Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
Mar 21, 2025 β€’ 12 tweets β€’ 4 min read β€’ Read on X
I read the EU's ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030 Plan... it's useless as it caps defence spending increases at 1.5% and lasts only for 4 years.

You can tell that the frugals (πŸ‡³πŸ‡±πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ή etc.) and russian lackeys (πŸ‡­πŸ‡Ί) don't care about investing in European defence.

This is mad!
1/12 Image
ReArm allows Eurozone members to request the EU Commission to activate the National Escape Clause from the Eurozone strict 3% budget deficit limit.

Then the European Council votes on it (qualified majority) and after that nations can spend up to 1.5% per year on defence and
2/n Image
these 1.5% do not count towards the 3% limit... BUT it's only valid for 4 years!

In 2029 the National Escape Clause lapses. If you order now submarines, fighters, frigates, tanks, etc. in 4 year you will not have them.

It will take years to increase production capacity
3/n Image
and just when Europe will start to produce masses of weapon systems ReArm ends?

The European Council can vote to prolong it, but every time only for 1 year.
If a European nation begins to form new brigades now, they will be combat ready just when ReArm ends.
4/n Image
And when ReArm ends the additional 1.5% that a nation is spending on defence is immediately is counted towards the 3% limit.
When that day comes a nation must either rise taxes, cut spending by 1.5% or gut its armed forces. You can guess, which of these 3 is most likely.
5/n Image
Quote: "Member States would have to prepare to sustain a structurally higher spending level after that 4-year period. It should be done through a gradual re-prioritisation within their national budgets to safeguard fiscal sustainability."

fiscal sustainability in war time???
6/n Image
Furthemore if a nation wants to increase defence spending by more than 1.5%, everything ABOVE 1.5% counts again towards the 3% limit... which effectively caps defence spending increases for all of Europe at 1.5%.

No wonder @GiorgiaMeloni is up in arms against this nonsense.
7/n Image
If a nation wants to increase defence spending by 2%, then only 1.5% are exempt from the 3% limit... the remaining 0.5% count towards the 3% limit, which means you have to cut either spending (pensions, social services) or raise taxes if you want to spend above 1.5%.
8/n
In short a time limit and a spending increase limit on defence spending is insane if you want to ready Europe to defend itself by 2030.

ReArm as it is now means you can't order anything, which will be delivered after 2029 (means you can't order submarines, frigates, fighters
9/n Image
and you can't add more troops, because after 2029 you can't pay for them without cutting spending somewhere else.

The EU is always about compromise... and you can tell they cooked up a plan that is hamstrung by a few EU members focusing on "fiscal sustainability", when
10/n
russia is preparing to invade European nations, destroy the EU, fracture the Eurozone, and crash ALL European economies.

If russia invades the Baltic states - three EU and Eurozone members, "fiscal sustainability" will be the least of the Europe's worries as ALL European
11/n
economies collapse, along with the Euro and the all European state finances.

Being stingy now will lead to defeat and economic collapse in the future.
If some ReArm isn't amended ASAP (no spending cap, no time limit) russia's victory is assured.
12/12

β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
γ€€

Keep Current with Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @noclador

Mar 8
These are the πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.

First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps
1/9 Image
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.

But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and
3/9 Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 8
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
Read 5 tweets
Mar 4
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.

Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .

European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
Read 10 tweets
Feb 21
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:

β€’ of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
β€’ because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).

russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.

With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:

Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25 Image
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Read 25 tweets
Feb 2
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...

Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ...
1/6
Land area:
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺ 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)

The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).

Population:
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺ 10.61 million
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ terr.: 0.13 million

Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺ 23,6/km2
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(