Anyone who didn't realize that the American push for countries to up their defense spending, was simply a push to increase American arms manufactures bottom line, needs to give their head a shake.
Arrogant people always miss one thing. They aren't always the smartest person in room.
The US title super power mislead the arrogant village idiots they could bully and attack the world into submission to their demands. America isn't the good guys here, if it ever was with white men using their wealth to control everyone else.
Americans really have been ostracised by themselves , no future proofing like China, USA thinks it’s still in Wild West , kick ass mentality, going to go broke, fighting everyone and no one to fall back on when the need arises
For almost two decades Washington’s message to Europe was simple:
Spend more on defence. Take responsibility for your own security.
Europe is finally doing exactly that.
But when defence spending shifts from procurement to production, the political meaning changes. Buying weapons sustains alliances. Building factories creates strategic autonomy.
That distinction matters.
Europe’s €860 billion defence expansion is not just a response to Russia’s war against Ukraine. It is also a structural lesson learned from several shocks:
• the vulnerability exposed by the war itself
• the uncertainty created by American domestic politics
• the supply bottlenecks revealed during the first two years of the conflict
Industrial capacity became the real battlefield behind the battlefield.
From a European perspective, relying indefinitely on external suppliers for critical weapons systems is a strategic risk.
From an American perspective, losing Europe as a major export market is an economic and political loss.
Both views are understandable.
But the deeper point is this:
What Europe is attempting now is not decoupling from NATO.
It is rebalancing the alliance.
A stronger European defence industry does not necessarily weaken NATO. In fact, it may be the only way the alliance can sustain long wars like the one in Ukraine without exhausting American stockpiles.
The real question is not whether Europe should build its own arsenal.
The real question is whether the United States will see this as burden-sharing…
or as market competition.
History suggests alliances survive the first interpretation far better than the second.
Anyone who didn't realize that the American push for countries to up their defense spending, was simply a push to increase American arms manufactures bottom line, needs to give their head a shake.
And paying exorbitant prices for the American war products.
Well it’s backfired 😂🇬🇧
Arrogant people always miss one thing. They aren't always the smartest person in room.
The US title super power mislead the arrogant village idiots they could bully and attack the world into submission to their demands. America isn't the good guys here, if it ever was with white men using their wealth to control everyone else.
Global power has always been messy.
The U.S. has done good things and bad things... like most major powers in history.
What’s really changing now is that the world isn’t unipolar anymore. No country can simply dictate the rules the way it once could.
I’m glad Europe is (a) defending itself and (b) manufacturing & innovating the defence infrastructure
Americans really have been ostracised by themselves , no future proofing like China, USA thinks it’s still in Wild West , kick ass mentality, going to go broke, fighting everyone and no one to fall back on when the need arises
Fred,
There is a certain strategic irony here.
For almost two decades Washington’s message to Europe was simple:
Spend more on defence. Take responsibility for your own security.
Europe is finally doing exactly that.
But when defence spending shifts from procurement to production, the political meaning changes. Buying weapons sustains alliances. Building factories creates strategic autonomy.
That distinction matters.
Europe’s €860 billion defence expansion is not just a response to Russia’s war against Ukraine. It is also a structural lesson learned from several shocks:
• the vulnerability exposed by the war itself
• the uncertainty created by American domestic politics
• the supply bottlenecks revealed during the first two years of the conflict
Industrial capacity became the real battlefield behind the battlefield.
From a European perspective, relying indefinitely on external suppliers for critical weapons systems is a strategic risk.
From an American perspective, losing Europe as a major export market is an economic and political loss.
Both views are understandable.
But the deeper point is this:
What Europe is attempting now is not decoupling from NATO.
It is rebalancing the alliance.
A stronger European defence industry does not necessarily weaken NATO. In fact, it may be the only way the alliance can sustain long wars like the one in Ukraine without exhausting American stockpiles.
The real question is not whether Europe should build its own arsenal.
The real question is whether the United States will see this as burden-sharing…
or as market competition.
History suggests alliances survive the first interpretation far better than the second.
"The Rules of the New Game" this line made me giggle! haha.
Ya, the orange ball wanted to play, but, only if it benefits him.
He doesn't even care if it helps Americans, only that he can skim
off the cream! Now there are more threats...I'm not playing with
you anymore, you won't follow my new rules :(