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 (π³π±π¦πΉ etc.) and russian lackeys (ππΊ) don't care about investing in European defence.
This is mad!
1/12
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In February 2022 putin declared war on Europe & his army marched on Kyiv.
Since then European EU/NATO nations have added and/or are forming these active (!) battalions to their armies:
(Worst 2 countries are of course the two loudmouths)
Europe has to realize that there are two global military powers that it will have to find an arrangements with to safeguard its future security:
πΊπΈ the US
πΊπ¦ Ukraine
These two have the highest defence materiel production output, and troops from these two are present in the 1/9
highest number of nations around the globe (Ukrainian troops are fighting russians in every nation, where russia has allied with the regime; a will to fight our enemies that is sorely lacking in the rest of Europe).
Minor powers like the UK or middling powers like France,
2/9
can't provide as much security (troops, defence equipment, tech innovation, will to fight, etc.) as Ukraine or the US.
While Ukrainians fight, innovate and produce vast amounts of war materiel, Europe continues to fiddle as the fire of war spreads across the continent.
3/9
Fellow Europeans on here claiming that Europe doesn't need the US to fight off russia are delusional:
Does Europe have enough cruise missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
Does Europe have enough tanker aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
1/6
Does Europe have enough maritime patrol aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have any ballistic missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough SEAD/DEAD aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
2/6
Does Europe have enough logistic units aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough air defence? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough recon satellites? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? A bit.
3/6
On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
3 days (!) later a π¬π§ Royal Navy task force left the UK to retake the islands.
That task force included: 2Γ aircraft carriers, 8Γ destroyers, 16Γ frigates, 6Γ attack submarines... a fleet bigger than today's Royal Navy. 1/8
22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships provided logistic support... in total 127 ships sailed, and the Royal Navy still (!!) had enough destroyers, frigates, submarines to fulfil its NATO obligations.
It was an awesome display of military power, professionalism, courage and grit. 2/n
On 28 February 2026, after weeks of tension, the Iran War began... and even though the UK had been asked by the US for bases weeks earlier, the Royal Navy was caught wholly unprepared... and then it took the Royal Navy 10 days (!) to get 1Γ destroyer out of port, which after
3/n
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
These are the π¬π§ 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
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