Dan, as we look for signs that more European governments may accept the imperative to rebuild their militaries, I caution against fixating on inputs (budgets) rather than outcomes (effectiveness). Passing a bigger defense budget is just the first step: it's still necessary for a country that wants a more capable military to recruit a force, equip it, train it, and get mud on its soldiers' boots. This may seem obvious but these practical matters get lost in the constant discussions of GDP-as-metric. I discussed this in a 2024 article for CEPA: https://cepa.org/article/changing-the-rules-of-natos-numbers-game
Mr. Kosnett, perhaps you might consider publishing in SubStack so that many more of us would be presented with your valuable offerings. I looked at the cepa article but the 'Follow' button did not seem to function. You have copious amounts of insights and experiences to share. I would be happy to see all of it.
Question: What other examples are there in history of a modern nation state switching sides during a war?
Comment: Solving Europe’s security and economic conundrums both turn on whether it can shake off the focus on austerity — on avoiding significant budget deficits at the expense of development.
"Drezner’s World has no idea if this time will be different for Europe. I know, however, that this time it should be different." I don't know about that. The last time European nations fielded their own armies, there was a world war.
Today’s blockbuster session at the White House, instigated by Vance, ought to be the litmus test for Europe. Else they’ll become the 52nd state in the U.S. (or the 86th Federal entity in Russia).
I really don't see a sense of urgency in the Commission like you'd expect from the reactions of serious people, like your conversation with Gideon Rachman or last week Leader from The Economist, or even Merz's statement. The Commission sure looks like it's trying very hard to keep close to the Americans, even when acknowledging that they might have to retaliate. My sense is that their previous experience with Trump (and Jean Paul Juncker's solution to it) is still guiding their actions today.
Dan, as we look for signs that more European governments may accept the imperative to rebuild their militaries, I caution against fixating on inputs (budgets) rather than outcomes (effectiveness). Passing a bigger defense budget is just the first step: it's still necessary for a country that wants a more capable military to recruit a force, equip it, train it, and get mud on its soldiers' boots. This may seem obvious but these practical matters get lost in the constant discussions of GDP-as-metric. I discussed this in a 2024 article for CEPA: https://cepa.org/article/changing-the-rules-of-natos-numbers-game
Mr. Kosnett, perhaps you might consider publishing in SubStack so that many more of us would be presented with your valuable offerings. I looked at the cepa article but the 'Follow' button did not seem to function. You have copious amounts of insights and experiences to share. I would be happy to see all of it.
Question: What other examples are there in history of a modern nation state switching sides during a war?
Comment: Solving Europe’s security and economic conundrums both turn on whether it can shake off the focus on austerity — on avoiding significant budget deficits at the expense of development.
"Drezner’s World has no idea if this time will be different for Europe. I know, however, that this time it should be different." I don't know about that. The last time European nations fielded their own armies, there was a world war.
I wish they would ask the us to leave Nato and admit Ukraine.
Today’s blockbuster session at the White House, instigated by Vance, ought to be the litmus test for Europe. Else they’ll become the 52nd state in the U.S. (or the 86th Federal entity in Russia).
I really don't see a sense of urgency in the Commission like you'd expect from the reactions of serious people, like your conversation with Gideon Rachman or last week Leader from The Economist, or even Merz's statement. The Commission sure looks like it's trying very hard to keep close to the Americans, even when acknowledging that they might have to retaliate. My sense is that their previous experience with Trump (and Jean Paul Juncker's solution to it) is still guiding their actions today.
Is seems that the most efficient weapon is the use of internet/computer tools rather than conventional and nuclear deterrence.
It would appear doubtful that internet/computer tools could address direct and weaponized male violence, of which the planet has abundance.