Originally Posted by
langleybaston
The majority of European countries [other than those ex-Warsaw Pact/ East Bloc] may or may not have national contingency planners, tasked with [amongst other matters] the likelihood of being involved involuntarily in a shooting war. I say involuntarily because, with the exception of France, none of them pokes a nose into intervention. I set NATO membership aside for the moment.
The contingency planners [or, in their absence, "Defence"] are clearly not at all worried, spending tax funds on preparedness is not good politics. Thus, minimal funding, no long term planning, more generals than tanks, broomsticks for rifles, ADAC for rotary..
Returning to NATO, it has become a low-cost insurance policy of demonstrably poor value, and the insurers [USA and UK primarily] clearly believe that their risk, in Europe, is small.
Europe has a lot of things to worry about, and defence, rightly or wrongly, is not deemed anywhere near the top. A little posturing every now and then keeps the illusion of preparedness going, and, who knows, they might be right.
They had better be.
In fairness to the European politicians, there is no indications that increased military spending will provide any benefit
The actual problems such as an un-integrated Islamic minority, sub replacement birth rates and block obsolescence of European industry in the face of Chinese competition are not subject to military solutions.
Indeed, increased military spending towards some arbitrarily set 2% of GNP seems irrational at best.
All of Europe would be better off if Russia and its resources were fully integrated into Europe, rather than having it pushed into a reluctant alliance with China.
Is this so hard to see?