battle tank design that the Army has settled on to efficiently address all future anticipated needs. This design was arrived at after countless hours of negotiations between many different departments at the federal level; taking into account future political issues and alliances.
The European Union ( EU ) is an economic and political union of 27 countries. All with their own Armies, with their own global goals, alliances, and rivals. Similar to the US, each country spends countless hours negotiating between different departments, within their respective countries, taking into account future political issues and alliances. From this they arrive at decisions for military equipment acquisition. Sometimes different EU members agree and "go in together" on R&D for a new main battle tank, for example; most of the time it doesn't work out.
Is it any wonder there's 17 different models with 27 different countries all with different alliances, global strategic goals, and local issues/problems? If the EU wants to tackle this issue they need to figure out how to overcome this.
Great Post. Its impossible unless the EU read the USSR handbook that many feel that union is heading towards.
Yeah, these guys are promoting a united states of europe.
No thanks
No thanks.
PAUL🇬🇧 From Blair every UK as had their Political heads up the European Union A - hole their first language is European. I would not joint an European defence pact. Let's see the Europeans defend, fund, and fight their own wars. I'm UK first policy guy.
Then you've got your head in the sand mate, the UK hasn't got the money, the manpower or the markets to go it alone , cooperation is the only way the UK will stay relevant as an arms manufaturer. You could start by cooperating more with friendly countries likw Australia and Canada
@@farnarkleboy PAUL🇬🇧 The UK can defend our own Country. We do not need the European Countries. The European Union is an crooked leg. They have got to defend their own lands. Look at Norway they are sitting on 200 - 300 billion pounds of funds. France, Poland, Baltic states and other shoot their mounts off about Russia, let's see them defend their own lands. Again I believe the UK first policy, let's defend our own Country.
@@farnarkleboy I thought this was already happening?
@@MrEstrax Its starting , but it needs to happen more , supply chains are too long for most products and unfriendly players hold major parts of the supply chains
@@farnarkleboy Agreed, I can def see that. UK, CAN, NZ, AUS, & US should come up with some sort of economic trade deal that benefits everyone. (free trade?)
UK is the main reason why EU didn't build up military capacity and united military capacity. As far as UK is from EU is better
@goranzuber250 You’re so wrong it’s hilarious, the UK was the only country in Europe other than France that didn’t let it’s military capacity completely rot. It has nothing to do with the UK all these other EU countries decided they wanted to spend the money they should have spent on their militaries on other things, it was their decision and the UK just decided to fulfil the NATO requirement of 2% of GDP.
Are you a fool. Farage warned us of this year's ago. A European army.
@@jeff5534I think he is mostly making reference to the UKs opposition to an integrated EU military.
UK belong to democratic countrys, EU has it good and bad things. Its politic games to misstrust democratic countrys in all aspects. In a sharp time we stand together anyway.
Who leads a so called EU army? A 27 nation army won't work. These nations must work inside NATOs sphere and the UK is 100% behind that. Unlike some EU nations, the UK pays its 2%.
An alliance of surrender states 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Isn't it great that the UK left the EU...
We need to get rid of the WEF and Soros too.
Why not.This 350 million a week we was giving the EU. WHERE HAS THE MONEY GONE
@@paulchambers6537 Gave it to Ukraine instead...