NATO's time has come and gone. Europe needs to defend itself against Russia. It's not like they lack the resources; the only thing they lack is the will. No one wants a strong German military because that has always led to catastrophe in the past, but maybe it's time for them to re-arm. I mean, what are the odds that they'll produce another megalomaniac?

> NATO's time has come and gone

Europe is defenseless without NATO. All EU countries, with the exception of UK (yes), Greece (historically strong army because of Turkish threat) and Poland (rich experience with Russia) fail to meet NATO requirements on army spending. EU armies are disfunctional and barely able to provide symbolic support for the US Army in operations (remember Libya? EU couldn't sustain a few days of air-only operations).

It may very well be that NATO is done. But if it is, it's because of EU members that lack any will to defend themselves. So how do you expect EU's own defense to be any better than NATO backed by USA's might (politically ambiguous as it may be these days)? Again with the exception of Poland, whose EU-hated government is serious about defending the country, but that's too little, too late.

Estonia also meets and always has met NATO spending requirements [1], because of a long history of war with Russia. It's a national priority and was the #1 issue discussed even in the 2015 elections.

[1] http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defe...

Meanwhile France is one of the most military interventionist countries on the planet, with forces on the ground in a dozen countries or so.

Europe were "barely able" to provide support for the US because there's huge political opposition to get dragged into US interventions.

These operations are tiny, much like the Uk's.

Finland doesn't meet the 2% GDP requirement (neither does Greece, though) and isn't NATO member, but we are the one the very few EU countries that maintain a relatively large conscription based defence forces with relatively modern equipment.

This wil become an argument in favor of a euroarmy.

Poland (mentioned above your comment) is against to euroarmy.

I think the departure of the UK (highest military spending) is making everyone feel less safe.

How? The UK didn't leave NATO. It didn't go back on any ideas of collective defense.

Pretty good I would say. At the moment a lot of Germans are pissed off at Merkel for "letting so many immigrants in", so I wouldn't be surprised if they elect someone who is very much right-wing next time and supports deportations or even worse. I'm pretty sure that in years after WW1 people were saying that odds of having another war in just 2 decades are extremely slim. And yet.

"I'm pretty sure that in years after WW1 people were saying that odds of having another war in just 2 decades are extremely slim. "

Well -- there was the whole "politicians lost the war" thing and general bitterness about the Rhineland.

Europe can't even bomb Libya without US help. I don't want to hear how NATO is obsolete when we're deploying a couple brigades to the Baltics and Eastern Europe because Europe is militarily a nullity.

Megalomanic ? Sure. The US chose Trump as the Republican nominee.

But another Hitler or similar dictator. Not possible.

this is the kind of thinking responsible for history being allowed to repeat itself.

The UK itself may fracture - Scotland and/or Northern Ireland may peel off for the EU - putting NATO at risk.

Looks like we might up with a "United Ireland" referendum and a Scots "Indy Ref 2" - both NI and Scotland voted pretty strongly to stay in.

The Scottish nationalists currently want to remain in NATO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_debate_in_the_Scottish_Na...

The SNP also want to close down the UK's nuclear submarine base at Faslane.

Also the many countries that get shitty deals like production quota or migrant restriction under Diblin III will hope for renegotiation.