Ukraine: Europe clearly overtakes US, with total commitments now twice as large
ifw-kiel.de
ifw-kiel.de
Very grateful to all what the US is doing, but in the end this is a war within Europe, and we must know we can't always count on others to be the main contributor of something that is happening "in our neighbourhood".
Also, Europe must really start to consider itself as a world power. Maybe I'm too paranoid, but the democracy within US seems very fragile to me (the 2 party system, all the extreme nutcases that live within).
The Ukraine war has shown us how important it is to defend democracy within and outside of our own borders. And that 'power' cannot always be only manifested through diplomacy.
And secondly, they were well on their way to keep improving and follow the path of the other ex-soviet states that are now part of the EU.
You would be shocked at how often votes are outright bought by candidates and their supporters and how much strong arming is done to ensure certain areas vote for a specific party.
This doesn’t mean I support Russia - I live in a border country (Estonia) myself.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/20/exhibition-highlights-vo...
Still better now (5.42) than Russia today (2.28) or even back in 2006 (Russia was 5.02, though back then Ukraine was 6.94).
Hopefully, these crises will eventually resolve themselves, but there is no guarantee of that. If anything, the climate and energy crises, as well as the war in Ukraine, are going to make things harder on democracies.
That being said, Europe has never stopped considering itself as a world power. Until now, it aimed mostly for soft power (for a definition of soft power that included having standing armies in a number of African countries). Shifting from soft power to military power is very dangerous, because this has a strong potential to escalate into actual armed conflict. With Russia, of course, but also possibly with Turkey, or China, or the US (in case authoritarianism wins on either side of the Atlantic), ...
As much as possible, I'd prefer soft power. It's not as innocent as it sounds, but it makes fewer victims.
I fully agree with that one. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a stick behind the door. (local expression, don't how how this translates into English ;))
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --George Orwell
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." --George Washington
"Speak softly and carry a big stick" --Theodore Roosevelt
That's an understatement. Imagine if the US hadn't helped at all. Would Europe even be up to the challenge? Europe really needs to get its act together and be less dependent on the US.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so: China and the USA currently still make sense, but Russia shouldn't have taken over the USSR seat when the USSR ceased to exist; likewise neither the UK nor France can really justify that position since approximately the Suez crisis, and the vacuums they left behind with the end of Empire means nobody's really representing Africa, the Middle East, nor the Indian subcontinent at that level.
I think South America is also somewhat unenthusiastic about being considered the USA's back yard in this context.
* depending on if this is shorthand for "the EU" like the article (1, France), "western Europe" (2, +UK), or "continental" (3, +Russia).
>a whole bunch of reasons why the permanent seats aren't representative
You're spot on that they aren't representative of the world's interests, but that's because this isn't what the security council is really for.
Taught in geopolitical terms, the UN is the latest iteration of a number of bodies that seek to protect a small alliance's interests in the long term.
The UN was founded by the winners of WWII, in the brief moment of time they could credibly claim that they represented the broader world's interests. Since then, the WWII allies - US/UK/France/Russia/China - have maintained their disproportionate positions to protect their own interests.
The Security council exists for them - it is the only body that can pass legally binding resolutions, it gatekeeps access to the general assembly, and those 5 golden keyholders can individually veto any other UN action.
These kind of bodies (UN, League of Nations, Peace of Westphalia) etc are often couched in ideals and often do have sub-bodies who do excellent work, as the UN does, but in reality, at the highest levels, are actually consider the spoils of war: the right to dictate your position as a lasting member of extraterritorial governance and protect your doctrinal and national interests.
I think what powered the EU through the last 70 years or so is that I think they - and me! - truly believed that we could outgrow war as a concept. Putin has shown that to be an illusion so now - reluctantly - the EU is gearing up for war again. But a reluctant fighter isn't necessarily a bad one, just one that knows what is at stake. I'm pretty sure that given the very vivid memories of WWII (some of which are still in living memory) that there will be plenty of unity in going after those that made it so.
However, there are certain types of equipment only US can offer, being so technologically ahead of EU. StarLink (with all its controversies) comes to mind.
Also, the helmet-bullshit is driven by polish anti-german pis-bullshit. Germany delivered PZH2000 and Gepard, as well as being the first with modern Air Defence. France and Britain were the first with Cruise Missiles. Scandinavia was the first with Tanks. Netherlands the first with modern planes. The Blinken-Deescalatin-Crowd in the US which seems to still believe in escalation management and mutual co-operation with Russia.
Where are ATACMS, more Patriot, more Bradley, more Abrams, more cluster munitions? The material is there, it's high time!
They can send more material to Ukraine, but they want to have enough to also sustain a war in Taiwan. And it's unclear (at least to me) what the Chinese military doctrine would entail, since China has been mostly at peace since the truce with India. If a war for/around Taiwan ends up being the same kind of high-intensity conflict as the war in Ukraine, it has the potential to engulf the yearly US production of ammo in a few weeks.
Except for drones and phones, war has definitely changed, the fog is dissipating.
India and China have been waiting ~60 years for a rematch, so there is the distinct possibility of a second front on land. North Korea could also try and attack South Korea for a variety of reasons (either as a distraction for China or taking advantage of the distraction), which could open yet another front. And these are the easy ones – if there is a big showdown, it could domino in a number of directions, each of which would justify the US maintaining a stockpile of ammo.
And of course, land and sea warfare share some of the same missiles.
Xi's career goal is the complete re-unification of China and he's getting quite old now, likely his last term (ends in 2027/8 iirc). He'll be making important decisions in the next few years.
- Despite Russian propaganda to the contrary, the Russian army is still going to pieces. Yes, there is a stronger professional core now than there used to be during the 90s, but that core is shrinking because the military has difficulties both funding itself, attracting new recruits, and with endemic corruption. Some of the reasons for which it has difficulties attracting new recruits are that the Russian population is growing old very quickly and emigration is attractive to whoever can afford to leave.
- Historically, Russian doctrine is to assume that an invasion is coming from the West. Always. History shows of a few places where such an invasion can be stopped fairly easily, if Russia controls them. As it turns out, two of the lynchpins are respsectively in Ukraine in Poland. Since the army is getting weaker and there is a chance that Ukraine could join NATO, if Russia wants to grab control of the lynchpins, it has to attack as early as possible, before the imbalance grows worse.
- The fact that PRC is eyeing towards Taiwan means that the US cannot commit too many forces in Ukraine. There is a risk that PRC might end up subjugating Taiwan either semi-peacefully or at least so fast that the US doesn't get a chance to react, in which case the window of opportunity would close.
I think this particular ship has sailed a long time ago. Taiwan is armed to the teeth right know. Everybody knows that if a major war is going to break out, it will be in Taiwan. It's been common knowledge for years. Taiwan didn't lose time and they did their best to prepare.
So if China decides to attack, they will win eventually, but will gain only scorched earth and enormous casualties. But, more importantly, they will lose access to Western markets. The EU and USA are already preparing for this - everybody knows it won't be easy, it will be much more difficult than getting rid of Russian gas, but it will be done.
Eastern Europe and ex-USSR republics have been trying to warn the world for quite a while, it's the West who refused to listen.
Read Kasparov's "Winter is Coming" book to understand more.
i'll check the book out, but if there's less speculative stuff like leaked cables, war plans, fact based reporting etc out there i'd be more receptive to the idea that the Russians were genuinely about to blitzkrieg Europe if all went well in Ukraine
it just sounds too ridiculous and farfetched
As important as getting Russia out this time is ensuring they don't do it again in 10-20+ years
---
Consider Vietnam, the US lost the war but won the peace. Vietnam is very pro US
Korea is a cease-fire, but largely there again, the peace was won
Iraq & Afghanistan, not so much
---
I'm particularly fond of listening to Stephen Kotkin on these matters, we is one of the best minds thinking about them, and he has this incredible way of conveying and getting to the core of the matters, past all the superficial talking points. He's truly an artist in this regard
Resources in the ground are worth exactly ZERO. The technology and people to extract and transform those resources are the most valuable thing on this planet. Both are most abundant in US and slightly less in the EU. Asia not far behind but Russia is not even on the map.
This year alone, the US has purchased twice the previous year of uranium from Russia.
Europe, as many other countries, depends on Russian resources.
That is the key word, clearly showing you where the value resides. Lots of countries (in Africa for one) with resources in the ground and starving.
They certainly can. But that's not what they do. Russian prices are competitive.
Unfortunately the Russian culture prohibits this. Rampant corruption, citzen apathy and an eternal desire to murder their neighbours.