31–38 of 38 posts
https://youtu.be/NFw7ZifqhTg?si=IujBLjIsaQysNHmp&t=267 4:27 “The time when we conveniently let the United States carry the burden for our security is over. The US is absolutely committed to NATO, but this commitment comes with a clear and long standing expectation, that Europe and Canada take more responsibly for their own security, and I believe that is only fair.” -Mark Rutte
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation? It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have eno…
The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately. Compare a lit of the world's largest economies from 40 years ago to now.
When enough time has passed with Europe self sufficient in defence, there might arise cases where US and Europe has a conflict of interest that results in an armed conflict. Perhaps at first via proxy states depending on the type of conflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In purchasing power parity terms, a glance at Wikipedia yields China: $43.491 trillion [1] USA: $31.821 trillion [2] EU: $30.184 trillion [3] UK: $4.59 trillion [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago. Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
That turns out to be easier than I thought thanks to [1]. In 1986 it looked like this (PPP, million USD):
China: 647,219
USA: 4,579,625
EU ex UK: 4,368,019
UK: 805,518
EU total: 5,173,537 [2]
The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
> Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be. Feel free to post your own calculations if you want, but be careful with dates and exchange rates; the USD index is down about 9% over the past year.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_...
[2] In 1986, the EU had 12 members: Belgium (161,613), Denmark (100,996), France (866,333), West Germany (1,319,247), Greece (120,566), Ireland (40,169), Italy (953,257), Luxembourg (10,542), Netherlands (246,164), Portugal (92,824), Spain (456,308) and UK (805,518):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_enlargement_of_the_Europe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to expand?
The US makes up approximately 15% of NATO funding and I don't think the EU is in an economic position to make that up any time soon. NATO is arguably underfunded as is.
In any case, numerically I'd imagine that 15% being made up by spending increasing by 2-3 times by the remaining 85% (from 2% previous target to 5%, or 3.5% more realistically).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation? It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have eno…
"huge number of troops in Germany in the first place?" I wouldn't call 35000 troops of mostly non-combat specializations a "huge number". In the Cold War, the American presence in West Germany was an order of magnitude larger, about quarter a million soldiers. "Defence, or occupation?" Neither/nor. Logistics for various distant operations. Rhineland is a very practical stop located between the US and the Middle East…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago. Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
> Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago. That turns out to be easier than I thought thanks to [1]. In 1986 it looked like this (PPP, million USD): China: 647,219 USA: 4,579,625 EU ex UK: 4,368,019 UK: 805,518 EU total: 5,173,537 [2] The big standout is obviously China's rise since then. > Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global mar…
> but be careful with dates and exchange rates
The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
> I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be
Not my intention at all. My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures" - i.e. the ability to project military and economic power. Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
> The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated. If you look at this list of countries by PPP GDP you will see India, Indonesia and Brazil are ahead of the UK and France. The only European country in the top five is Russia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago. That turns out to be easier than I thought thanks to [1]. In 1986 it looked like this (PPP, million USD): China: 647,219 USA: 4,579,625 EU ex UK: 4,368,019 UK: 805,518 EU total: 5,173,537 [2] The big standout is obviously China's rise since then. > Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global mar…
Your link to the list of past PPP GDPs does not say what unit is used - it says "international dollars" without specifying an year. > but be careful with dates and exchange rates The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that. > I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be Not my intention at all. My claim was about Europe's…
Irrelevant since we are comparing relative sizes, like EU vs US, now and then.
>> but be careful with dates and exchange rates > The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
Indeed, that's why I use them instead of the nominal ones you requested. My warning was about the latter.
> My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures"
Your claim, quoted verbatim, was this:
> The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately.
The GDP figures say otherwise: US and EU were and are roughly equal, EU + UK were and are larger.
I am willing to grant you half a point: neither US nor EU are large enough to separately dominate the world like they once did. Together, they are still #1.
> Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
The EU is a little more than "potential". Currently ineffective, yes, but that's the topic of the article. Says right in the subtitle: "Without America to rely on, the EU is gearing up to be a global power in its own right."
> The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated.
If that is the case, then it's evident from the relative GDP figures now and 40 years ago that the US has stagnated just about as much, which contradicts your original claim.
> The only European country in the top five is Russia!
Breaking out individual European countries instead of considering the EU as a whole (the topic of the article you are ostensibly commenting) makes about as much sense as breaking out individual US states instead of considering the US as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciat…
As an American, if an outcome of the Trump administration is even a slight deterioration of the US military industrial complex, I don’t think I’ll mind that. I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.