Is there a point to having an army in western europe?

Attached: shiggy space program.jpg (97x116, 2.46K)

why don't you counter my argument, then? There is no point to having an army that is entirely useless.

You see, if you are hungry and you have no food around, you could always just try to get food AT ALL COST instead of just lying down and starve to death. Same goes for the army.

because if you don't spend your required 2% we are gonna look the other way while you get rolled like Ukraine

Attached: 20180710_NATO_Expenditure-3.jpg (960x1328, 110.5K)

you can't live without food but you can live without the army.

The US would likely defend its european vassals even if they demanded US paid them for the privilege. Europe is the cornerstone of US global hegemony

only untill the moment when everybody notices you dont have an army

No nation can exist too long without an army.

This. Until every nation (and I mean EVERY) becomes pacifist, armies will be needed.

Poland literally offered to pay for the US to pay for the deployment of a tank brigade a few months ago. Europe doesn't give us oil so why should we give a fuck about you guys? All's we need is one good excuse to dissolve NATO and we are out of there

Attached: 262201.jpg (200x145, 10.56K)

Offered to pay for the deployment*

And this. Once the US pulls out of here for whatever reason, we are on our own. Raise and equip your army in the possesion of this knowledge.

valid if you are not in what happens to be the largest military alliance in the world headed by the largest military in the world.

To maintain world hegemony and oversee the destruction of the white race, obviously. The only reason US gets to pull its shit on the international stage is because it has its european vassals agree to it.
Please do. Then there might be some hope of european countries getting some sovereignity back, at least as long as they didn't double down on EU instead.

Which might also be fifty years down the line. Fifty years of spending on something that was entirely unneeded. Once US leaves, sure, build up the army, but until then, keeping this half-dead mockery of an army is just a waste of money.

On a semi-related note, I've wondered why Ukraine can't join NATO until I looked into it.

I almost stared a new thread on this, but I found my answer and, it makes sense for western Europe. Any Streloks care to elaborate on the opposite side of the spectrum here?

what are you even talking about? Ukraine is on a fast track to joining - it literally changed its constitution last month in order to make it easier to join NATO and EU

What a shame.

You don't. America's only purpose in Europe is to protect the jews.

You don't get it.
The European Army will be used to fight nationalists rebellions within the EU.

I'm not talking about the cancer of the fucking European Army that hopefully will never happen. I'm talking about how fucking ridiculous it is to be spending billions on something that is entirely useless in its current state. Either increase the funding and have an actual army capable of defending the nation, or don't have anything at all and use the money in a more productive fashion.

I Wish we weren't in NATO and had russian IRBM's stationed instead, that'd at least be a guarantee of an alliance being serious unlike what we have with muttmerica where they threaten of ending any and all alliances over law that would prohibit kikes from retconning holocauster cinematic universe to have Poles as the main perpetrators.
So I can't really imagine ZOG doing anything for Poland's sake in case of a real conflict, be it le Russian Boogeyman or t*rkroaches.

Only third worlders engage in actual wars now, and only between each other, the big brained move is to send completely unarmed women and children in fighting age and prime health as refugees or immigrants, and then either wait for them to bring their families over and democratically take over or if you're particularly impatient you send them arms shipments later through minority unions, kind of like ZUP does in Poland.

ZOG would never allow Russia to grab a prize as great as Poland, so it'd indeed help. Against russia, that is. Were it, for example, enrichment hordes, there would suddenly be a million reasons for why USA cannot help. But that's a different scenario altogether.

Until you mathematically prove this, then your thread is as relevant as a pajeet in india taking a shit behind an alley

Anglokikes did it twice and murdered Patton over ever suggesting help, how are things different now?
USA would probably nuke Poland instead to halt the Russian advance, and offer condolences and maybe some 15 dollar medals.

In countries bound by European Human Rights Charter military isn't allowed to shoot invaters as killing anyone for any reason is prohibited, so they'd need to make them surrender or use non-lethal measures

Attached: All lives are sacred, especially those of terrorists and murderers.png (848x1327 99.17 KB, 333.15K)

Alright, let's take my country's army as an example then:
I find it rather difficult to see how such a force would even be capable of defending the border or provide any meaningful resistance to a serious enemy, yet I see plenty of ways 3 billion dollars per year could be used effectively

Who said that would be done by russia? If they conquer us and Belarus (already done) polans technically are gonna be steamrolled by the dozen of a newborn "people's republics" with russcucks smirking at the background. Let's see NATO dealing with that.

Attached: 1550659054146310449.jpg (642x638, 58.6K)

Not if Russia is your neighbor.

they took back Crimea because ukrainian subhumans got lucky after fall of soviet union and got more territory than they deserve or can do anything useful with.

A fire alarm is completely useless until you have a fire.

It's almost like these people think Russia isn't controlled by Jews the same way and they're just playing both sides.

That's basically the biggest reason Europe needs its own standing army. France using NATO as an excuse to bomb and then import Sandniggers aside, if the US pulled out of Europe, while they'd be "safe" insomuch that as you said they're all allies, they'd be basically defenseless should Russia or really even a new caliphate decide to capitulate on this fact. It would be a gradual change, but you'd see Russia start bullying western Europe via military power to let them expand their businesses further west.

France bombs Muslims almost as much as the US does, and for a while the UK wasn't too far behind so I'd hardly call them incompetent insofar as combat roles go. That being said, most of their incompetence is because the US is basically subsidizing European militaries with their very presence in Europe. If the US pulled out of Europe, most of those socialist safety nets would collapse because Europe would have to actually take their militaries seriously, or they'd be defenseless. Imagine if the US completely pulled out of Europe tomorrow- either everyone would have to take their military seriously and there'd be a LOT of infighting between European nations over who's spending how much on how many, or no one would increase their military spending and it would be very, very bad for the when a less scrupulous nation took advantage of that fact.

Because there hasn't been a real war in years, yet they all receive funding as if they were at war. Again, at least US troops pulling out would force them to reconsider how they're spending their military funds.

Attached: anime_remove_kebab.jpg (3000x3000, 2.45M)

I don't trust the American "troops" to even be useful in Europe either. Much in the same way little Kim just has to use his artillery and the entire US presence in South Korea will be wiped out in a day, it would take very little for Russia or a Caliphate to do the same (or very similar in Europe anyways). It's the presence of those troops that's the real threat, not the numbers though. The presence of those troops is basically an "if you attack them, you are attacking us as well" threat.

Soldiers don't just grow on trees, user. You have to cultivate a proper soldier for months if not years so they can get shot in the head by some farmer with a plinking rifle. Heavily-intensive boot camp just gets them into the minimal operating standard needed to shovel them wherever you need them and have them not fall apart when the artillery starts flying.

Attached: 1807a298434eaf5a6618cc6a16ac48b660d047acfb7a462dc6d2f62a9fe19574.gif (537x439, 1M)

OP, this thinking is exactly WHY the European militaries are in shambles. Because those before you said the same thing when you actually had a functional military. I can't wrap my head around how you don't understand this.

Are you claiming your military that got stripped of any leadership by King nigger and is now full of trannies and women is serious? The US has been a joke for as long as any of us have been alive. It just likes bombing little brown people in far off lands to feel like it's a big man. The UK isn't much better but no western military is serious, it's too pozzed for that.

And then they fall apart any way because most of them are thugs and niggers who would rather rape than win a war.

importing rapefugees is France's sovereign choice and it'll continue to do so with or without NATO. Without an army, they at least wouldn't bomb shitholes to faciliate the influx.
not gonna happen without a serious SHTF scenario. US pulling out of NATO would literally mean the end of the US empire, and kikes rely on US empire with everything. Until someone quite literally overthrows the american government (or bombs america into a lifeless wasteland), USA will not pull out of NATO.
Should this scenario actually happen, I expect the rest of NATO to quickly create their own armies afterwards.

Not really; they're played up in the media so that Frenchies can pretend they're still a power to be reckoned with and the US can say it's not there alone, but their contributions to bombing ISIS, for example, was negligible, as was Britain's. Besides, this is bombing sandniggers that have no real way of shooting back we're talking about – if the enemy was actually competent and well-equiped, France couldn't afford to do this shit.
see above
Yeah, that's what I kind of expect. They'd be forced to take the military seriously and turn it into a fighting force. Good for them. But until then, why waste billions on an "army" that cannot be taken seriously by any serious opponent?

So you agree it's a waste of money, at present time? I am all for having an army, provided it is actually good for something. If it's not good for anything, then either increase the funding and make it useful (something few countries in Europe seem willing to do) or cut off the funding entirely and use the money in some better way.

Those before me actually had a functional army at the start; something useful. I'm left with some half-aborted monstrosity demanding billions each year and providing exactly nothing.

Reminder that when Germany unified in 1990 half of Europe and almost everyone of their neighbors shit their pants and were against it, because Bundeswehr+NVA were some serious DAKKA and nobody gave a shit that West Germany was part of (((NATO))).

I think your style of thinking is the cause of your problem.

Attached: confused_possum.jpg (905x1280, 101.99K)

Fuck no. I'm claiming that its presence itself is a deterrent. See

I was referring to European militaries in that post. I assume in the UK, Germany, France, etc. they have something resembling boot camp and don't just go "here's a uniform, you're part of the military now!"

The US government is a house of cards. I'm not saying it's likely but I am saying it's a possibility (I'd even say it's a strong possibility) and Europe would be in a bad situation if it did. It would NOT be "US pulls out, X moves in" situation, but it's not hard to imagine a slow US withdrawal from Europe would be followed up by internal fighting and countries like Russia using military pressure to get that sweet, sweet oil contract or railroad or business office with X or Y. It would start small, say Poland giving a favorable contract with Russia for some mine or plot of land, but it would end much bigger over the course of a decade if Europe (as a whole) didn't get their shit together. I know I'm using Russia as an example, but that's only because Russia is military-minded, really you could use Turkey or Saudi Arabia or even one of the more militaristic European countries as the example and it would still work. If European countries have no defensive spending whatsoever, it might be too late by the time those countries realize what's on their doorstep and they'd be left with a quarter-assed defense instead of a half-assed one.

Tell that to their dozens of military vocational schools (I think there's 16 in Western Africa alone), munitions stockpiles, and troops that actually receive training. The frogs do a lot of shit wrong, but maintaining a standing army is not one of them. They're pozzed as much as any other western army, but their army could at least turn an invasion into a war instead of a blood bath.

I agree that it's a waste of money at present time, but it's for the same reason that a flare gun when hiking, or an extra box of ammo you don't need, or those MREs hidden in your closet are a waste of time. It's better to have something and not need it, even if it's inefficient with all the bells and whistles, rather than need it and not have it.

Perhaps I should expand on the "if you are attacking them you are attacking us" thing a bit, actually. Consider that international waters are largely protected by the US Navy. Obviously there's still pirates in Africa, but most international waters are safe. The US Naval presence is not concentrated in any one region, and it can in fact be quickly destroyed by any country that gave half a shit to do so whether via ocean mines, long-range artillery, or just ramming a cargo ship into the side of a naval vessel. It's not that any small group of US naval vessels are an actual threat, it's that intentionally and maliciously destroying any one US Naval vessel will result in the redirection of a partial or full US Naval fleet and Navy Airforce down on an individual. Even that might not be a legitimate threat depending on the country, but it's enough of a nuisance that any involved country would rather not slap the bull. If in a dystopian future let's say Turkey decided to invade Greece and killed US troops stationed there, they would be invoking the US to go to war with them, but also potentially any US allies that the US bullies into joining the war effort.

I said it like a dozen times already that increasing the funding is fine, but if the countries in question refuse to do so, then cutting it entirely is still better than the current situation.

But these things are already happening with Chinese and Jewish companies, without any military pressure needed. By the time Russia started pressing for contracts, it would be muscling out chinks and kikes rather than actual whites.
It doesn't take that long to create an efficient army from nothing. Look at how quick Hitler was, and he needed to bring his country out of an economic quagmire and hide shit from the entente along the way.
Those things do not continuously swallow a big chunk of your budget; there is no negative to actually having them around. The issue isn't having the army (even though it's useless), but having to PAY the army billions each year, when you could use those billions in an actually useful manner instead. Would you be willing to rent a flaregun every day for $10 when you know the munition provided is faulty and will not work and when you don't plan to go hiking this year?

Wasn't Hitler's military mostly made up of veterans up until around the last year or two of WWII? That's hardly comparable (without even going into the collapsing smoke and mirrors exhibition that was NEETSoc Germany).

As compared to what? Doesn't your government spend roughly 40% of its GDP? That's fucking huge. US Government spending as a percentage of GDP is roughly 36% of our GDP, but health care, pensions, debt, and education which could all be cut considerably make up like half of that spending. 5% of our GDP is our military compared to a simple 1.2%.

Attached: whut.webm (1280x720, 217.88K)

Sorry for the triple post, I really should consolidate it into one post, but the only way you're going to convince me that your 1.19% figure isn't the best use of that money is if you're going to say to leave it in the hands of Czech citizens and tell them to go buy a gun or something rather than waste it on some inefficient government bureaucracy.

You forget that even 1% of GDP is a massive maount of money. For example, diverting all of it to education would solve all our current (massive, since everything is underfunded) problems in that area and likely still leave a billion more to spend elsewhere.

Who the fuck are you kidding? Throwing money at a school full of niggers is not going to solve shit. There are massive issues with the education system from all sides and no amount of money will fix that. It's an ideological problem which can only be fixed through a lack of resources bringing reality into play.

I understand that this might be a culture shock for you, but my country isn't the UK and we don't have schools full of niggers.
Our main problem is that the teachers are underpaid and can easily get paid more even in low skill professions, so now there are too few teachers.
We don't have that, though, at least save for gender studies etc. in shit colleges. The rest of our education system is entirely free of pozz.

I should also add that the whole measuring by GDP is fairly stupid when you get a much better idea by comparing how much of total spending goes where. This year, 4.5% of the entire budget will be going to the army.

You sound like the most bitch basic retard possible. Same shit in every country.

Teachers are underpaid because they are bad at their job. People who fail to be a writer become an English teacher, people who fail at sports become sports teachers. The saying goes "Those who can do, those who can't teach". They're glorified babysitters designed to get women away from being mothers and into jewish sweat shops.

Attached: doubt.jpeg (600x909, 29.79K)

Most teachers are not underpaid, they're unionized which eats up a portion of their pay. The Russian system and (old) American system got things right in that teachers aren't supposed to make much money, however they get reimbursed in non-monetary forms such as having dinner with students' families or being given some of the harvest.

No, WW1 ended in 1919 and WW2 started in 1939, there were 20 years between that. Even the youngest Veterans from WW1 were reaching their 40s at that point.
This means you had a lot of Veterans in the Officers Corps, but the common Wehrmacht Soldier was a child during WW1.

Governments around the world waste ten times as much money under shittly labels like "promotion of culture", which in the end boils down to nothing but using Art and Education for political Propaganda.
If you are looking for wasted funds that could be spend better, the military of your country is the wrong place.

My country has been going through a massive labour shortage for the past few years, meaning there is a shortage of people everywhere, meaning private sector is raising wages everywhere, meaning a fucking assembly line worker has a comparable paycheck to a teacher, as well as a big entry bonus. The pay of teachers (and other state employees) did not copy this trend at the same pace, meaning the teachers literally are underpaid. As for the rest, maybe stop projecting your country's shittiness on others – not every place is as shit as the UK. In fact, most of them aren't.

This year's "record increase" in education budget (which hopes to solve these issues) was around 30 billion CZK. Army spending this year will be 66 billion CZK.

I more or less agree, but just because the funds are wasted on worse things doesn't mean that they aren't wasted here as well.

You live in goblinistan. How many ways can they teach you to shit in the corner and to squat?

If the teachers pay hasn't risen then there is no shortage of teachers. Pay increases with demand. If it's not demanded it's not risen. But again you admit problems and deny they exist at the same time. So maybe you're right, the Czech education system is fucked. It makes people as stupid as you Goblin-kun.

Of course they do. How else will you get enough stones to throw until one hits the target? Stones aren't cheap.

...

Probably Jewish. Other wise would have been genocided by the commie kikes

Attached: British_Israelites.jpg (474x681, 142.13K)

ITT: Czechmonkey from cuckchan has no idea how much money are required for continuous supply of a modern military and thinks leaving your nation unprotected is OK because dude who cares lmao we can rely on others.
Retards like OP are never in their entire lives ever going to do anything more important than waste oxygen and produce feces

Forgot to turn in the VPN, "no airforce"-fag?

Throwing money at schools won't solve problems.
In fact, you should defund schools so only kids who are determined to learn can study under competent teachers.

Do you know why Catalonia isn't independent? No, it's not because of bulshit philosophical legitimacy arguments and it's not even because they don't have an army that could win in a symmetric war. It's because Spain could just waltz in and enforce whatever they wanted at virtually no cost. I guarantee you if there was a threat of civil/guerilla war, they'd think long and hard before going in.
What do you think will happen when some eurocrat decides that your country is "endangering western values" at a time when about any force can just come in and do whatever the fuck they want?

Sounds like you either need private sector schooling or you have a saturation of useless teachers while other industries are suffering. Has it occurred to you that public education is a farce and parents or even a god damn community center could probably do a better job educating children/preparing them for the workforce?

And clearly your teachers aren't demanding it/quitting for those higher-paying jobs, so clearly (at least to me and probably others) either they're fucking useless or it's a non-issue. Just because pay is up doesn't mean prices are up too, but if they are, then these teachers, if they're truly suffering, need to tell people they'll fuck off if not. You only need like 10-16 teachers per 1,000 adults in a population though, so clearly there's not a shortage if these teachers are too afraid to walk away. In America, education is mostly handled at the state or city level, so I'm not wrapping my head around how this is an issue since different regional governments will have different education budgets.

Now look I happen to think you make a half decent point in your op, but you need to calm your tits and think logically here. Your op sounded like you were discussing milfund policy of all yuropoorlands in general. When people point out that the money would just be spent on cancer anyway, you say your country isn't cancerous. Well, no offense but who gives a fuck about your country? Doublesland with its 10 mil not-slavs can spend 100% of their gdp on military and still it won't matter squat. There's more jews in the world than czechs, think on that. From your OP, it sounds like you mean countries that matter, such as krauts, frogs, bongs. We all know what their priorities are.

It's fair to ask, when you're burning money on a shit insurance, whether you might as well cut your losses. But military isn't like an insurance policy you can just go and buy any time. Shit takes time to set up, people take time to learn and settle into the culture. What are you gonna do when invaded, convene a democratic debate on how to create a brand new armed forces from scratch in 24 hours?

Furthermore, who cares about saving money. If the government doesn't spend on military, what do you think they will do with the money? Give it back to you? Spend it on something that benefits the country? No they will spend it all on turning the poz level up to 11. If you had a political body that actually answered to its people, you could have this discussion about budgets. But if you had that, you wouldn't have this complaint in the first place, because they wouldn't have cucked the military to begin with.

Ukraine can't join for strategic reasons. Imagine if Canada signed the Warsaw pact. That's what this looks like to Russia, aided by the fact that they were promised by the US after the fall of the Berlin wall that east germany would be the easternmost and last country to join NATO in return for not standing in the way of german reunification. That informal promise was not kept, leading them to be a bit on edge about the encroaching NATO.

Armies need time and money to be effective. They're like insurance policies. If you wnat a really good one, it takes decades, as you have to build an esprit de corps and remember lessons learned elsewhere.

Europe, if all of the EUs militaries are combined, has the largest standing army by manpower. Sure, the equipment is not always up to date and the logistics would be a nightmare, but its just like economical warfare - united, we're the single biggest market on the planet and can practically make the rules that everyone else has to play by. That the EU turned in to such a corrupt shitshow is annoying, but the basic idea is very sound.

All those beautiful Mi24s got scrapped in favor of the NH90… SAD!
I know that this simplifies things massively and that there are advantages to a new platform, especially in the maintenance department, but the Mi24 was and is a damn good multirole helicopter platform.

no one needs to disable US Navy hulls when your incompetent crews steer them in fornt of cargo ships.
sorry, had to do it to ya.

Hitler wasn't hiding shit, he was actively pushing for a declaration of war from france. He was frustrated with their brit-led appeasement as he needed the war so he could stop the reparation payments and ignore the mounting debt due to his expensive infrastructure projects.

Stop applying US metrics to the EU. No Teachers union, techers here are under different rules like almost anything.

This is retarded, robotization will mean more and more academics are needed in order to keep welfare numbers down. That can only happen by pushing a significant amount of lower class up, which means they need to be educated in MINT - and you need schools for that. MINT teachers are gonna be expensive.

lmao

Finally, on topic: The most conservative and no bullshit nation on this planet was Prussia. They were an army that happened to have acquired a country. Their culture was exactly what 90% of you Zig Forumstards whack off to. Now fuck off and leave my board.

No u.
Population numbers must be reduced, those too stupid to seek out development or have a family to rely upon are expendable.

No, the USA is the cornerstone of US global hegemony.
Europe was the cage for the USSR
The USSR is now just Russia, a dying country filled with druggies and even more mutt immigrants than the West has.
Thus, the US doesn’t particularly need to cage in Russia since they are not a threat at a global level.
They are, however still a regional threat.
A very desperate regional power.

Ukraine is/was basically the tipping point.
It’s very clear now that Americans don’t give a shit what happens in Europe.
I give it ten years until Europe becomes another world war free for all.
Then the US will get to take on this century of immigrants from Europe.
It will be amazing, watching all those britcuck “lol so funny smart” youtubers desperately claw there way onto the shores of “redneck” America as their EU cities burn.
Thanks to the internet you’ll get to see the cowards flee in real time.
I hope they get bullied or shot for being britcucks.
I’d hate for them to establish themselves as another (((white))) fifth estate like the Jews did.

I don't understand this level of smug, America seems to be a more dire position than Europe is tbh.

Leave Europe then, mutts.

Yurop must become mutted

Attached: adelene.png (648x899, 398.74K)

But why tho?

Because that user you're replying to is a kike and needs to be burned alive.

lol everytime

Attached: Adelene-coincidence.png (1210x545, 240.11K)

sauce btw:
adelene-magazin.de/uber-uns

All right Zig Forums, here are my two cents on the whole EU-army thing.

In theory it's a great idea. Hear me the fuck out though.
Why is it a great idea?
Many European nations are facing the same problems right now: Threat of Russian invasion and impotence on a global scale. Take Poland as an example. The Poland and France as examples. The Poles are very much afraid of getting invaded by Russia in order to connect Königsberg with Russia through Belarus as a first stage of attacking into eastern Europe.
France on the other hand is seeking to strengthen their seat on the strategic stage of the world and their role in their former colonies. Both might seem like goals in opposite directions at first.
One nation needs an army that can fight off a full scale invasion, the other is looking to bomb some huts in the deserts of Africa.
However what if both nations were to work together? France's military industry is on the brink of collapse. Their last gun manufacturer closed down and their (extremely advanced) missile industry is collapsing as we speak. Why? The French government and neighboring nations haven't really had a reason to buy large quantities of those kinds of weapons. You don't need ATGMs to win against unarmoured opponents. However you do need those to equip an army capable of defending a nation.

If, for example, the French were to equip parts of their army to defend Poland, and Poland were to send some of their troops to assist the French in places such as Mali both would benefit. French arms industry would get more contracts and survive. French get aided in killing locals, Poles get some experience with modern firefights and French troops on their borders.

The problems I see with it are crippling however.
a) Who is in charge of this new army?
Which person decides who does what when SHTF. You can't have military decisions done by some EU parliament. The endless bickering over who should be in command would probably stop the project before it got started.
If that one got sorted though b) what if a nation refuses to aid once SHTF?
Do you rip control of their armed forces from them? That never goes well. Do you add a veto right for each nation to refuse taking part in the war? That would make the entire idea useless. Do you impose sanctions? Not gonna work either.
But let's say that all nations always agree to defend their parterns. Then c) LANGUAGE.
Now I am not trying to insult soldiers, but in the EU there are Spanish, French, German (all 24 local accents of it), Polish, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Estonian, and many many more languages. What language will be the standard. French, English, or German? Will you force all soldiers to learn that one language? Even NATO uses French and English as the official languages. So what happens when the troops on the ground have to cooperate? Will you make some German Grenadier talk to a Hungarian tanker in English? Again, not trying to insult anyone, but infantry doesn't tend to be the best educated social class in any society. Their English will be shit. And they will try to talk to another non-native English speaker in a potentially very loud and uncomfortable situation.
d) NATO
Will all EU army members be forced to leave NATO? What if a NATO member state gets attacked, so almost all EU army members go to help them, but then the EU gets attacked? Surely you would have to prioritize one over the other.
e) outside nations
What if one member state A has a contract with a non member state B and then another member state C attacks the non-member state B. Should A be allowed to defend B against C although both A and C are members of the EU army?

All of these are problems that have been solved before. NATO solved them expertly. The only problem with NATO is the dominant position of the US, and guess what: the only reason the US got that position was because most NATO member states simply decided to shrink their military past a critical point. The US is right in demanding more from their allies. If they want to talk at the bigboy table they must smoke cigars like thee big boys.

Who else could it be?

Attached: Merkel und das liebe Stimmvieh - Youtube Kacke-awEr1oMkcT4.webm (1280x720, 10.09M)

It's not a good idea because it means a lot of european states will lost their own army, to be protected by Big Brotha, kinda like the USA.

Look German, I am really the last one being against blobbing or uniting/reuniting, but don't you think you went a LITTLE bit too far by expecting every European countries to collect their entire army into one huge one that they have no control over?

Can NATO fight off Russia without the US at all?

Sounds like you're just describing tighter cooperation between national armies (which is fine by me). What I understand the hypothetical EU army to be is separately build force funded from the EU budget controlled directly by some EU institution (the commission, presumably). The way this is gonna work is the eurocrats will push through some sort of small "emergency defense force" ("it's just a small emergency force, we have no ambitions to replace national armies, we swear"), and then they will gradually increase its budget, which the national governments will then always use to decrease their national army's budget and funnel it into whatever corrupt shit they want, until, in few decades, there will be one big army controlled by European Hauptkommissar and defenseless nation states.

Is this an honest question?

Don't worry they would come with same """reasonable"" explanation for talking your land too. Polacks would even vote 146% to "voluntary" join basted russia after occupation

Yes it can.

Russia is a goddamn paper tiger and Putin is trying his hard to project power.

What matters is that whether europeans think Putin is better than whoever rule their country (likely not, Putin is just the other side of the ZOGcoin).

We could just terrorize them into giving us the same treatment as Chechnya.

What is your logic here? Are you saying that if instead of sending 1000 frogs to Mali, you send 500 frogs and 500 polacks, that will somehow create more demand for weapons because…? Polacks duel wield? I don gedid

Or are you saying that polacks are so retarded that you would need 5000 polacks to make up for 500 frogs, so now the total number of weapons used has gone from 1000 to 5500?

Or do you think that bolan will simply go and shell out for brand new frog weapons, just for the privilege of fighting frogland's wars for them, when frogs already have the weapons lying around that they could just give to polacks for free? Is this just a way of bullying bolan into subsidizing the frog arm industry? Wouldn't it be easier to just tax them or something?

So long as Russia is oil-reliant US can sanction their shit into stagnation. The part that should be scary to the US is that Russia isn't really collapsing from it, it's just simply living with the pain. Problem with trade-starving countries is that if you don't actually crush them, they gain immunity to the sanctions because their own economy gets stimulated. As happened with Iran which is now at the point of giving zero fucks if anyone wants to trade with it or not because it can pretty much make everything it needs. I'd say the biggest obstacle for Russia is corruption/rule of law. Both are improving gradually, but as soon as free enterprise becomes viable in Russia it will quickly snowball to USSR levels of output. Probably much better because no communism.

Eat shit. THEN die.

Things were far better when Germany was just a collection of independent states under the thin guise of the Holy Roman Empire. Each noble and state should have its own army WITHIN Germany, hell it was better when other nations had this again. Nobody was dumping millions of invaders into Europe when the nobles and their various armies held sway, only under an EU massive central Super State. Now, you want us to centralize further, claiming this will make things better? I wonder who you are working for.

Once you lose your army you lose your power. A state without an army isn't a state at all, now is it? Isn't that the REAL point of making a EU army, so that its transformation into a Super State under its own power and will become a total empire with no one underneath able to field any force to resist their tyranny?

Better the EU dissolve, in fact its evil and should dissolve. I like NATO, and it does fine with various nations and countries supporting it. We don't need to further centralize it to fight Eurasia if it ever comes down to WW3. In fact, some of the greatest coalitions that have formed to balance geopolitical issues have come from decentralized states throughout history, some of the worst are from vast formal monoliths. IN FACT THE HUGE FORMAL MONOLTIHS ARE OFTEN THE EVIL THE DECENTRALIZED ALLIANCES FORM TO FIGHT AGAINST. Now you are telling us to quit relying on the successful former, perhaps to become the latter which might be a great evil?

Fuck off.

STUPID
DUMB
MUTT
SCUM

Yes krauts, do it! France will never produce a Napoleon again!
t.frog
Can amerimutts stop talking about shit they know nothing about?

No. They have an overwhelming numerical advantage while they've closed the gap quality of troops wise both because they invested a lot in it but also because most of NATO have dropped all attempts at maintaining decently trained soldiers despite cutting numbers like crazy while they were a big part of NATO fighting power.
You can refer to Afghanistan as a metric, plenty of ex-commanders wrote on who was doing their jobs and who just left the talebans alone while cowering in their bases.

No they can't.
This isn't 1991, most of the world economy isn't NOT under the control of any state, let alone the US, first most countries don't follow the US sanctions policies and have worked to isolate themselves from any of their stupid games, the result is that ALL the new economies are still trading with Russia and not just Russian allies (China, Iran and cie) but Israel (oy vey), Brazil, South Korea, India, all of SE Asia, all of South America, all the middle east, etc…
Then not even most of the EU has stopped trading, first we removed everything important from the scope of sanctions (energy) as it's vital for both our economies, then due to the massive financial frauds the EU creates with it's countless loopholes, fiscal paradise and near total absence of actual border controls most of what was exported to Russia is now exported to Poland (you know the country with a big flat area going on for miles of frontier with Russia/Belarus which is not suspicious at all).

Next time you'll say we should be afraid of Turkey.
Of the small portion of their army that is actually of some use. Half of their army is conscripts and half of the remainder is fatasses doing office shit.
And yes, sanctions do matter. Guess what broke Germany's back in both world wars.
that's because we're not at war with russia, you dumbass

ie: being stupid ZOGdogs.

Based.

Said the french faggot. :^)

Internal security aka
supress the population when it rises up
Why do you think they have so many IFVs and armored cars?

Attached: your new neighbors.jpg (1200x675 622.53 KB, 107.5K)

The US is already leaving you shut-in kraut.
They gave your country a bill, for subsidizing your national defense for the past half century.
I'm sure Germany never needed the Soviets to occupy it either.
Guess you should try not to lose world wars, retard.

Let me give you a history lesson gook.
Contrary to popular belief their were actually three conflicts which were global in scale.
The first was the Seven Years war. which was global in scale but not the meat grinder that the World Wars were.
Then their was World War 1, and World War 2.
The "Theaters" of conflict in ALL of those wars were as follows:
1. Europe, Obviously.
2. The Middle East and Africa.
3. East Asia.
The only time North America saw any action as a conflict zone was the Seven Years War, which was because the Content was divided between Britain France and Spain
After the war the American colonists got fed up with the taxes, the warfare, the general bullshit that Europe engaged in, revolted, and ever since a foreign power has never been able to penetrate American Territory past it's coastal regions

North America is a fortress continent. A land invasion is virtually impossible.
North America also has a fuck ton of wealth and an Economy far more stable than anything in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Nearly $20 Trillion of capital flight from foreign countries has poured in the US the past year.
This is because they know shit is about to fall apart in the East. (And when i say East I include all of Europe as well as Asia, basically I mean everywhere out side of the Americas)

I'm not saying all this to gloat, I'm just telling you how it is.
The only other regions that could have some form of stability would be Australia and New Zealand.
So if you have an untamable Ameriga hate boner then you can immigrate there while the rest of Europe and Asia flees to the states.
Everything else will burn in the hellfire of WW3.

1. M.A.D.
2. Space Force / The Star Wars programs
If anyone has developed ICBM counter measures it's the US.

How does the EU's dick taste? Did you make sure to fondle the balls too?