And we don't need 5000 Nuclear warheads and the associated missile and support.
Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions
- Thread starter Vergennes
- Start date
That's how much developing a US level defence takes for countries with similar wage levels. Which for 27 members means each nation contributing an average of $26bn net just for defence alone. Right now, no EU country contributes anywhere near that much on net even in total.
The mistakes of the Eurofighter were simply having too many partners, so I don't see how having 27 partners instead of 4 will help. And trying to get people's money, without giving them jobs will be an interesting trick.
Which against Russia and China is 11 carriers, 300 ships and 4000 fighter jets.
Russian defense budget is just 61 Billion this year and Europe didn't need 700Billion defense budget to secure itself. Chinese navy is two oceans away and they do not have any significant power projection capacity to threaten EU. It have a GDP of 17 trillion(without UK) and a moderate 1.5% defense budget (which is less than the 2% demand of Trump) is 255 Billion USD which is enough to build one heck of a military and no one dares thinking about invading EU even without US or UK.
If they spend 2% on defense, its going to be 340 Billion USD defense budget (which I think is unnecessary considering EU didn't have any significant military deployment oversees,ongoing active military conflict or massive nuclear stockpile to retain).
If they spend 2% on defense, its going to be 340 Billion USD defense budget (which I think is unnecessary considering EU didn't have any significant military deployment oversees,ongoing active military conflict or massive nuclear stockpile to retain).
Russian defence budget is $70bn and Russian wages are only a fraction of those in the US, so that's equivalent to several hundred billion.
China is developing more aircraft carriers. The EU only has a GDP of $14bn without the UK, they would need to spend 5% of GDP on defence to equal the US. At the moment plans only include $10bn in total. Even $255bn is more than the total gross contribution paid by EU member states to the EU for everything, never mind the net amount, which is much lower, since most of that money is redistributed within the EU. Having a US-like EU military is pie-in-the-sky BS.
Russian defense budget is barely enough to look after their soviet era equipment. The bulk of Russian military equipment are soviet and they haven't inducted any post soviet weapons systems in bulk due to their bad economic situation. Even all hyped t-14 tank or t-57 stealth aircraft, they cut down the induction to a dozen maximum due to lack of funds. Hell, forget about t-14, they only indicted few hundred t-90s and bulk of tank fleet is from soviet era.
EU GDP estimate of 2018 is 19.69 trillion including UK. Without UK, it is 17 trillion.
Report for Selected Country Groups and Subjects
EU can easily spend a moderate 1.5% on defense (compared to UK which spend 2.2-2.3%) which is $255 billion to build a very strong combined military force by combining their national militaries.
$17tr, without UK $14tr. The 2018 figure is only an estimate, at present their annual growth is below 2%.
It could but right now that's more than the entire EU contribution of all 28 members, even with the UK. You would have to convince the likes of France and Sweden and Denmark and others to give up national defence spending, which will be very difficult/impossible.
No, they really couldn't. A third of those numbers would at best achieve air parity, which given the immense Russian ground forces, would result in a loss. Back in the day, Soviet ground forces were only held at bay by lots of tactical nukes.
The Europeans and Russians are not gonna fight a war.
How sure can you be of that? Russia is already playing games in Baltic states and the EU talks about taking in the Ukraine.
LOL.
Russian minority party wins Latvian vote; populists surge
Russian minority party wins Latvian vote; populists surge
Russian minority party wins Latvian vote; populists surge
Russian minority party wins Latvian vote; populists surge
As of now the article appears speculative but the journalist does have a point. But all such subtle nuances would go over the head of our favourite Irishman here.Needless to say, that hardly ever prevented him from commenting.
Aaron Banks had ELEVEN yes ELEVEN meetings with Russian officials. Was he meeting them and discussing the weather? Let’s call a spade a spade - Russia wanted a weaker EU and fingered the U.K. brexsh1teers for this outcome. Our favourite Irishman is incapable of thinking outside his matchbox.
Most complete and utter bullshit does get ignored by me. People voted out because of what they saw happening in their home towns and there was really no level of propaganda that was going to override that, one way or the other.
Russia probably does want a weaker EU though but that's more to do with the EU's expansion combined with its hugely protectionist trading policies vs outsiders. If the EU allowed member states to make their own trade deals and stopped expanding, Russia would not care.
Last edited:
Even if Russia helped in Brexit, one can't underestimate the money spent on one sided campaign against Brexit by everyone - govt, corporate, other EU countries etc. If your idea of fairness is that only one sided campaign must be allowed without allowing anyone to give any cost benefit analysis, that is a very poor idea.
This x 1000. Businesses with vested interests, the BBC, various media outlets, the government, the EU and the financial district in London have literally thrown everything including the kitchen sink at preventing Brexit from the start of 2016 until now, including highly warped and inaccurate research papers paid for out of the money we supposedly get back from the EU. There were even people in Northern Ireland and Scotland saying that the only money they get round there is from the EU, which is literally the emperor of all lies, yet for some reason a poorly described truth on the side of a red bus was highlighted by the media.
