E.U. IN DISARRAY: Billions for Tribute, But Not One Cent for Defense.

The EU is proposing to spend up to ten percent of its budget on the immigration crisis. . . . Meanwhile, Politico.eu reveals that other EU leaders are mulling a multi-billion euro investment fund for states, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, from which refugees come. . . .

In the context of the refugee crisis, “investment” in sub-Saharan African countries (or other countries of origin) is fast coming in practice to mean bribing the local government to do the kind of deterrence work Europe would rather not do itself, often by blunter means than Europeans would employ, out of sight and out of mind. The precedent was set by the EU-Turkey deals; since then, Libya and a host of other nations have been clamoring for something similar.
Meanwhile, as we noted the other day, Germany now estimates it will spend €93B domestically on refugee matters by 2020. Other bills will come due in other states, and if, as seems likely, the Europeans discover that they have overestimated the extent to which the Middle East’s education system trains workers for the modern economy and underestimated other costs, these bills will likely be even higher than reported.

All of which makes us wonder: what would it have cost instead to have pursued rational military strategies in Syria and Libya? What would it cost even now?

They are prisoners of a dysfunctional mindset. This is not entirely an accident. Plus:

In the early years of the American republic, when U.S. diplomats were being extorted for bribes by members of the French court, the American public embraced the slogan, “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.” Confronted today by the prospect of never-ending shakedowns from the weaker, poorer, failing states on its periphery, Europe’s response seems to be, “Billions for tribute, but not one cent for defense.”

Like I said.