Row 95497

Row ID: 95497 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 95497 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

> Yes, but you can apply this logic to the economic side and EU makes it work(because it has to).

That wasn't even about economics, but the very, _very_ real implementations of doctrine through equipment design. Each nation has different requirements for this and aren't always applicable to another nation's doctrine. That's why we have dozens of Leopard variants. They aren't simply just upgrade packages, but they also have changes made because of requirement differences - radios and battlefield management systems for example.

> Okay, so disband EU tomorrow since the project had hurdles and failures along the way.

What...? The exact point I'm making is that these failures and hurdles have already happened and it resulted in a refined NATO structure. Why do all that over again?

> The mish mash of equipment we've been sending to Ukraine is proving otherwise, it's been a logistical hurdle for literally no reason.

Just because they got a mishmash of equipment doesn't mean that the logistical part hasn't been sorted out already. The problem is integrating these NATO systems in an existing and aging Warsaw Pact fleet of equipment that Ukraine is using. Which, and I have to remind you of that, had a totally different doctrine for engagement than NATO generally has.

THAT'S the problem... not the logistics of NATO equipement - it is rather the lack of ample NATO equipment that is a problem, limiting their capabilities to be used effectively.

> [...] but forget about even thinking of doing that when you have to contend with heavy US lobbying and interference from countries like UK who are basically a proxy of US foreign policy. But Brexit happened, so that's one massive hurdle gone. Maybe if tomorrow USA decides to ditch Europe, EU will be forced to unify its defense...who knows. Point is that there's administrative hurdles that have never made it possible to even talk about a common EU defense security. Like I said, read up on PESCO and US's lobbying.

Lobbying is lobbying, no matter where it comes from. And if European countries won't be serious about their defense spending, then European defense companies aren't going to invest. Hence why US defense lobbying is so damn effective in overtaking these markets.

The fundamental problem is still defense spending and political commitment to do so.

> That only serves US purposes, since a disunited EU MIC is never going to be able to compete with US procurement.

Then better get investing then, only then you can solve that problem. This is NATO or EU agnostic. European NATO members have been too reliant on the US for procurement. They created this problem themselves. Lax defense spending and years upon years of budget cuts have resulted in this.

> If EU remains divided on its defense strategy [...]

The EU is divided, and remains divided, exactly because it isn't a homogeneous political bloc. It has many nations with many different views and demands in wildly varying situations. You cannot, I repeat, you **cannot** build an effective army on that principle alone.

That's why NATO works, because it isn't dependent on that kind of political mingling. It is cooperation rather than integration.

> edit: you added some new comments.

Yeah, sorry about that. I thought that was a bit more effective than to reply to my own comment. I'll try to keep that to a minimum this time 'round. :)

> So the US can siphon more $$$ and have an easier time lobbying individual nation-states, yes.

No... that's not really the point. It doesn't matter where that procurement is done spend. Again, as long Europe isn't serious about defense spending, they will be reliant on the US for their equipment. They can solve this themselves, and that doesn't have to be an EU army with all inherent problems that come with it. NATO can remain NATO as it is intended.

> MY argument has literally zero idealism.

I wasn't specifically targeting your argument, but rather the idealist idea of an EU army. It is nothing new, and it doesn't exist because NATO already fills those needs. You can have a NATO without a committed US, but only if Europe takes their defensive spending much more serious. That is with or without the US. The war in Ukraine already made that _very_ clear.

We just need to get serious about spending money, we don't need another military structure that runs parallel with an already working one.

> Why do you think France decided to chart its own strategic course?

Well... to be fair, the French _were_ being French. But it also shows exactly why an EU army can't happen.

My bottom line argument remains that spending is the problem, not the structure. Do not replace something that has been tried and tested for 75 years. Europe's problem the past 30 years has been lack of commitment and hopeful optimism. A dangerous mix when one of your neighbors is an unfaithful and unreliable partner. It got us in our current mess, and the only way through is committent and spending, not setting up another alternative that has inherent political problems from the get-go.

You can have EU procurement programs without an EU army, the way to do that is investing in your own armies. In short run it may seem inefficient because every nations has their own demands and schemas for procurement, but in the long run these nations will independently have a reliable military to their own wishes. That can perfectly happen within a NATO structure, with or without the US. And it is going to cost one hellavu money too, so there's no time or extra money for political squabble and disagreements. Just invest in the industry by bolstering your own nation's military.

FieldValue
text > Yes, but you can apply this logic to the economic side and EU makes it work(because it has to). That wasn't even about economics, but the very, _very_ real implementations of doctrine through equipment design. Each nation has different requirements for this and aren't always applicable to another nation's doctrine. That's why we have dozens of Leopard variants. They aren't simply just upgrade packages, but they also have changes made because of requirement differences - radios and battlefield…
label r/worldnews
dataType comment
communityName r/worldnews
datetime 2024-05-25
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak11Rkw3R2tOLWdfMnJRMW8tMnRGOHBnLXRYblhqRXlCMkRoMW5FOWkycnhPUzc1LXlPYTRzTUVhNTVBUE9HbGc2X0F0Z3p6eVJDV19vbXN4NFJsMC15bkE9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5LalBBOFFpN1NFNi1JU1FDTGswQ0F5LW1MaDBVRW5HVUVGdng5aU5wQ3lkd1UyN2RnMEp0dVM5dGdXZnJERW9HeGNGLVFUTDdLdEVuTllJYkpVMnEtLUc1US15VFZwdFJETF9jUEh2aE9YYlpkMzhWM0NGY2ZHWlV3OEpKeHRMUFZ2OEk4SXFnUFhHRWNBdnVBMGZ5amVvcGJKbEVuSUxSNUtGT19rbUpTU3ByVTZScFdySFVMMjBJZWZoMzdrUWNJdU9iS0xjU2JlSXFpVS1zSkptUjlDbmZKdz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "> Yes, but you can apply this logic to the economic side and EU makes it work(because it has to).\n\nThat wasn't even about economics, but the very, _very_ real implementations of doctrine through equipment design. Each nation has different requirements for this and aren't always applicable to another nation's doctrine. That's why we have dozens of Leopard variants. They aren't simply just upgrade packages, but they also have changes made because of requirement differences - radios and battlefield management systems for example. \n\n> Okay, so disband EU tomorrow since the project had hurdles and failures along the way.\n\nWhat...? The exact point I'm making is that these failures and hurdles have already happened and it resulted in a refined NATO structure. Why do all that over again? \n\n> The mish mash of equipment we've been sending to Ukraine is proving otherwise, it's been a logistical hurdle for literally no reason. \n\nJust because they got a mishmash of equipment doesn't mean that the logistical part hasn't been sorted out already. The problem is integrating these NATO systems in an existing and aging Warsaw Pact fleet of equipment that Ukraine is using. Which, and I have to remind you of that, had a totally different doctrine for engagement than NATO generally has. \n\nTHAT'S the problem... not the logistics of NATO equipement - it is rather the lack of ample NATO equipment that is a problem, limiting their capabilities to be used effectively. \n\n> [...] but forget about even thinking of doing that when you have to contend with heavy US lobbying and interference from countries like UK who are basically a proxy of US foreign policy. But Brexit happened, so that's one massive hurdle gone. Maybe if tomorrow USA decides to ditch Europe, EU will be forced to unify its defense...who knows. Point is that there's administrative hurdles that have never made it possible to even talk about a common EU defense security. Like I said, read up on PESCO and US's lobbying.\n\nLobbying is lobbying, no matter where it comes from. And if European countries won't be serious about their defense spending, then European defense companies aren't going to invest. Hence why US defense lobbying is so damn effective in overtaking these markets. \n\nThe fundamental problem is still defense spending and political commitment to do so.\n\n> That only serves US purposes, since a disunited EU MIC is never going to be able to compete with US procurement. \n\nThen better get investing then, only then you can solve that problem. This is NATO or EU agnostic. European NATO members have been too reliant on the US for procurement. They created this problem themselves. Lax defense spending and years upon years of budget cuts have resulted in this.\n\n> If EU remains divided on its defense strategy [...]\n\nThe EU is divided, and remains divided, exactly because it isn't a homogeneous political bloc. It has many nations with many different views and demands in wildly varying situations. You cannot, I repeat, you **cannot** build an effective army on that principle alone.\n\nThat's why NATO works, because it isn't dependent on that kind of political mingling. It is cooperation rather than integration. \n\n> edit: you added some new comments.\n\nYeah, sorry about that. I thought that was a bit more effective than to reply to my own comment. I'll try to keep that to a minimum this time 'round. :)\n\n> So the US can siphon more $$$ and have an easier time lobbying individual nation-states, yes.\n\nNo... that's not really the point. It doesn't matter where that procurement is done spend. Again, as long Europe isn't serious about defense spending, they will be reliant on the US for their equipment. They can solve this themselves, and that doesn't have to be an EU army with all inherent problems that come with it. NATO can remain NATO as it is intended.\n\n> MY argument has literally zero idealism.\n\nI wasn't specifically targeting your argument, but rather the idealist idea of an EU army. It is nothing new, and it doesn't exist because NATO already fills those needs. You can have a NATO without a committed US, but only if Europe takes their defensive spending much more serious. That is with or without the US. The war in Ukraine already made that _very_ clear. \n\nWe just need to get serious about spending money, we don't need another military structure that runs parallel with an already working one.\n\n> Why do you think France decided to chart its own strategic course?\n\nWell... to be fair, the French _were_ being French. But it also shows exactly why an EU army can't happen. \n\nMy bottom line argument remains that spending is the problem, not the structure. Do not replace something that has been tried and tested for 75 years. Europe's problem the past 30 years has been lack of commitment and hopeful optimism. A dangerous mix when one of your neighbors is an unfaithful and unreliable partner. It got us in our current mess, and the only way through is committent and spending, not setting up another alternative that has inherent political problems from the get-go. \n\nYou can have EU procurement programs without an EU army, the way to do that is investing in your own armies. In short run it may seem inefficient because every nations has their own demands and schemas for procurement, but in the long run these nations will independently have a reliable military to their own wishes. That can perfectly happen within a NATO structure, with or without the US. And it is going to cost one hellavu money too, so there's no time or extra money for political squabble and disagreements. Just invest in the industry by bolstering your own nation's military.",
  "label": "r/worldnews",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/worldnews",
  "datetime": "2024-05-25",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak11Rkw3R2tOLWdfMnJRMW8tMnRGOHBnLXRYblhqRXlCMkRoMW5FOWkycnhPUzc1LXlPYTRzTUVhNTVBUE9HbGc2X0F0Z3p6eVJDV19vbXN4NFJsMC15bkE9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5LalBBOFFpN1NFNi1JU1FDTGswQ0F5LW1MaDBVRW5HVUVGdng5aU5wQ3lkd1UyN2RnMEp0dVM5dGdXZnJERW9HeGNGLVFUTDdLdEVuTllJYkpVMnEtLUc1US15VFZwdFJETF9jUEh2aE9YYlpkMzhWM0NGY2ZHWlV3OEpKeHRMUFZ2OEk4SXFnUFhHRWNBdnVBMGZ5amVvcGJKbEVuSUxSNUtGT19rbUpTU3ByVTZScFdySFVMMjBJZWZoMzdrUWNJdU9iS0xjU2JlSXFpVS1zSkptUjlDbmZKdz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information