The LLM sources Eurostat for that number (without giving a link).
You can find the number with an actual article here. It excludes the three smallest EU members by population btw, as no applicable data is provided by these countries.
European Union, member states and Agencies
- Thread starter SolarisKenzo
- Start date
You can find the number with an actual article here. It excludes the three smallest EU members by population btw, as no applicable data is provided by these countries.
I
as the UK is no longer a member of the EU I imagine that the figure no longer includes the UK manufacturing industry which is still, despite the best endeavours of idiots, tied extremely close to the EU .
450 million Vs 350 million people and that's without the UK which is another 67 or so million so population wise it's a big difference.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #244
US economy is much more focused on services while the EU still maintain a relatively large share of manifacturing in his economy.
Russia's economy is totally based on export of energy products (from natural resources to refined products) and its manufacture is closely tied with the war effort.
Russia's economy is totally based on export of energy products (from natural resources to refined products) and its manufacture is closely tied with the war effort.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would think Russia also gets significant revenue from mineral exports in addition to oil. Russian criminals no doubt contribute money to Putin albeit little of it likely goes to the Russian economy.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #246
Yeah that's true, They do indeed have an important share of market in the mineral sector, but they are mainly into uranium enrichment and in general energy-related mining (so still energetic products).
Honestly I don't know how important mineral export (excluding energy) is in Russia... I'll search for some figures maybe I will find something.
For example, world's Uranium enrichment takes place in Russia (40%), Europe (30%), China (15-20%) and the rest in the US.
Basically the vast majority of enrichment is done by four companies: Rosatom (Russia), Urenco (EU), Orano (EU) and CNNC (China).
The enrichment plants in the US are owned by Europe's Urenco.
Russia also exports assorted other raw materials & refined minerals, e.g. wheat & gold, but yes, energy products are by far the biggest sector. Less than 50% of the total, but crucial to the economy.
From the figures I've seen imports are mostly manufactures, e.g. machinery, vehicles & pharmaceuticals.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
For the first time, since the Second World War, European defence procurement spending is set to exceed that of the United States.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So if US procurement spending is $168b, where is the other~ $600b going to from the Annual defence budget which is AFAIK around $800b? What is actually being procured for both the US and Europe numbers?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
It does operate the world's largest armed force. $600b sounds perfectly reasonable given its size.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #252
NATO goal is 50-25-25 (50% personnel, 25% operation/maintenance and 25% procurement) but that really isnt taylored up for the US or some european countries, it's just a standard everyone should take as an example.
Some countries have lower personnel costs, some save something from maintenance, etc etc.
The US historically had very high operating costs because of their worldwide network of bases and personnel costs are not low either (both for the same reason as before and also because of the cost of life in the US).
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
After watching the Chinese military parade links that Ananda posted, I wonder what the procurement percentage for China is? Guessing the actual procurement value is higher.
It is concerning that the trump administration is weakening the US alliances both in Europe but also elsewhere, for instance the way he is treating India seems counter-productive. And the talk about annexing Greenland and Canada become the 51st state is also not helpful. Europe and the US must be fully aligned in order to be able to stand up against the new "axis of evil" (China, Russia, NK, Iran).
India may be a lost cause since they seem determined to strengthen ties with the war criminals in Moscow, I wonder if India has thought about the consequences. Why should Europe lift a finger if China in the future decides to expand it's empire at India's expense? Instead we should stay out of it and maximize profit, since that's what India is currently doing against Europe. Japan, SK and Australia on the other hand, will receive assistance from Europe in case of a future war with China. They are true partners, and the bonds between them and Europe are becoming even stronger.
Europe’s and Indo-Pacific’s security are closely linked | EEAS
EU-Japan Security and Defence Partnership.pdf
Europe and Australia commit to security and defence partnership - Consilium
India may be a lost cause since they seem determined to strengthen ties with the war criminals in Moscow, I wonder if India has thought about the consequences. Why should Europe lift a finger if China in the future decides to expand it's empire at India's expense? Instead we should stay out of it and maximize profit, since that's what India is currently doing against Europe. Japan, SK and Australia on the other hand, will receive assistance from Europe in case of a future war with China. They are true partners, and the bonds between them and Europe are becoming even stronger.
Europe’s and Indo-Pacific’s security are closely linked | EEAS
EU-Japan Security and Defence Partnership.pdf
Europe and Australia commit to security and defence partnership - Consilium
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Don't think there will be much profit in a China-India war as it would likely go nuclear.
Page 6 has the split numbers for each NATO member.
Only procurement has a defined and agreed upon guideline in NATO (20%, not 25%). All NATO members are considerably above that guideline btw.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Western Analysts give alarm on Pakistan vs India conflict will go nukes soon as both are Nuclear Power. However mostly are border skirmish. India full scale invasion only once at East Pakistan, and that happen due civil war already for Bangladesh Independence. That's also happen when both of them has not reach effective nuclear armaments.
Thus same thing will happen between China and India. China will never going to leave Pakistan behind for the sake of India, as they already invest much in Pakistan. Yet China also knows India is big market and working with India to enlarging them into China supply chain is much more profitable.
India shares in Global manufacturing is increasing, so does much of Global South. China want to work with Global South manufacturing hub as part of their supply chain. Thus increase the dependency by trade not by invading.
China does not want to Invade, CCP is thinking like Imperial China (Chungkuo). Chungkuo always think why need to invade if they can become our trade market. Chungkuo only invade the immidiate neighbours to secure their land border. However when the neighbour is also big and powefull enough, then they are working on trade. This is alrready pattern in Asia for millenia.
What India do with Russia shown the fact that India is rising Global South power, and not to be dictate by some parties in West on whose they are going to be trade with. For India oil from Russia is important enough to reduce their fuel costs, thus improve margin for their economy. Besides, Euro and US also buys India refineries products, knowing well most of the crude come from Russia.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
If the result of current policy is rearmed Europe, isn't that a net improvement to the alliance?