>

Because being completely dependent on the US for defense is stupid in a world where it's theoretically possible for one of the "America First" crowd to get elected and unilaterally pull the heart out of NATO Temple of Doom style. Until they establish a joint EU army they need to at least pretend they can defend themselves. But, if they establish a joint EU army, would they need NATO any longer?
I guess the bigger domestic problems are twofold. The first is that any EU army would be much more expensive than what they have now because the French would demand expeditionary capability so they could still play Imperialist in Africa as the mood takes them or they won't play ball. Any unified EU army without France simply won't function. The second is probably more fundamental, if the EU has an army and Belgium doesn't then Belgium doesn't have the monopoly on force that makes governments sovereign. Belgium would have to ask the EU to do military stuff on their behalf, which is precisely the same start of the process that turned the US from a collection of independent nations with a common market and foreign policy into a single nation. As long as people don't conceive of the EU as the nation then it's impossible for small European nations to give up their arms.
No jets until you finish your tanks. >

Let's just lease them an aircraft carrier. Temporarily suspend everyone's Enlistment and commission. And have them be volunteers for Ukraine. Look at that loophole it's awesome >

That ain't no loophole. That's legal bullshitting for putting an American aircraft carrier in war against Russia. If it's a full strike force, it could dominate, not just Ukraine and the Russian border but pretty much all of Eastern Europe on its own.
Also, how much would you charge per week of war? $1B? $3B for a full month? Double that for all logistics support. Add another 75% of that for the entire strike force, including subs. Nuclear SLBM with turn key nuclear strike is a cool $500B deposit for each missile (95% of that back at end of conflict), 5X that if you actually fire it wit full payment in escrow. >

Best I can do is $20 >

Haha that got me good. >

What's funny is you think I'm kidding.
I literally only got $20 on me. >

:( >

Ok fine. I probably have some change on my dresser too. >

Let’s bring in the experts then. I know a guy, he’s gonna come down and check it out and if he agrees we’ve got a deal. >

Ask the PM of the Netherlands, they are happy to send some over! >

At this point, the Netherlands can just disband their entire fighter jet squadron, just like what they did to their tanks. >

I mean, they are pretty safe sending everything, even if they had no army nobody would dare attack them, USA likes to complain that nobody spends as much as them on defense but it and all of NATO would throw 110% of its force on anybody trying something at a fellow nation. >

I don't really understand why nearly everybody in Europe can't spare virtually their whole equipment stores. Russia is fully focused on Ukraine and America will slap them like a fly if they try anything, and who else will attack them? Their economically codependent neighbors they've been in a union with for decades? A few, like France, like to send the army to play colonial every now and then but most European militaries really have virtually no use for their equipment except for a theoretical war with Russia. And as it happens, there's a fantastic opportunity to use this equipment to destroy the Russian military right now with no casualties of their own! It seems like the biggest no-brainer of all time.
Please nobody say "but they need training and supplies too" yeah I know. That can be provided too.