When I saw the caption of Andrew Michta’s article at The American Interest, “Five Priorities for Europe’s Trans-Atlantic Strategy”, I almost laughed out loud. Why should European politicians change anything? What they’re doing is perfect.
Not only do they spend less on their own defense than would otherwise be necessary, their spending is insufficient to maintain their responsibilities in collective defense or to play the role that they should on the world stage. They can use the money they’ve saved to buy votes through social and infrastructure spending. And they can lambast the United States for spending too much and being so warlike.
How could it be any better? It’s perfect as it is.
“They can use the money they’ve saved to buy votes through social and infrastructure spending.”
Which is why the pleas of “what about Sweden, or Germany, or France” have always been bogus. But the rules of the party are changing. Lots of politicians are none too happy, but the train has left the station.
It was only a matter of time, Trump or no Trump.
“When the perfect is the enemy of the good…”
How appropriate as the German elections occurred.
My quick take is the next German government will be much weaker then the current one. Interesting how it affects the French desire to reform the Eurozone.
Maybe. I’d love to see some “Military Spending vs GNP” plots for a couple dozen European states, going back to Napoleonic daysor better yet 1492.
I’ve suspicions that at any given moment there have been a few high spenders, mostly colonial powers like Britain and France, and that in general “defence” spending has correlated very directly with social inequality. If so, European military spending has traditionally been small, and has functioned as welfare for aristocrats.