>>65222300
Never understood why so many yuro ships have so little AA weaponry.

File: F125.jpg (159 KB, 1280x853)

159 KB JPG

>>65222314
it was designed during a time when politicians thought the tasks of a frigate should be anti-piracy operations and disaster relief. With 32 AA missiles it will be a usable frigate, at last.

>>65222323
Going by those big-ass double davits on each side, seems like they went full ahead into the anti-piracy thing.

>>65222323
They are very good looking ships, nicely set up for long duration and coastal patrol/defense. But definitely lacking in strong firepower. Germany does have the Sachsen class for air defense but even those aren't stacked with VLS.

File: sea-tiger-german-navy-first.jpg (121 KB, 1200x617)

121 KB JPG

>>65222413
with 32 AA missiles and naval strike missile it will be an ok tier general purpose frigate. Only I think it relies on its onboard helicopter for ASW duties, but it should be ok for that too when it's not the primary focus. It's a design that doesn't fit in today's world anymore but apparently it can be upgraded enough to be not totally useless, so that's good news.
>Sachsen class for air defense but even those aren't stacked with VLS.
yes but its successor the F127 is supposed to get 96 vls cells, so arleigh burke tier. Will be very expensive though.

>>65222314
Politicians were buying the bare minimum in weapons and ammo and weren't shy about it
Still are

>frigate
These things weigh more than many destroyers

>>65222314
Europeans are free-riders when it comes to defense.

>>65222545
no. European countries spent little on defense because there was no threat to them. they never got anything for free from the US, and Europeans paid and still pay good money for American weapons. It was Europeans that went to Afghanistan for the US in the only case when NATO article 5 was invoked. And now when there finally is a real threat, America withdraws its support and most European countries accordingly gear up more, paying billions for American weapons in the process. There is another country that actually receives free things from you and never went to war for you though, but that's your greatest ally and could never be seen as a free-rider. I didn't want this thread to get political, but I can't stand this over simplified accusation.

>>65222650
Nope, you cut your shit to the bone after the Cold War to pay for welfaren and these are the very obvious consequences of your complacency. Bitch all you want about the eternal Jew, but their military spend as a % of GDP has always been above 4.5% this century. Europe's averaged 1.5, and is barely getting to 2%.

>>65222679
I didn't deny Europeans cut defense spending after 1990, so did the US to a lesser extent. You missed my point that there was nothing to protect from, so this free rider accusation makes no sense. And now, when there is a threat, the US withdraws. All the while Europeans pay billions for American weapons. And regardless of percentage, Israel gets actual free military hardware from the US, unlike Europeans, who pay for it with hard cash. And it were Europeans who followed the US to Afghanistan, while America followed Israel to Iran.

>>65222698
Doesn't change the fact you are woefully underarmed for the 2020s and beyond. The fact Europe didn't see a "threat" doesn't excuse them from failing to prepare for it. Every U.S. president since Clinton complained NATO members weren't spending enough.

Now you reap what you sow.

>>65222679
you know you're talking to people who agree that we have been slacking on defense and desperately need to catch up. there's no need to be antagonistic.

>>65222719
that I agree with
but we never rode free

>>65222698
>so did the US to a lesser extent
Lolno. They shitcanned literally all their naval planning & design guys in the '90s, as part of the peace dividend. It's why they struggle with making small ships. Several decades of institutional drought.

>>65222725
Free rider is a term of art I suppose from my American economics education, describing a collective action problem where people acquire benefits without paying their fair share of the costs. Like someone who uses a public library but doesn't pay the taxes to sustain it. Whether or not European countries received materiel for free, they certainly took advantage of NATO's (read America) security guarantees and deterrence, without paying a fair share to maintain adequate military readiness. It's textbook free-riding.

>>65222723
All I said was Europeans are free riders, then some schizo jumped on me and started ranting about Israel unprompted. Always a sign you're dealing with a mentally stable individual.

>>65222719
the same US presidents that invited the Chinese to join the WTO and in turn created their own peer competitor
as it turns out, politicians make choices some (if not most ) of them are later proven to have been dumb

>>65222752
>they certainly took advantage of NATO's
and the US took advantage of NATO for basing and support in the ME during the GWOT
was that them free riding on the Europeans?
>without paying a fair share to maintain adequate military readiness
the standard against which that military readiness is measured went from the Warsaw pact to russia tough
they where never so unprepared that they couldn't handle them

>>65222757
Okay, I agree with you. The issue is we're in a thread about a woefully underarmed German destroyer-sized frigate and someone asked why it was comically under-armed. The answer is pretty simple. The German government felt no need to put weapons of war on a warship because they expected America to take up the slack.

>>65222772
the US isn't putting enough weapons on it's new frigates and they are building them because they are expecting to go to war
not every bad choice is due to "free riding"

>>65222766
The U.S. took advantage of NATO by generating combat power and forward basing. The Europeans took advantage kf the alliance by making their militaries smaller and less capable. It's not the same comparison.

>>65222782
A single USN DESRON has more firepower than even the most powerful Euroean navies. It's a totally different force disposition. And whatever the retardation of the FF(x) it doesn't absolve the Germans of being penny-pinching bastards.

>>65222650
>there was no threat to them
>they have everything they need to counter Russia ready at hand

>>65222698
>>65222650
>they never got anything for free from the US
The NATO model was never "everyone gives a bit of eveything". Different countries were supposed to supply different capability bricks. So for eg when Europe stopped spending on defence and member nations procured essentially no strategic airlift, the US had to spend to buy 300 C17s. You got defence and global security for free. To this day you get trade routes secured by the US and have zero ability at all to secure them even from pirates without US basing and logistics, and air defence for the ships while doing it. It's fucking pathetic.

>>65222784
>by generating combat power and forward basing
but the US shrunk it's commitment in Europe from over 350k to 70k
most of whom are there to provide logistical support to other US deployments. they are also based on bases that the host nations pay for
if the US uses bases in Europe to go conduct operations in the ME that are not a part of NATO and the Europeans are paying for those bases
how is that not "free riding"
that they cut back from 350k to 70k also indicates that the US thinks that there isn't a need to keep as many troops in Europe to protect it as part of it's NATO commitment
the European NATO nations haven't cut their spending to 1/5 but only halved theirs at worst and that's made up for by there being more European members and less adversaries that are less capable

>>65222819
Posts like this demonstrate why the US should have left NATO when NATO did fuck all in Afghanistan. Europe are unapologetic freeriders who literally don't even realise what they're doing and begin incessantly kvetching and whattabouting if you point it out.

>>65222819
even with reduced deployments US can project more power over these countries than their own militaries, both via navy and the air force

>our frigates are only designed to operate while protected by US Burkes

>>65222793
>frigates
>DESRON
great reading comprehension
>>65222817
part of the deal was always that the US would do the global power projection and Europe to focus on providing the mass needed to challenge the Warsaw pact
having the capacity to go an police the high seas was something the US discouraged as a part of the NATO capability approach

>>65222819
The U.S. pays for the costs of building and maintaining its European bases. Bases it would use to airlift its military across the ocean to defend Europe. How many European units are deployed to America, away from their families for months or years, to protect American soil from attack?

>>65222752
>Whether or not European countries received materiel for free, they certainly took advantage of NATO's (read America) security guarantees and deterrence, without paying a fair share to maintain adequate military readiness.
yes, but it implies there was a threat there needed to be defense and deterrence from, and until 2014 I would argue there wasn't. It's why since 2014 (very very slowly) and much faster since 2022 European countries are taking it seriously.
Fact of the matter is, the US did little during that time it wouldn't have done anyway. Its bases in Europe weren't just there for protecting Europe but for projecting power to the middle east. So while I agree with you we did too little and are now reaping the consequences, I reject the idea that America was until now this benevolent altruistic big brother. Even before 2014 Europeans paid billions for American weapons and America never had to do any actual defending.
>>65222772
>The German government felt no need to put weapons of war on a warship because they expected America to take up the slack.
no. It designed it for missions that were the norm during that time, namely anti piracy and humanitarian missions, because in the 2000s, there were no relevant peer conflicts.

>>65222817
>the US had to spend to buy 300 C17s.
yes for sure the US only bought those to defend Europe, not to project its power worldwide.

>>65222833
>great reading comprehension
You completely missed my point. The weakness of the designs we've seen for the FF(x) aside is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The US fields the Arleigh Burke, the most capable and numerous surface combatant afloat. It can afford an underarmed frigate. The Germs put a 7,000 ton warship to sea with no fucking weapons, when the sum total VLS they had afloat was less than that aboard two Arleigh Burkes.

>>65222840
>weapons only count if they can be used in Europe and absolutely nowhere else

>>65222823
> NATO did fuck all in Afghanistan
the other NATO countries provided 1/4 of the troops in Afghanistan
the US provides about 1/20 of the troops in Europe
if you only ever look at the advantages one side gets but never the advantages the other side gets. well yea than every relationship will be one with a free rider
you could for instance look at Japan, they didn't deploy any troops to Afghanistan, they don't contribute to any naval policing action and are reliant on the US for it's defense
but they also house and pay for a lot of US bases
no one in the US is btw calling them or the Koreans freeloaders
because the freeloader accusation is being levied as a political attack not as a mere objective observation
>>65222825
the US commitment currently in Europe is only a fraction of the native capability, as it should be

>>65222854
nta, but do you think the German navy is meant to compete with the USN? it never wanted to project power world wide and do land attack or challenge the PLAN. It was designed to help defend against the USSR/Russia in the Baltic and North sea, that's it. After 1990 that mission was seen as irrelevant, and in the 2000s, assymetric tasks were what was demanded of US allies so that's what the ship was designed for.

>>65222836
>yes, but it implies there was a threat there needed to be defense and deterrence from, and until 2014 I would argue there wasn't. It's why since 2014 (very very slowly) and much faster since 2022 European countries are taking it seriously.
What kind of retard logic is this? There was always a need to deter Russia. It was a failure of deterrence that allowed Putin to feel comfortable invading Europe twice, once in 2014 and again in 2022. Europeans preferred buying Russian energy and sending their politicians to cash checks from Russian oil conglomerates as opposed to maintaing an army. You can't cite the failure of European deterrence as evidence that deterrence was never needed.

>>65222864
It's meant to be a component of a global fighting force. Germany is the largest European country with a sizeable coastline and heavily dependent on international trade. It's not beyond the pale to expect them to field a decent navy.

>>65222835
the Europeans pay for infrastructure, maintenance and operational support for those bases
never mind them providing the land free of charge
>Bases it would use to airlift its military across the ocean to defend Europe
yes, but it is using for non-NATO uses as well so those NATO hosts are paying for the infrastructure and maintenance that the US then uses for non-NATO tasks
that would under the narrow one dimension approach that's being taken count as "free riding"
I don't think it is because the relationship provides other benefits to both sides that isn't expressed merely in dollar or euro value

>>65222863
>the US commitment currently in Europe
the whole point of US military is its global reach, and has been that way since the 1950s if not earlier.

europeans cannot commit real troops to their national defense among all the institutional rot.

>>65222870
I agree in principle, but Russia was in no way capable to seriously threaten Europe during that time. In 2014/15 they struggled against Ukraine too which was extremely underfunded, they needed to prepare for years to enable the 2022 invasion too. Which failed.
So while it is true Europe shouldn't have been so complacent, I reject this idea that the US did much which it wouldn't have done anyway due to its global power projection. Your country was never the kind of charity provider you pretend it was.
>>65222876
no, NATO isn't a global fighting force, it's a Euro-atlantic defense club.
I agree the f125 is underarmed, but you pretend like the circumstances under which it came to be are somehow not understandable. It was designed to relieve the US during thr GWOT.

>>65222863
>the US provides about 1/20 of the troops in Europe
75% of the airpower and 90% of the recon, i.e. the actual expensive stuff

>>65222876
the last time the Germans tried to build up a global navy it lead to WWI
also since the Dutch have the biggest harbors in Europe shouldn't they be providing a bigger navy then? if the logic is based on how much trade you do?

>>65222863
The current admin is pushing Koreans and Japs to spend more. But unlike the Europeans they're actually doing it, and although the Japs and Koreans weren't spending a ton, they were spending it wisely on ships and systems that can help deter China.

Just look at the South Korean navy, them compare it to the German navy.

>>65222889
The Dutch absolutely should be responsible for harbour defence, yes
They're equally to blame for Rotterdam etc not having dedicated air defence batteries

>>65222883
Aside from the bases what capabilities are the Euros bringing to the alliance?

>>65222863
weird you need to combine the entirely of euro countries to the US, a non-euro country, when talking about commitment in the defense of the european continent

>>65222885
>the whole point of US military is its global reach
yes and that means that the US would be spending as much as it is anyways
but the amount it has to spend is lower because it has allies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere
that's the benefit it is getting out of providing global security for them
global security the would be providing anyways to secure US interests
>europeans cannot commit real troops to their national defense
yea those 1.5milion troops can't provide more deterrence than those 70k US troops in Europe

>>65222886
It's not about charity it's about partnership. Europe isn't bringing anything to the table.

>>65222901
>yea those 1.5milion troops can't provide more deterrence than those 70k US troops in Europe
they can't because the only actually ready part of those troops are french who'd sit and watch the other countries burn and poles who have their own shit to deal with.

the rest are as prepared and supplied as russians, a glorified jobs program with fewer SAMs and slightly more modern aircraft.

>>65222904
yeah I agree. The US mainland won't be attacked so NATO is kind of pointless for you. And we can gear up enough to defend the continent on our own, just sell us your weapons when we can't build it ourself. And we don't want to follow you into middle eastern adventures either, you can do that with Israel.

>>65222895
all the accountants and women officers levelling the gender ratio are very important

>>65222888
>75% of the airpower
United States Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa has about 200 planes in theater
while the Europeans have about 2000
and the US in total has about 5500
>>65222892
>But unlike the Europeans they're actually doing it
Japan, 1.9% in 2026
Germany, 2.4% in 2025 and 2.8% when you include aid to Ukraine
>spending it wisely on ships
because they are island nations, their navies are the capabilities they provide
Germany and the other Europeans aren't meant to be providing navies but land mass to contain russia

>>65222927
does germany have any non-navy achievments to show for all their spending? the number can be 100% and not amount to anything if you just flush it down the drain.

>>65222927
South Korea and Japan individually have more tanks and infantry in service than Germany.

>>65222894
>not having dedicated air defence batteries
that's a part of the capabilities the US committed to providing trough NATO
they are now looking to but those systems, but the only good option is Patriot and the US has a massive backlog and is delaying delivery to other European countries already
>>65222898
>weird you need to combine the entirely of euro countries to the US, a non-euro country
because the claim being made is that the US has to protect a Europe that can't protect it's self
the Germans, Poles, French, Italians, Spanish and UK all have more troops than the US has in Europe
>>65222915
0/10 bad bait

>>65222948
>the Germans, Poles, French, Italians, Spanish and UK all have more troops
and aside from Poles and frogs none of those troops have the necessary support to run sustained intensive combat operations or engage in maneuver warfare. spain and germany in particular are a total joke and might as well be police forces with some decrepid heavy vehicles parked in a garage.

>>65222948
>the Germans, Poles, French, Italians, Spanish and UK all have more troops than the US has in Europe
but will the germans, poles, french, italians, spanish, and english die for each other? Or any other european nation? The bosnian war and the need for a US-led NATO force says no

>>65222935
>>65222946
yea, Germany is a problem case because they have fucked up procurement system
but the neat thing is that there's more to Europe than Germany
the French for instance have their own nuclear deterrence, the only non-US nuclear carrier, a land army comparable to the Japanese
and all with about third less population

>>65222965
the french are the most notorious backstabbing bastards in the free world and would do nothing but nuke your own country as deterrence and "support" and will abandon any commitment over a temper tantrum.

>>65222953
>none of those troops have the necessary support to run sustained intensive combat operations
first and foremost the claim was that the US component in Europe provides more fighting power than the whole of Europe
you've just conceded that two armies each more than twice the size of the US component is capable of doing what they can do
furthermore yes the Spanish, Italians and Brits are perfectly capable the Germans if they pool equipment can get about 1/2 to 2/3 of their on paper strength going
but everyone acknowledges that Germany is a basket case
>>65222964
here's the thing, if they don't fight to defend each other the EU collapses
if the EU collapses you are looking at about 1/4 of the economies going poof
that's, everything else aside, worth fighting for
on that note, would the US be willing to send it's sons to go die for Europe?
>The bosnian war
the Europeans had been asking for the green light for intervention for several years
the US said no
so they started sending in peacekeepers to do what little they could
when the US did want to get involved it would have been an air only campaign
that would have left the European peacekeepers to take the hits
so then the Europeans said no, we need more than just airstrikes
eventually and much to late the intervention the European had been lobbying for happened
>just go do it
the last time the Europeans just went and did something it ended after the US threatened to bankrupt the European nations involved and to leave the rest of them to the Soviets

>>65222984
>but I don't like the French
doesn't take away that they have those capacities on a smaller budget than both the Germans and the Japs
and iI'd not start about supposed French temper tantrums during the second Trump administration

>>65222992
>you've just conceded that two armies each more than twice the size of the US component is capable of doing what they can do
i've conceded that they exist, not that they're comparable to the US component or capable of supplanting it in defense of europe, which they're not.

also singling out troop presence is disingenous because USMC alone is bigger than the french military and can get to Europe faster than Poland can mobilize its army.

but you're a salty coping faggot so you'll keep jerking off to frog traitors and deflecting to the deployed personnel ad nauseam.

>>65222999
>doesn't take away that they have those capacities
and those capacities don't do the rest of Europe any good, period. unless you're some shitskin frognigger wanking yourself over your imaginary greatness bringing them up leaves no impact on European defensive capability.
>I'd not start about supposed French temper tantrums during the second Trump administration
french are what happens when you make people like trump and his administration into a national idea and an idol. gtfo with that shit.

>>65223010
>capable of supplanting it in defense of europe
mate you are saying that those 70k US troops provide more fighting power than 1.5 million
I know you live in a power fantasy world but come on
>USMC
is a very impressive force
>can get to Europe faster than Poland can mobilize its army
that's again pure cope it took the 2200 marines the US sent to the ME from Okinawa more than a week to get there
>salty coping faggot
>frog traitors
people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
>>65223020
>unless you're some shitskin frognigger wanking yourself
>french are what happens when you make people like trump and his administration into a national idea and an idol
looks like some one is getting mad at getting proven wrong
and as I've already said if collective defense doesn't take place the EU will fall apart and that would trigger a decade long depression at the very least
that everything else aside is worth fighting to prevent

>>65223080
>mate you are saying that those 70k US troops provide more fighting power than 1.5 million
mate you're pretending 1.5 million starving peasants with no support can compare to a modern combined arms division
>people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
so stop bringing up frogs you disingenous bitch
>getting proven wrong
you'd need to do this first, ESL-kun
>and as I've already said if collective defense doesn't take place the EU will fall apart
and collective defense that relies on france is doomed to fail even worse than that, much like one that relies on trump while he's lapping at russian assholes

Nobody is saltier than fallen European empires which will never return to their former glory.

>>65223102
nah, chinks and russians are way saltier because they know they never measure up to even be a real empire in the first place

>>65223101
>mate you're pretending 1.5 million starving peasants
>1.5 million starving peasants
lol, lmao even
>so stop bringing up frogs you disingenous bitch
why are you angry about them? what is it about the french that makes you lose your marbles? is it because they said all the way back in the 60'ies that the US can't be trusted to defend European interests and that as such they would need to develop their own separate capabilities and command structure while still staying a part of NATO?
that they have managed to do so on a budget that's smaller than Germanies proving that the issue isn't Europe but Germany?
>ESL-kun
English is my fifth language actually is you count Latin
>and collective defense that relies on france
but it doesn't, it relies on all NATO member and France has a much bigger vested interest in defending Europe than the US does
for a start they live there
then there's their whole economy being dependent on EU integration bit
and ofc their massive fucking ego

>>65223132
>lol, lmao even
starving peasants would be a compliment to the spanish or german troops 1 month in some high intensity warfare, assuming they don't all die from dysyntery or run away home because they're hungry
>is it because they said all the way back in the 60'ies that the US can't be trusted to defend European interests
said so by stabbing NATO in the back and abandoning their commitments? that's some words.
>but it doesn't, it relies on all NATO member
if every NATO member besides Poland and france is impotent then it relies on just the two of them
> and France has a much bigger vested interest in defending Europe than the US does
lol, lmao even. they'd take ransom on a daily basis to offer even basic support.
>then there's their whole economy being dependent on EU integration bit
they don't care about economy as long as they can larp as a great power.
>and ofc their massive fucking ego
that ego will only grow if the rest of europe gets fucked and they get to roll over and "save" them as their devastated client states.

>>65223102
I'm not salty at all
yes, Europe hasn't hit the 2% spending goal
yes, their armies are weaker than they could be
yes, they derive a big benefit from being a part of NATO

I'm just pointing out tow things
that despite not hitting their spending goals and being weaker than they could be, that they are still meeting their NATO capability of being stronger than the russains
sure it's a low bar, but it's the bar that NATO was made to reach
and that the US also gets a big benefit from being a part of NATO even if the Europeans aren't what they could be. I'd go even further on that the main thing the US gets out of NATO is being sure that it's Eastern flank is completely secure.

File: SMSFriedrichCarl.jpg (452 KB, 1920x1517)

452 KB JPG

somehow an underarmed german frigate being refit with a basic AD capability has made americans seethe. it's inexplicable.

>>65223157
>that they are still meeting their NATO capability of being stronger than the russains
this implies that there's no point in a military if you're not dealing with a direct and imminent threat, which is what caused europe to nuke their militaries in the first place.

this directly compounds with the issue of euros sitting with thumbs up their ass and writing strongly worded letters to UN when anything that impacts them happens outside their borders.

>>65223168
the fact that Americans seethe more about the state of german navy less than germans themselves is a cause for smugness perfectly captures the entire state of things at the moment.

>>65223157
But it's not secure. Through your incompetence Putin has started the biggest ground war in decades, the largest in Europe since WW2, and your politicians are shitting and farting that the U.S. "only" provided $125bn in aid to Ukraine, more than any single Euro country.

And I'm not laying all this at your feet, dear poster, but goddammit the rhetoric out of Europe is so anti-American now, and all we've done is expect you to stand on your own two feet.

>>65223154
>starving peasants
I know this can be challenge for you to understand. but not being clinically obese doesn't mean you're starving
>by stabbing NATO in the back
you mean leaving NATO central command but staying in NATO, building their own nuclear force and being the only European country to never dip under 2% of defense spending?
>if every NATO member besides Poland and france is impotent then it relies on just the two of them
here's the fun bit about alliances, you can work together
so even tiny belgium can provide two battalions and then integrate them into the battalions of other countries
>more frog hate babble
it seems the only thing you can do is cope and seethe like a Frenchman who'd been told they make wine in California

>>65223181
>but not being clinically obese doesn't mean you're starving
troops being clinically obese would actually make the non-existent german logistics last a few days longer
>you mean leaving NATO central command but staying in NATO
yes, i mean pulling out of any NATO commitments, abandoning allies under direct threat and leaving them a placeholder to feel good about.
>building their own nuclear force
you're definitely a brown frog, nobody else would autofellate himself over a capability that other NATO countries already had that would never be used to deter NATO enemies, being useless for anyone but frogs themselves.
>2% of defense spending?
no amount of spending means anything if it's not used to defend the things it needs to. how many times do i need to repeat myself?
>it seems the only thing you can do is cope and seethe like a Frenchman
it seems the only thing you can do is deflect and cry about Americans when europe is left to the rotten wretches like east germans and french to secure its existence in the abscense of US, let alone project any modicum of power they deathly depend upon.

>>65223172
>this implies that there's no point in a military if you're not dealing with a direct and imminent threat
for Europe? yes, what are they going to do with that military force other than parade it once or twice a year?
if they get any ideas and start taking initiative without getting US approval first the US is going to throw a fit
if it gets US approval the US will also be committing forces
it's like asking why the Argentina or Chile don't have a fuck huge army, the fuck are they going to do with it?
as much as it saddens me, people in general don't see defense spending in and of it's self as a good thing if there isn't any one it's defending them from
>>65223178
>But it's not secure
>Putin is tuck in Ukraine
you kind of beat yourself
>more than any single Euro country
now combing European aid or divide US aid by it's states
>but goddammit the rhetoric out of Europe is so anti-American now
have you seen the rhetoric about Europe coming out of the US right now?
I'm surprised European rhetoric isn't calling for a first strike as the only feasible way to somehow someway pull of a victory in case this time when Trump tweets about violating European sovereignty in the dozen or so ways he's suggested doing so he actually means it
>all we've done is expect you to stand on your own two feet
and when it comes to defense against the russia, the only threat to Europe aside from Trump needing a distraction for what ever fuck up scandal he's involved in this time, they can
what they would appreciate is for the US to deliver the weapons they've ordered from the US and perhaps a grace period for them to figure out who's going to replace what part of the capabilities the US was providing under NATO
but that then touches on a nerve in Washington because they want a Europe that can stand on it's own two feet but can't take action on it's own because that could bring it into conflict with US interests

>>65223207
>yes, i mean pulling out of any NATO commitments, abandoning allies under direct threat and leaving them a placeholder to feel good about.
man what are you smoking and can I get some
>himself over a capability that other NATO countries already
>hey Europe you need to get your own AD, SIGNIT and all the other stuff we provide
>but again fuck you for developing your own nuclear force
>how many times do i need to repeat myself?
well the only thing you'd have to do is post when the French didn't defend NATO
I'd suggest you read my actual post instead of you astral projections of them

>>65222314
>build warship
>don't give it any weapons
A tale as old as time. More common now than ever.

>>65223221
>yes, what are they going to do with that military force other than parade it once or twice a year?
i dunno, maybe maintain experience and capability so that they're not all accountants and tinder women brigades when shit pops off? or when they need to actually project power elsewhere rather than relying on US for that?
>if they get any ideas and start taking initiative without getting US approval first the US is going to throw a fit
name one time they've tried to since the Suez crisis. no, selling out to russia for cheap gas and military contracts doesn't count.
>it's like asking why the Argentina or Chile don't have a fuck huge army
chile actually has an army that can project its interests in the region if need be, unlike germany that would fold and starve to death dealing with a naval blocade.
>people in general don't see defense spending in and of it's self as a good thing
it's more accurate to call it defense wasting because a pointless jobs program will never actually contribute to any defense no matter how much you spend but i guess it's too big of a thought for you.
>I'm surprised European rhetoric isn't calling for a first strike as the only feasible way to somehow someway pull of a victory
first strike with what? UN complaints? LGBT processions?