The EU's military commitments narrowly edge out US military commitments before a new bill is approved. This does not take away from the larger point of the US not being a bad partner to Ukraine or that the US cannot be trusted as a partner.
Oh man, the EU plus the rest of the world are eking it out before the US passes another spending bill. . .
This also includes long-term commitments that have not yet been delivered. EU promising to provide 1 million artillery shells two years from now doesn't help Ukraine at this time.
The EU and European countries in general have in total provided more aid to Ukraine than the US, it's just divided across multiple countries, not that it's a competition. I'm not sure a military budget 200 billion vs 600 billion is going to make such huge a difference if the goal of your military is actually defence instead of force projection, it's not like they're giving Ukraine the fancy pants expensive stuff and both the US and Europe probably both ran out of (or significantly depleted at least) their stocks of regular old dumb artillery ammunition, rocket launchers, etc, and that stuff is what's used and actually useful.
The European Union and other nations obviously cares about us military power it's use it as a critical part of their defense strategy. This is such a strange comment to read during a hot war in Ukraine when many countries are trying to join NATO
All US military spending is not properly accounted for in these comparisons.
The US provides a huge military shield in Europe and it costs a lot and none of it gets counted toward helping Ukraine. That shield enables European nations to shift resources relatively safely into helping Ukraine. If you remove that shield, those nations can no longer safely give to such a great extent, they'd have to think with far greater scrutiny of their own defense.
US spending on European defense makes it possible for smaller European nations to give military funds and weapons to Ukraine.
Our massive air force protection enables European nations to provide their F16s to Ukraine, as one example.
Go ahead and staple $100 billion more to that military figure for the past two years.
Not sure what you're asking for? Military aid to Ukraine from EU+UK is about the same as that from the US, which seems fair given that they have comparable area and population. And if you include non-military aid the EU is providing far more than the US.
Sure, Hungary's recent block of an EU help package is bad, and the EU is in need of some reforms (like those suggested last month by a Franco-German group). A joint EU military would also be nice. But those are more important in topics like immigration, in military matters you can always form a coalition of the willing (which so far seems to be working well).
It's different. EU is in NATO with US (most of EU). Buying from an ally vs a non ally (or enemy depending, Ukraine for instance) is a very big difference.
The US and the EU are mostly at parity when it comes to total spending (that includes military spending), with the difference being of about 5-10% last time I checked (which was sometimes in September of 2023). By how things have progressed since then it is fair to say that the EU has taken the upper hand on that.
And this is all without counting the "externalities" of the war in Ukraine which Europe had to absorb all by itself, such as higher energy prices, selling assets in Russia at very discounted prices (for comparison, the US and the UK didn't have that much stuff to sell there anyway) and the material help and assistance provided to the millions of Ukrainian refugees.
European Military Indistrial Complex is weak compared to American.
The US is constantly engaged in unconstitutional wars, and on top of that there's fixed demand for resources by American military bases in the EU (including Germany), so business is good.
The EU is constantly engaged in silly "progressive" spending so taxpayer money is wasted through other channels (such as various EU development funds and foreign aid).
"Everything revolves around NATO and deepening military
partnerships with neighbours (e.g. Germany and the
Netherlands have a bunch of shared, integrated units).
here is no EU military, but there are mutual defense
pacts, and the development of a real EU military is
something that is being pushed for by Germany."
That sounds counter to what you said above
"reduces their dependence on fossil fuels from Russia, the USA and the middle east, shifting those dependencies from rivals to their closest allies"
The US is one of their closest allies. It appears you are conflicting yourself.
This is an outdated statistic. The EU as a whole is spending above the 2% and if you include broader items like railway improvements to facilitate moving US tanks, the number more than doubles. Some EU countries have given more than 2% to Ukraine on top of this
Yes, that is more or less true. EU countries can afford to spend so little on military because the USA protects Europe's interests in other parts of the world including the ocean and middle east. Trump toyed with the idea of withdrawing from NATO and EU panicked because they have no military.
The US has a big military-industrial complex. A capable EU-army might result in a focus on weapon production in the EU. Quite a loss for US industries.
So is (almost) all of Europe. Only four countries besides the US actually meet their obligations to fund NATO, and though they've given more by GDP than the US to Ukraine, it isn't by much.
I absolutely agree with your criticism on European defense spending but I know how the US managed to do that.
By first dragging the rest of Europe in a very aggressive position in the Ukraine war. Dont get me wrong I fully support that stance. But it was only possible because the US stood front and center, president and congress hand in hand "as long as it takes".
Now less than two years the US lost interest and left Europe with a half dead crazed Russia running on a war economy on its doorstep. So Europe has to try and fill in for the lack of US support while a possible upcoming Trump presidency makes it rather likely that the US wouldnt honor article 5.
Also look at what is happening in Europe and the Ukraine war.
After the weak and inept leadership shown by France and Germany in their response to Russia's aggression the hopes for a EU defense capability is all but finished.
Eastern European countries would rather have the US to defend them [1].
And I think more appreciation needs to be given to the US for supporting Ukraine in those early days because if Russia over-ran Kyiv it's quite possible that Belarus, Moldova, Estonia etc could have been next. US military leadership can credibly be argued to have saved Europe.
reply