[GK3]

Russia's invasion of Ukraine lit a fire under some countries.  Sweden was happily neutral and not a big spender on defense relative to GDP for many years.  Now it's a NATO member and over the 2% of GDP target.  Finland and Poland also changed course as a result of the invasion.  And of course the Baltics are panicking.  All of that has significantly strengthened NATO's position.  But can we light a fire under some of the big economic powers in Europe to follow suit?  And is that a good idea?  I throw up in my mouth when I think of Germany entering an arms race.   But maybe I need to reorient my thinking to the modern world and recognize that Germany truly is a force for good in Europe.  It is, right?

Sure it is, as long as it is in NATO and the US is there to "babysit" all will remain "peaceful" between the EU neighbors. FWIW I don't think today's young Germans want anything to do with the military. That is part of the problem, because Germany does need an military defense. However, as history shows things can change quite quickly. Germany has been the "banker" for the EU because they have the largest economy. At some point, they may not want to do that any more, especially if their economy is weakening.Things can happen. That is a very underappreciated benefit of NATO. It keeps the peace in Europe.

Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer. The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up. I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.  Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.

[GK3]

Russia's invasion of Ukraine lit a fire under some countries.  Sweden was happily neutral and not a big spender on defense relative to GDP for many years.  Now it's a NATO member and over the 2% of GDP target.  Finland and Poland also changed course as a result of the invasion.  And of course the Baltics are panicking.  All of that has significantly strengthened NATO's position.  But can we light a fire under some of the big economic powers in Europe to follow suit?  And is that a good idea?  I throw up in my mouth when I think of Germany entering an arms race.   But maybe I need to reorient my thinking to the modern world and recognize that Germany truly is a force for good in Europe.  It is, right?

Sure it is, as long as it is in NATO and the US is there to "babysit" all will remain "peaceful" between the EU neighbors. FWIW I don't think today's young Germans want anything to do with the military. That is part of the problem, because Germany does need an military defense. However, as history shows things can change quite quickly. Germany has been the "banker" for the EU because they have the largest economy. At some point, they may not want to do that any more, especially if their economy is weakening.Things can happen. That is a very underappreciated benefit of NATO. It keeps the peace in Europe.

Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer. The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up. I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.  Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.