Intstead of a NATO bank the focus should be on developing European weapons. NATO has become an acronym for Raytheon customer.
They should be using organic locally sourced bullets made by Mom and pop weapons dealers.
It’s something we should have done back in 2016 already, heavily reducing our reliance on the US in cases like that. Be it militarily or economically. The EU can’t keep being the third player in whatever world we are heading right into.
It’s really honestly baffling to me. The EU reaction to Trump trying to fuck up NATO integrity and cohesion in his first term was… essentially nothing but conversations and hopeful thinking, as far as I can tell.
I fucking detest Trump, but there is a kernel of truth in his statements about Europe more or less just riding on the US’s coattails in terms of the balance of military power, instead of trying to be a meaningful and (taken together) a peer power to the US. Moreover, if the balance of power and capability was closer between the US and the EU, the US would probably be a lot less likely to just categorically push the EU around.
The post-Soviet peace dividend era is well and truly over - in fact, it ended at least a decade ago (really, probably closer to two). It’s time for Europe to start acting like it.
Up to 2022 the general vibe was that NATO was a remnant of another era, because almost no one believed Russia was stupid enough to start a large war in Europe. In this mindset having an half functional NATO wasn’t a full catastrophe.
Mmmm disagree - it was WAY earlier than that.
- It was abundantly apparent in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea.
- It was abundantly apparent in 2008 with the invasion of Georgia.
- It was abundantly apparent in 1999 with the second invasion of Chechnya.
- It was abundantly apparent in 1994 with the first invasion of Chechnya.
- It was abundantly apparent in 1992 with their involvement in Transnistria.
[There’s a whole Wikipedia subsection on stuff the Russian Federation has been up to. It’s not small.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia?wprov=sfti1#Russian_Federation_(1991–present)
Just because the US government likes to funnel trillions to their military industrial complex instead of healthcare, doesn’t mean the rest of NATO has to do the same. Even without the US, NATO already spends more on defense than Russia and China combined, even before the invasion of Ukraine.
USA already spends more on healthcare than Europe does, they just get worse results and less healthcare per dollar. The US would be able to afford to spend even more on weapons if they got their shit together and de-privitized their healthcare system.
Most of the EU has missed the target GDP spend by a significant margin for decades. The failure to penalize the annexation of Crimea and the EU’s almost wholesale inability to provide material to Ukraine without compromising their own defensive postures can be traced heavily to this funding failure.
Obama’s soft stance on Russia was certainly a large part of our current situation, but Merkel and the overly pacified EU were major contributors as well.
The 2 percent of GDP target is imaginary. They made it up, in no small part because of lobbying from the defense industry. There is no reason for NATO to spend so much more than all other countries combined.
Stopping Russia should have been done through economic and diplomatic means. No amount of NATO bombs or tanks would have stopped the invasion. It only would have fueled the flames and given legitimacy to Russia’s claimed insecurity. Economic power is much stronger than military sabre rattling. The EU is founded on that exact principle and it’s the reason why it’s still together.
I am a bit puzzled at European response to the Ukraine invasion. The initial support was slow (obviously due to economic ties to Russia). It took sometime to galvanize some meat into the assistance being provided to Ukraine. Still not seeing leadership being taken on this issue by any of the bigger NATO nations (i.e. Germany, France). Part of this I suspect is that they are playing it smart by letting US take the leadership AND fund the Ukrainian defense thus costing them little. Part of it is perhaps the belief that Russia won’t touch non-former USSR countries. But what European countries should realize is, the current world order depends on respecting the borders. If one country is allowed to take territories from another by hot conflict, we’re going to see more of this elsewhere in the world, including in Europe! Threat of war, and wars are the enemy of trade, investment, and economic growth. It will impact Europe directly or indirectly.
Yeah, because of US interference and the EU complacency on having a unified army/defense system, we’re absolutely not ready if the US went rogue with a guy like Trump.
It’s very worrying for the future …
To mitigate the impact of a second Trump presidency, Nato countries should support the creation of an allied multilateral lending institution, in practice a Nato bank, it says. This could “save nations millions on essential equipment purchases, offer low interest rates on loans to alliance members and introduce a new line of financing with longer repayment timeframes. The bank would be funded with initial subscriptions from Nato members in return for authorised capital stock”.
I won’t pretend to understand the financial workings of this. Trump is a menace and NATO leadership has good reason to feel as they do. What that said though, I think this may be a good decision regardless of who wins the presidency.
OP, absolutely love your username. 💜💯
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
