[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-contin...35278.html

The Telegraph often publishes pieces that are "questionable" at best. However, I think many of the points made in this piece have some validity, particularly the political realities in many European countries. The 3.5% vs 2% comparison is obviously flawed, as most European nations have no desire or need to project power in the Pacific, while the US clearly does. To meet the 2+ war standard, the US actually needed almost 5% of GDP. OTOH, the comments regarding NIH and parochialism in the EU are spot on. The US is bad in that area too, but we are paragons of virtue compared to say France, Spain, or Italy. Germany is "different", but still has a "Don't buy American" as it's standard policy. This is partly in response to the fact that before the fall of the Warsaw Pact, they were often forced to buy American. They want to make up for that.

Sweden will add "spice" to that mix because they have a long history of not buying anything military from outside the country if at all possible. In the past this could be justified by the need to remain "neutral". What will be the reason now?

It is very hard to figure out which news "fact" regarding Russian Petroleum problems is at least fairly accurate.  I believe Russia exports the largest amount of oil from facilities in the Black Sea which would put those facilities in range of Ukrainian drone attacks, but are also probably very well defended. One report I saw claimed that when Russia started modernizing its oil business, they switched from home grown technology that that purchased from the West.  This now makes some fairly minor damage more significant due to difficulty in getting parts.  No idea if that theory has any basis in fact. Another report I saw contends that we are buying billions of dollars of refined products from India, made from Russian Oil.  Why would we provide support for their oil when we have all these sanctions in place?  Break enough small parts and you can probably cause much bigger problems.
Sweden does bring a fairly modern and capable Military Industrial Complex to NATO.  I would hope the NATO nations would be willing to adopt common weapons, calibers, aircraft and armored vehicles.  Seems sort of silly for each country to insist on their own types.  It would certainly complicate resupply if war actually comes to NATO.
One big benefit that Ukraine accrues from its expanding drone operations is that they can generate significant attacks across a wide geographic area and targets without putting boots on the ground and incurring more manpower losses. If they can do enough damage to inhibit Russian offensive operations they benefit greatly. It should also start to spread out the Russian defenses possibly making it easier to penetrate.  Time will tell.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-contin...35278.html

The Telegraph often publishes pieces that are "questionable" at best. However, I think many of the points made in this piece have some validity, particularly the political realities in many European countries. The 3.5% vs 2% comparison is obviously flawed, as most European nations have no desire or need to project power in the Pacific, while the US clearly does. To meet the 2+ war standard, the US actually needed almost 5% of GDP. OTOH, the comments regarding NIH and parochialism in the EU are spot on. The US is bad in that area too, but we are paragons of virtue compared to say France, Spain, or Italy. Germany is "different", but still has a "Don't buy American" as it's standard policy. This is partly in response to the fact that before the fall of the Warsaw Pact, they were often forced to buy American. They want to make up for that.

Sweden will add "spice" to that mix because they have a long history of not buying anything military from outside the country if at all possible. In the past this could be justified by the need to remain "neutral". What will be the reason now?

It is very hard to figure out which news "fact" regarding Russian Petroleum problems is at least fairly accurate.  I believe Russia exports the largest amount of oil from facilities in the Black Sea which would put those facilities in range of Ukrainian drone attacks, but are also probably very well defended. One report I saw claimed that when Russia started modernizing its oil business, they switched from home grown technology that that purchased from the West.  This now makes some fairly minor damage more significant due to difficulty in getting parts.  No idea if that theory has any basis in fact. Another report I saw contends that we are buying billions of dollars of refined products from India, made from Russian Oil.  Why would we provide support for their oil when we have all these sanctions in place?  Break enough small parts and you can probably cause much bigger problems.
Sweden does bring a fairly modern and capable Military Industrial Complex to NATO.  I would hope the NATO nations would be willing to adopt common weapons, calibers, aircraft and armored vehicles.  Seems sort of silly for each country to insist on their own types.  It would certainly complicate resupply if war actually comes to NATO.
One big benefit that Ukraine accrues from its expanding drone operations is that they can generate significant attacks across a wide geographic area and targets without putting boots on the ground and incurring more manpower losses. If they can do enough damage to inhibit Russian offensive operations they benefit greatly. It should also start to spread out the Russian defenses possibly making it easier to penetrate.  Time will tell.