this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
185 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56907 readers
1859 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The issue is that the US provides a lot of logistics and supply chain support to the rest of NATO countries which makes it very difficult for them to operate without US support. It is made worse as many NATO nations are too small to meaningfully fill specialty units when they can barely provide basic infantry and armor units.

One of the reasons why France keeps pushing for an EU military is so that there is a government entity large enough to fund and pay for these specialty units. Otherwise, France would have to unfairly take on the burden of providing these capabilities itself.

[–] CanadaPlus 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There's a gap in AWACS and similar, but it's closing.

In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

There are gaps, but those gaps can be fixed. There's a reason Saab are getting so many orders for GlobalEye.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is that it doesn't make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don't have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you're going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Maybe you're getting at the one big army concept, but it's not really politically possible, at this point. In practice, it'll be a smattering of the large nations, with cooperation from smaller nations. The French will probably be key for satellites in specific, because of Guyana.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 12 hours ago

It doesn't have to be one big army, but it can be a big army designed to take care of the stuff that individual countries can't. After all, it is unfair to put the financial burden to build out the expensive and necessary logistics on the large nations.