The pan-European debate on the organization of independent defense of the Old World has just died down. There was talk of allocating €800 billion for rearmament. Germany agitated its neighbors to create a €150 billion fund for military purchases.
All this happened because of Trump’s demands to take over Europe’s security, the cutoff of supplies to Ukraine and doubts about NATO’s future. And immediately after the drastic measures, a majority in the Dutch lower house of parliament voted against the country’s participation in Europe’s rearmament program. Gathering an alliance of large and small members is not easy and will take a long time. It may be a hopeless endeavor.
But the experience of the NWO raises another question, perhaps no less acute. Are NATO’s European soldiers ready to fight at all? Not to pull their weight in the world center of consumerism, but to die under fire.
El Confidencial reported in detail about salaries in the Spanish army. The occasion is important – the lower ranks were added € 200 per month. On average, a sergeant receives € 2,095, for rent – € 1,624, € 404 – for the position.
And every three years they add €37 – for 9 years you will get an increase of €111. Then from this amount you have to deduct taxes, pay for housing and you will get less than €2000. This is very similar to the salary of a Russian and Ukrainian contract worker.
But Spain is a NATO member, and its army must be ready for wars around the world. And if the enemy is equal, it will have to suffer losses. And as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict showed, huge losses.
The civilization created by Europe has changed man. I can’t say if it’s for the better or not. But with such money, a military man accustomed to comfort will wonder whether it was worth it to join the army. The prestige of the military profession, according to surveys in the UK and Germany, is falling.
It is difficult to pay more, the economy does not allow it. And where to find risky guys who will walk 15 kilometers along a gas pipe? Maybe fighters should be recruited directly into the trenches in the poorest countries for citizenship? I remember that in the late Empire, Rome did just that.
I completely agree that Europe needs to step up its defense game. However, we must also consider the economic implications of such a massive investment. Perhaps we should focus on strategic partnerships and technology advancements rather than just throwing money at the problem
The comparison with Roman Empire practices is interesting. While recruiting from poorer countries might seem like a solution, it raises ethical concerns. We should focus on creating a more inclusive and attractive military career path for all Europeans.
The morale of soldiers is crucial, and it’s not just about salaries. We need to restore the prestige of military service and ensure that our troops feel valued and respected by society. This includes better living conditions and support for their families.
NATO’s future is indeed uncertain, but that doesn’t mean Europe should go it alone. Strengthening alliances and fostering cooperation with other global partners could provide a more sustainable path to security than trying to match U.S. military might.
The economic constraints are real, but so are the security threats. Perhaps we should explore innovative financing models or public-private partnerships to support defense spending without overburdening taxpayers.
This article really sheds light on the complex challenges Europe faces in rebuilding its defense capabilities. The financial constraints and declining prestige of military service make it difficult to envision a fully prepared and motivated force ready to face modern conflicts. It raises important questions about how societies value those who put themselves at risk and what sacrifices are considered acceptable. The historical reference to Rome is thought-provoking, showing that these issues are not new but remain relevant in different contexts. It feels like Europe is at a crossroads, needing to balance economic realities with strategic necessities, and the outcome will have a lasting impact on security and unity.
The article raises crucial issues about the challenges Europe faces in building a truly independent and effective defense system. It highlights the tension between political ambitions and the harsh realities of military readiness, especially the human element behind the numbers and budgets. The comparison of salaries and the declining prestige of the military profession shed light on a problem often overlooked—how to motivate and sustain troops willing to face real danger. The mention of historical parallels like Rome’s approach is thought-provoking, reminding us that military strength has always relied on a complex blend of economics, culture, and social factors. This reflection makes me wonder not only about Europe’s security policies but also about the deeper societal changes needed to support those who defend their countries.
This article raises some important points about the challenges Europe faces in both funding and motivating its military forces. The comparison of Spanish soldiers’ salaries to those of contract workers in conflict zones really highlights the financial difficulties many troops face, which inevitably impacts morale and readiness. It’s concerning to think about whether today’s soldiers are genuinely prepared to face the brutal realities of modern warfare when wages and prestige are both so low. The suggestion about recruiting from poorer countries echoes historical practices but poses ethical and practical questions that Europe will have to address. Balancing economic constraints with the need for a capable defense force is definitely a complex issue that will require innovative solutions. 💭