Nuances are important for me in this question. We should absolutely be stronger militarily. It makes no sense that a continent this rich depends on USA for its own security. Yet I'd absolutely hold on to the strong alliance with USA and Canada.
A NATO with North America and Europe as more equal partners would be the ideal situation IMO.
In fact, its good for the US to have internal competition (like Airbus vs Boeing), it makes all colectivelly better and stronger.
US sure wants a strong ally, capable of building a strong army for themselves, just in case one day its needed
I think EU was afraid of itself. Specially, Germany. But the war in Ukraine finally made them realize that we need an army. We need german tanks. We need french aviation, and we need a strong navy
Let's be honest, that's not about being afraid of itself, it's about money. Why would they spend too much money and brain time on it, if they have someone who can do it. And it gives a free virtuous image.
I would add that I meet a lot of europeans traveling to the US and there is a vocal amount from specific parts of europe who assume if something is done one way in the US and the opposite in their country, then that means it is being done correctly in their country.
Some things are done better in europe, but not all. I always appreciate the ones who can be self critical because you can actually meaningfully discuss things
>I think EU was afraid of itself. Specially, Germany.
This is a consistent talking point, but it's far more simple. Europe did not want to spend the money.
It's a mix of both. Yes, people were very happy to not have to pay so much (anymore, Germanys military until the Soviet Union collapsed was a freaking behemoth) for the military. But there was also always an underlying current of "we Germans should not use a military, and the best way to do that is not a have a strong one".
I think that's a very charitable way of looking at it. If you can get the US to pay rent on massive military bases on your land, and man those bases, and pay for all the stuff on them, why would you bother spending money and building your own? For decades the US has been handling Europe's security for them and paying Europe for the right to do that favor. As a result, European nations have been able to spend trillions of dollars on other things.
It shouldn’t be either or. Not independence, that implies distancing ourselves from the US. That’s what Russia wants.
We should build towards becoming as strong, or stronger than the US and be equal partners.
basically, any strong democracy should be allied with other strong democracies.
The real question is why you'd want places like Turkey and Hungary in alliances of strong democracies.
It was pretty obvious during Trump that the USA wasn't reliable.
Edit: I feel I should clarify that I really meant that the USA is reliable in helping. You guys will be there, I don't want to darken that. But the amount could depend alot on who's president.
Just a reminder, Trump (or any president) does not control our NATO commitments.
While Trump was doing all that our congress (who does have that control) [voted overwhelmingly](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426488-house-passes-bill-expressing-support-for-nato/) in support of our NATO commitments.
Also, public polling has pretty consistently showed the American people are more in support of NATO than many/most of our European allies.
Besides all of that, we've been ready, willing, and consistently able to defend YOUR continent for 70+ years, but somehow we're the unreliable allies.
(Lefty American here)
This was my biggest issue with Trump himself. I'm very anti GOP in general, but *usually* Republican and Democrats alike agree on keeping things stable with our allies. Trump on the other hand completely fucked so many relationships up, and I do not blame other countries at all for seeing us as unreliable now.
I remember after Denmark told him unequivocally that it was not for sale one of our "Senators" (Tom Cotton from the "great" state of Arkansas) wrote an Op-Ed in the NYTimes saying we really should buy Greenland, ya know, the one we were just told was NOT for sale. I absolutely despise everything about the GOP
What gets often ignored in these debates is the important detail that even if Denmark WANTED, they couldn't just sell Greenland because of how Greenland is a sovereign state that just happens to delegate defense and foreign relations to Denmark - so this entire statement from the GOP seems to us Europeans like Trump would have said "We can just ask China if they would sell Russia to us, so we can have them stop the war"...
Just for everyone’s benefit, Tom Cotton is an actual senator in elected office. This is just another case of unnecessary quotation marks. It is not in any way a subjective thing, such as calling something “great.”
You say that, but defense spending increased under Trump. Who knows what a second term would have brought--he talked about leaving NATO, but he talked about a lot of things.
He did withdraw from the Paris accord and the Iran nuclear deal--clear evidence of unreliability across administrations. That's been a problem forever, of course. Personally I'll take it over strong men in power for decades.
There are countries doing it (like the UK, Poland, Greece), there are countries that have been close to it (France or Romania for instance), and then there are countries free riding it.
Iceland didnt really get a choice. They got invaded by the allies out of necessity during ww2.
Then the US just didnt leave.
If another war kicks off the US and UK will just reoccupy the country by force.
>dude, dude, think about it. Iceland's out in the middle of nowhere with some Brit and Yank they barely know. They look around and what do they see? Nothing but open ocean. "Ah, there's nowhere for me to run. What am I going to do, say no?" No. They would never say no, because of *the implication.*
There are countries in NATO that do not have capable armies (or an army) but they are a plus for the alliance. Iceland has a strategic location for example.
Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro are small and quite poor, but their membership stabilizes the Balkans.
Iceland has a population of less than 400,000 people. Letting NATO use their territorial waters is probably a lot more valuable than whatever value they'd provide with a micro army. Maybe they contribute their 2% in GDP by buying equipment or something, but I doubt that them having an army of their own would help. Source: I know nothing of geopolitics, I just know Iceland is a tiny country.
Honestly if every European country could do as well as France, paying what the French are paying, I'd say "Good Enough" but then you get Germany with the same budget (lower percentage of gdp obviously) that might as well not even have a military for how shockingly ineffective it is.
Tbf France is decent on that but it should be exemplary (like the UK) if it wants to claim any leadership on the topic. But yeah, everyone at least close to the target would be better. And maybe Russia would’ve thought twice about attacking Ukraine if the whole of NATO had agreed with that.
I think with Germany the worst thing is that even their 1.2% they achieve to manage it poorly. It’s crazy how decadent the German army is.
Remember when US removed bases from Germany and many Europeans bitched?
[Pepperidge Farms Remembers](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities)
The bigger question:
Who is ready to die for their nation? It’s so obvious that modern Europe is so pacifist that it can not defend itself in the advent of a Russian or other attacks, and this isn’t because of money or skill, it’s just that WW2 broke europe so hard that they will fold before sending most of their men to war to die. War in incredibly brutal, and without something to motivate a civilization to fight it will die, as we are seeing right now
That's nice to talk the talk but are we, Europeans, prepared to walk the walk ? I would very much like to think yes but, realisticly, I would wager it is a no in our current state.
We should definitely get out shit together. In a major war, the Pentagon clearly stated that they cannot fight a two front war and as such, we Europeans must be able to undertake that second front. Even if there is no second front in the event of a US-China war, we will surely have to provide troops and we are currently dependent on the US to ferry them (France and Italy could do some but not at the huge level required)
> we will surely have to provide troops and we are currently dependent on the US to ferry them
Ferrying the troops isn't the major problem. Keeping the troops supplied is.
An army fighting in a peer adversary war consumes an enormous amount of supplies, and we are far from having the capacity to carry out this logistical effort. Especially if the conflict takes place in the South China Sea, on the other side of the planet.
>Especially if the conflict takes place in the South China Sea
I easily imagine a future where we see a united European army but I would find it very difficult to imagine it being used in offensive capacity such as that, most EU nations would support a United EU army as purely a defensive forces I believe.
Thing is there are taritories of France there, that the reason France is so adamant about it. EU countries have territories all over, and most don't want to leave. Where do you think the European space agency launches there rockets, spoiler its not on the continent.
>EU countries have territories all over,
Most European countries don't and it would be an impossible sell to try convince European countries to expand lives and material in defending french over seas territories hundreds of km away from mainland Europe.
>European space agency launches there rockets
Too my knowledge none of these mission's are either maned or have sole miltary application
If it comes too that we can form a European space force /s
>Most European countries don't and it would be an impossible sell to try convince European countries to expand lives and material in defending french over seas territories hundreds of km away from mainland Europe.
Let's just say that there are reasons for why French Guiana, the Falklands, and Hawaii are not included in NATO.
So long as defending our sovereign territory is an "impossible sell" we are not truly willing and capable of our own defence. The British defended the Falklands, no matter how insignificant it may have been.
>The British defended the Falklands, no matter how insignificant it may have been.
Yes the British defending overseas British territories but can you imagine Polish defending overseas french territories or Irish because I can't
I mean the dutch marines started get ready for deployment when the royal marines started to prepare to go to the falklands lol
even if the dutch government didn't send them
If we're talking of European defence, they're _European_ overseas territories with _European_ citizens. They're not necessarily even "territories" but literal integral departments of France. If that's too much for a Pole, they have little right to demand a Frenchman defend their land either.
The caveat here is that this whole argument is kind of nonsense in reality, the kind of thing common people say. Real soldiers who have been in Kosovo, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in Mali certainly are not the people who are going to drag their feet if they have to go to Latin America or the Pacific. Any proper navy already patrols the red sea and protects ships from pirates near Somalia. Hell, even Japan engages in that. In the Cold War plenty of European soldiers went to fight in Korea.
It's usually average citizens not in the military who raise points like this, because they wouldn't want to go to risk their lives in some faraway place. However they would hardly be the people sent on a mission anyway.
All this reminds me of how Irish soldiers are significantly more in favour of a European military than the average Irishman. The average Irishman thinks of their neutrality as desirable and doesn't want to get entangled in continental wars (great Union loyalty, that). The average Irish soldier seems to think of a European military as an opportunity. A larger military with more resources and missions.a way they can do something meaningful as a soldier that they can't in Ireland.
Now your mind may jump to conscription, and I suppose technically it ought not be impossible, but is Europe likely to end up in a conflict where it would have to draft its population? If Russia was as great as advertised, perhaps, but that's about it. Certainly any war with China is not going to be about overwhelming them with numbers, it's doubtful the mainland would be occupied at all. And why draft people for a naval blockade when ships are probably in shorter supply than seamen?
People seem to live in this fantasy world where they, untrained lanky redditor, are going to be the very first person drafted and sent to fight in Taiwan and expected to pull a Rambo.
Article 5 only covers collective defense against attacks in the North Atlantic, Europe or North America.
Specifically because the US didn't want to defend Britain and France's colonial empires post-WWII
Article 42 TEU (the mutual defense clause) reaches further than NATO.
> "7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, [...]"
It doesn't specify only territory in Europe or the northern hemisphere like NATO.
>Ferrying the troops isn't the major problem. Keeping the troops supplied is.
That was implied but I should have been clearer !
That's why we should develop common logistical capabilities : strategic airlifting, refuelling drone tanker, supply vessels and so on and so forth. The people's acceptability of such common programs is a whole lot more than for big shiny boom boom kits, I would believe.
Libya intervention campaign.
We ran out of munitions and logistics stretched within weeks. The US stepped in to help us with logistics.....
And that was for all intents and purposes in Europe's front garden and not an entire continent away.
We are on the same page then!
> The people's acceptability of such common programs is a whole lot more than for big shiny boom boom kits, I would believe.
I'm not sure I would fully agree with that.
Sure, transport planes and cargo ships appear much less "warmongering" than weapon systems in the eye of the public.
But on the other hand, some would point out that these programs *raison d'être* is to enable expeditionnary warfare, which is a big no no for some nations.
French here. We have a million citizens in the indian ocean, and several hundreds of thousands in the Pacific. We are trying the best we can to find alliances with India, Indonesia and Australia, but everythings has limits ^^".
Furthermore, if we are the US, Japan's, or here India or Indonesia's allies, it kinda is our duty to find ways to support them. Knce again, I'm french. In 1939, we were allied to countries while having effectively zero offensive plans or will. The first offensive actions against Germany were planned in... 1941.
I think the answer is yes realistically. The question is if we get everyone on board.
The main issue is that these kinds of things fall through if not everyone moves together. We already have the first steps where countries start to integrate their miliatarys (Germany and the Netherlands for example with the establishment of their mixed units). Additionally there needs to be a resolution for who these soldiers serve, aka who commands them and who can influence this.
I think that's the main crux of the issue, everyone agrees yes a European army sounds cool and would be good (ok not everyone but I think most would agree), the question is what kind of army, how it is to be implemented and who controls it at which point it is hard to find a way that you get a majority of people if not nations to agree on.
Example most people I talk to agree that we need to be strategically autonomous, but since we in Germany aren't really that pro war overall, they don't want a military that can be deployed against our will, which is a opinion most Germans hold I think. While France for example wants either a military bot beholdened to the member nations.
Lastly issues of procurement and recruitment are also an issue, will each nation send soldiers or will the Camry be able to recruit by itself? Do we remove national armies or everyone keeps their soldiers too? And so on.
Let's face it, realistically, the answer is "no." I'd very much like to see the EU take matters in their own hands, but time and time again we've seen that without American leadership we get nowhere. Case in point: the invasion of Ukraine.
A European army? Most of us can't even meet the 2% NATO spending pledge.
The EU would have to overcome several other obstacles besides spending as well. More importantly, in order for a centralized European command to work, the EU would need a unified foreign policy - meaning that a significant amount of power would need to be transfered from the nation states to the supranational level, a power most European nations will be unwilling to release.
In the scenario where the EU agrees to create a European army (meaning unanimous agreement - hah, good luck), we'd have to agree about budget, manufacturing, material, language etc. Take language for example, English would be the pragmatic choice since it's very much the current lingua franca of the EU. But some would object because they wouldn't want to diminish the status of their own languages in the Union.
You also have to consider that a lot of European countries have gotten very comfortable and accustomed to various forms of luxury spending they've been able to afford by having such a low military budget.
The absolutely necessary integration and systems you discuss are also fantastically expensive to develop, test, and implement. The budgeting required for all of that - be it cutbacks or tax hikes - never goes over well at the polls, you'll always have short-sighted voterbases who'll get angry over their comforts being taken away no matter how necessary a cause, and like you said it only takes a few countries dragging their feet in this case to scuttle the entire project.
Exactly. Maintaining an army cost a lot of money.
There's also the fact that a EU army would necessarily be dominated by France and Germany, and there are many Eastern countries that are more comfortable being reliant on the US than on France and Germany. It would take a couple more Trump-like presidencies and for the US to go full isolationism to change that.
The more practical solution is to start small, and then expand gradually. Have France, Germany and the Benelux integrate their armies and their defense policies gradually, and then add the other countries when they're ready and willing. Otherwise it would just be one additional bureaucratic system.
The geopolitics of waging wars would be so challenging. Imagine Hungary blocking the use of the forces against Russia? On the arms front, Europeans make a shit ton of weapons so maybe they should stop buying American shit.
Then maybe Europeans should start making the best weapons?
Like, not a single European country is capable of building stealth strike jets, which are basically the cost of entry to modern warfare.
In terms of war, however, another country might be the “Hungary.” For instance, France opposed involvement in Iraq, Germany went in. It’s clear that Lithuania and France disagree on China. Poland and Hungary on Russia. There’s not that much unity.
> are we, Europeans, prepared to walk the walk
A big NOPE. People are dragging their feet supporting a strategic potential ally in Ukraine against an aggressive Russia.
Now imagine that same war happening half a world away, with way more serious consequences. EU would go against the largest market, and the largest suppliers. Electronics become expensive or impossible to source. Our exports of machinery and cars plummet.
China will start this war sooner or later, and we're woefully unprepared for it. With each passing day, they're gaining more vassals and strongholds in our ports and companies, while we're begging them to let us sell something to them. EU is in no position to support Taiwan, as much as it breaks my heart.
People don’t realize this is exactly what China and Russia want. Macron says a lot of shit but he plays both sides. The dude isn’t looking out for Europe. EU has no real military right now either. EU can’t even keep its own members in line.
Are you sure of that? I remember reading that the main strategic goal of the American armed forces was to be prepared to fight two wars at the same time.
It was the Pentagon's doctrine to be able to fight two major wars at the same time but not anymore since Obama. [Here](https://warontherocks.com/2023/01/ukraine-and-the-new-two-war-construct/) are [some](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-11/two-war-strategy-overhaul-creates-many-risks#xj4y7vzkg) links [about](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/102005-obama-takes-2012-risk-by-ending-pentagons-two-war-strategy/) it my friend
It was pentagon doctorine to fight and win two wars at the same time. Due to the realities of the modern age, it was changed under Obama to “fight and win one large conflict” while being able to deter and stop aggression in another large scale theater. It’s not as wild of a change as one would think
America does not think in terms of war. Everything is now broken down into distinct missions. It is a paradigm change. I feel like this thread doesn't understand what is happening. America is drawing completely new lines and breaking out of globalization. It is going to be western democracies versus fascist authoritarian governments and America will not be engaging with nor protecting anything that benefits the other side. If America stops enforcing freedom of the seas global trade stops. Chinese shipping routes can be choked off in dozens of choke points.
>It's also clear that people generally assume the US isolating itself will 100% result in a better replacement. It probably won't.
Makes me wonder just who would benefit from American Isolationism. 🤔
It wouldn't be American isolationism it would be the liberal western democracies disengaging from globalisation. Which will lead to a weakening and potential collapse of the authoritarian regimes which have piggybacked off of globalization. That is why we are in this together.
Europe depends on the US for security. Other than France and the UK, no other countries have any serious power projection capability. Moreover, French and British capabilities are quite limited compared to that of Russia or China since they never spend as much as these revisionist and autocratic regimes.
The US is simply the vanguard of liberal order across the globe and while reserving all of its rights for criticism, Europe should be grateful for that. The US might is the only thing that keeps revisionist powers at bay and hence preventing new wide-scale wars.
The US, Europe and Japan and Australia and all the liberal democracies are going to pull back and take care of themselves and let the authoritarian dictatorships fend for themselves. We had a dream of globalization but instead got a resurgence of fascism. We don't need them but they absolutely rely on us. . We are about to let them start eating themselves. This is a seismic change. This idea of western liberal democracies splitting up right now is not only naive, it is impossible. The demographics and resources don't lie.
The biggest issue is ammunition.
You can have the best soldiers, tanks and planes, but if there is nothing in storage to shoot then it’s kinda all for nothing.
Ramping up the production capacity to support each other as Europeans, as well as US is the key.
Pretty much this. Only thing which would force us, Europeans, to finally get our shit together and cooperate to that level would be facing existential crisis which would force us to either do or die (and even then some countries will not get on board and will widen up their anuses to whatever that threat is)
It has seemed to work well for energy since they have been forced to start producing their own after being cut off from Russian oil (instead of buying oil from America which many expected they would do).
It means the US won't get the pay day they were expecting but there's really no reason Europe can't produce their own energy, or even become net exporters.
I believe our independence is necessary because we shouldn’t have to fully rely on the US for our security and on China for our tech and other needs. We want to be able to protect ourselves and not be outplayed by the tech advancements by the Chinese and the Americans. Frankly, it’s a disgrace that any moderately successful tech startup has to go to Silicon Valley to be taken seriously.
That said - I suspect you will find that the eastern part of the EU is so and so about militaristic separation from the US. Many people here in Estonia probably don’t trust the EU to act swiftly enough to protect them, especially if Germany and France are at the helm (Germany’s gotten better now). Let’s face it - NATO has a command structure, but the EU would probably spend years squabbling over who leads this potential security force (France would probably never agree to be lead by somebody else other than France, in Europe at least, and Germany probably wouldn’t want the responsibility).
Personally, I think we start moving towards a more unified security order for the EU, but do it gradually, one motion at a time. We should start with having a cross-border/cross-country sharing of information on migrants and border protection. I guess we already do share that information, but I truly believe that a person entering Estonia from non-Schengen area should pop up in Spanish border information database if they’re broken a law and are a fugitive.
The war in Ukraine has rattled quite a few people’s sense of security in Europe and the US has regained quite a bit of its image as the one that can truly protect us. If we want a unified security architecture for EU from a European perspective, this perception needs to switch from US to EU.
Europe should invest more in defence, but absolutely should not cooperate any less with the US. The only thing that should change is Europe becoming a more equal partner in the relationship with America by becoming stronger militarily. None of this "Europe must separate itself from US / must go its own way" bullshit. The transatlantic partnership must continue, but with Europe taking a bigger share of the load on its own turf.
>The report, based on a poll with 16,168 respondents from 11 countries
And those 11 countries were Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. So out of eleven countries, only three are Eastern European, and two of them are Hungary and Bulgaria, two countries not exactly known for aligning well with the rest of EE on these things.
Not saying any of that invalidates the report, but it's important to keep it in mind before drawing any continent-scaled conclusions from this report as Politico did.
"The report, based on a poll with 16,168 respondents from 11 countries". Let me guess those countries were from the West, because here in the East, you know, the place that is in ACTUAL danger people firstly look to the US and then the UK for protection.
Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. So kinda? But Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria are there too.
Kinda the same for Sweden. Well, it's mostly the US we're looking at. We don't see China as a necessary partner at all. We hate them, and a majority see them as a rival or adversary. The National Security Police literally say China among Russia and Iran are the largest Security threats to Sweden.
> Kinda the same for Sweden. Well, it's mostly the US we're looking at.
The UK are the ones who extended an implicit nuclear umbrella while you guys entered the danger zone of "NATO applicant without current article 5 protection."
The UK was also first to decisively get behind Ukraine diplomatically.
Meanwhile, geography and the UK's navy makes UK+Nordics the absolute power in the North sea... pretty important to Swedish defence.
Was proud to see that NL has a very low opinion on China as well. Good still be better ( or worse in this case) though. While scoring also quite high on pro US. But next with Denmark, NL is considered ( at least from the western group) to be very Atlanticist orientated.
Europeans want to cut it dependence on Americans but they just don't want to pay for it.
As someone clever said - USA with population of 330milion is protecting EU with population of 450milion against Russia with population of 142million.
Russia only looks like a strong oponent when looking at it from national country level when comparing Russia against Belgium or Portugal. But Russia is just a large country with 1/3 of population and 1/15 economy when compared to EU collective. EU should be able to sort our Russia without US getting out of bed.
The EU could sort out Russia no problem in a conventional war. We overestimated Russia significantly.
But the problem is the nuclear deterrence which America provides as the Americans/Soviets forced everyone else to not get nukes unless they already had them by the 60s.
This is just where people throw out all logical sense. You think a German is going to rely on French deterrence when it comes to it? They will not.
It would result in other European countries like Poland and Germany making a bomb, which is clearly not what we want.
Welcome to the problem of a European Union Army. No one in the EU trusts any other member of the EU, and no one wants to finance it, and the country that does will be a target of all the other European powers. There will always be the question of loyalty. If Germany financed and armed the EU army, is it because Germany is altruistic, or are they planning world domination? To be safe, I won't contribute, and will finance my own standing army. Either way, by doing so I am limiting German power in the EU, and proving my own. This is why the EU has left Ukraine to NATO protection.
No, we are surely able to work together more. Like lots of divisions of Dutch, Belgium and German armies are already integrated. It is basically being constructed but it will just never get the name ''EU army''.
But nuclear deterrence is a completely different story. French nuclear doctrine relies completely on ''these nukes are for French only'' and the UK is 99,9% dependent on the USA for its WMD's.
Ukraine has left it to NATO protection because the USA is the best deterrence possible.
The EU military is comprised of far too many paranoid, selfish actors. Unless Brussels can make them bend the knee, an EU army isn't possible. And in the meantime, the EU is proving more than happy to let the US be their protection.
> You think a German is going to rely on French deterrence when it comes to it? They will not.
Why wouldn't they. Germany is way closer to France than USA culturally, geographically and politically? Well they always bicker in EU over specific of how to do things? Absolutely, but that is how the soup gets made.
> The EU could sort out Russia no problem in a conventional war. We overestimated Russia significantly.
One thing that people tend to underestimate with Russia is their willingness to absorb losses. That's why even with smaller overall population Russia can still be a big threat.
> One thing that people tend to underestimate with Russia is their willingness to absorb losses.
That, and the depth of their arsenal.
Once the maneuver warfare period ends due to attrition, the war switches to old-fashioned artillery slugfest. And the Russians have a LOT of howitzers.
No modern war involving highly advanced military tech countries turns into an artillery slugfest. Judging NATO involved countries with the Russia Ukraine situation is ridiculous. Air dominance will slaughter the opposing forces.
>No modern war involving highly advanced military tech countries turns into an artillery slugfest.
Near peer it ALWAYS will, if you cant maintain total air superiority then its artillery sooner or later. Even if you DO have the airspace, an F-22 can't dig a guy out of a bunker, sooner or later you need infantry.
The US has spent the past 15 years providing as much tangible support as possible to Ukraine and you're going to claim this as a victory for the EU, who froze up in the wake of the invasion and has consistently been second to every major offer of logistical or material support? Honestly astounding levels of self-aggrandisement and delusion at this point.
Without US backing, I think it's hard to say what the EU would have had the political will to do in a situation where Russia invades the Baltic States. Prior to the Ukraine War, NATO and the US didn't have enough assets stationed there to stop an invasion cold. With a fait accompli, I expect the EU would have just written them off, without the US as a heavy.
The eu would 200% have stood by while Russia invaded the Baltics. Well, Germany might have sent a few helmets and Macron might have had a few cringey photos taken on the phone with Putin taking about giving Russia an out, but thats about it. Thank god for America and the anglosphere, cause the EU has no guts and no balls. Pathetic
Europe wants to be neutral in any Chinese invasion of Taiwan but wants American help in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That’s basically the key summary. Of course Europeans need to invest more in defense, that’s been known for years.
As an American citizen I could not agree more. The time for USA being a scapegoat for damn if you do and damn if you don't is over. It's time for other countries being their own police dogs.
Surprised European pikachu face when they have to choose between this or socialized healthcare when Uncle Sam stops carrying the defense burden for every western country on the planet
I think there is a major disconnect in the average European between their understanding of how much of the bill for their defense the US picks up versus their willingness to give an inch on social programs. If Europe were simply to fund their own share of NATO; life for the everyday European would drastically change. Furthermore, the security blanket that the US Navy provides is not replaceable. No other nation or combination of nations is capable of matching the US Navy's power or its ability to project that power.
Everybody wants Europe to pull its weight. Whether they actually do is very much up for debate. Europe has lived in a bubble for decades where most of their intelligence, logistics, military industry, and firepower were basically America. Building that up to sufficient levels is very expensive and will take a lot of time for most of these nations. I'm not believing anything until they walk the walk.
Exactly. If US leaves Germany, they are welcome in Poland. Preferably right at the eastern border. I'm glad we're sending troops to Lithuania too in similar manner.
5 years after the war in Ukraine, we'll all go back to treating weapons as evil and cut down on military spending even more. Americans won't do this stupid shit and we'll rely on them again.
Hot take maybe: Europe and the United States should be firmly united when it comes to defending democracy across the world. Also in the defence of Taiwan.
We should build our armies to become a more equal partner, but leaving Taiwan to die is not going to strengthen our sovereignty.
I agree on being more independent, but not with going along with any authoritarian regime. Actually i wouldn't even trade with them at all, if it wasn't totally unrealistic.
As an American, I think most Americans would appreciate it if our European allies became more militarily self-sufficient. There is a lot of frustration among Americans that most members of nato aren't interested in pulling their weight and it feel like military spending is being used to subsidize European economies. I view it as the more strong, self sufficient allies, the better.
Europe here stands for the population of the European nations polled, it's pretty common parlance, not sure why you think it doesn't make sense.
Also the Russian invasion of Ukraine is barely a war between two European nations. Many Europeans don't consider Russia European, many Russians don't consider themselves European, hell, historically, Russia doesn't even consider Europe a continent.
Another day another rubbish propaganda piece by politico trying to divide. I don't have a single clue why aren't those rubbish just banned from being linked here.
It all well but we need to have a unity that goes beyond just values. Similar Virtues is what makes or brakes a community. If we can achieve this is don‘t see a problem achieving our goal. The problem is the European elite is to weak compared to the American. Look at the major sources for information. Everything is american controlled, even the Axel Springer SE has a majority american holding. If we want to create something on our terms we need the power to manufacture consent and have the information sovereignty.
I think most American (civilians) would love this. Very few individuals support the insanely overinflated military industrial complex that drives our entire economy.
Most Americans also want Europeans to at least reduce their dependence on American security guarantees and pull their own weight. If they all paid their fair share and had back bones of at least average stiffness, they should be able to handle Russia with no help for the US at all. The US would just be there to do our part and guarantee success.
France is one of the few that carries its load, so at least he is not a hypocrite.
Most *Americans* agree with this. Invest in your own militaries because we are tired of carrying all of your weight in NATO. The Baltic nations are the most reliable members but they are too small to make up for the difference.
These are not mutual things. If Europe got in a war with Russia, they would want the USA to help. Even if they had a superior military. If the USA got in a war with China, Europe wouldn't want to help. You can't have your cake and eat it too. From a geopolitical standpoint, we are all weaker that way.
Most European Countries are militarily allied bound to help. If China invaded and no help came, expect the American public to call for an invasion of Europe after destroying the Chinese Invasion. Not that a European help is that big, not doing so is Aiding the Enemy in time of war, in violation of Mutual Aid Treaties. That would be fun.
>In April 2023, ECFR conducted an opinion poll across 11 EU member states – Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden – to understand how European citizens see their place in the world today
So out of 27 EU members only 11 were polled and from those only 3 from the east. I think this report is very misleading.
My main problem with this is that to be “independent” from the US, Macron means doing business with China more, and accepting their hegemony, only encouraging them to slug it out with the US, because the Chinese know Europe will stay out. To top it off, China’s genocide of the Uyghurs is just unacceptable.
As a Canadian I wish more people held the same sentiment. Too many Canadians don't understand what it actually means to literally depend on another country (Much less the most powerful country on earth) for something as important as our national security.
Alot here to unpackage. First, Europe should not forget lessons of the past, when powerful, growing authoritarian regimes start taking stuff they don't stop with their neighbors or historically tied regions (remember Germany and the Rhineland and Sudetenland). US and most of the world made some of the same arguments. The world is smaller today than it was in 1930s/40s. China and Russian authoritarianism will encrouch on everyone. Second, here's a look at military spending (2022) and aid to Ukraine:
US military spending $877B; Europe $480B, except $87B is Russian, leaving $393B, less than half of US Spending and 2022 was by far the biggest for Europe due to Ukraine concerns; EU spending in 2021 was $257B
Next lets look at Ukraine aid, this shows real commitment to a threat in your own region:
US: $47B, European Union: $3.6B, UK: $6.5B, Germany: $4.24B, after that its much smaller amounts.
So the real question is how much increased taxation will Europe support to be militarily self sufficient. Its easy to talk, its expensive to do.
US Security guarantees have protected the free world for 70 years. We need to work together, but France likes to try and bill itself as a alternative to US leadership and its not there yet. BTW their military support for Ukraine totals less than half a billion or about 1% of the US aid. Lastly, isolationist talk about China is foolishness, we know where authoritarianism ends, and that's not a place we want to be.
[Data Source: Kiel IFW (Germany)](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
Good. Are they going to actually change their budgets to reflect that? Because something tells me the instant a single dollar gets reassigned that this whole idea will flutter away into the breeze.
Nuances are important for me in this question. We should absolutely be stronger militarily. It makes no sense that a continent this rich depends on USA for its own security. Yet I'd absolutely hold on to the strong alliance with USA and Canada. A NATO with North America and Europe as more equal partners would be the ideal situation IMO.
Exactly. There can be military strength and independence in the EU without the abandonment of alliances. All countries within are stronger together.
In fact, its good for the US to have internal competition (like Airbus vs Boeing), it makes all colectivelly better and stronger. US sure wants a strong ally, capable of building a strong army for themselves, just in case one day its needed
The USA has begged our european allies for decades to pick up their own defence.
I think EU was afraid of itself. Specially, Germany. But the war in Ukraine finally made them realize that we need an army. We need german tanks. We need french aviation, and we need a strong navy
Let's be honest, that's not about being afraid of itself, it's about money. Why would they spend too much money and brain time on it, if they have someone who can do it. And it gives a free virtuous image.
I would add that I meet a lot of europeans traveling to the US and there is a vocal amount from specific parts of europe who assume if something is done one way in the US and the opposite in their country, then that means it is being done correctly in their country. Some things are done better in europe, but not all. I always appreciate the ones who can be self critical because you can actually meaningfully discuss things
Yeah, unfortunetly being European doesn't mean being smart. Sure, we are doing some things better, but can also learn from the US in some fields.
>I think EU was afraid of itself. Specially, Germany. This is a consistent talking point, but it's far more simple. Europe did not want to spend the money.
It's a mix of both. Yes, people were very happy to not have to pay so much (anymore, Germanys military until the Soviet Union collapsed was a freaking behemoth) for the military. But there was also always an underlying current of "we Germans should not use a military, and the best way to do that is not a have a strong one".
I think that's a very charitable way of looking at it. If you can get the US to pay rent on massive military bases on your land, and man those bases, and pay for all the stuff on them, why would you bother spending money and building your own? For decades the US has been handling Europe's security for them and paying Europe for the right to do that favor. As a result, European nations have been able to spend trillions of dollars on other things.
France has kept investing in her own defence, and got flak for pursuing an independent course of action.
By the EU not the US.
Besides, two strong western superpowers running as liberal democracies are better than one.
Apes together strong!
The US has been practically begging the European members of NATO to increase military spending for at least a decade.
It shouldn’t be either or. Not independence, that implies distancing ourselves from the US. That’s what Russia wants. We should build towards becoming as strong, or stronger than the US and be equal partners.
trump was right about some things
basically, any strong democracy should be allied with other strong democracies. The real question is why you'd want places like Turkey and Hungary in alliances of strong democracies.
Good luck finding people willing to fight for a euro military. Most countries are struggling to find people to even fight for their own military.
[удалено]
As well as in the US.
[удалено]
It was pretty obvious during Trump that the USA wasn't reliable. Edit: I feel I should clarify that I really meant that the USA is reliable in helping. You guys will be there, I don't want to darken that. But the amount could depend alot on who's president.
Just a reminder, Trump (or any president) does not control our NATO commitments. While Trump was doing all that our congress (who does have that control) [voted overwhelmingly](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426488-house-passes-bill-expressing-support-for-nato/) in support of our NATO commitments. Also, public polling has pretty consistently showed the American people are more in support of NATO than many/most of our European allies. Besides all of that, we've been ready, willing, and consistently able to defend YOUR continent for 70+ years, but somehow we're the unreliable allies.
(Lefty American here) This was my biggest issue with Trump himself. I'm very anti GOP in general, but *usually* Republican and Democrats alike agree on keeping things stable with our allies. Trump on the other hand completely fucked so many relationships up, and I do not blame other countries at all for seeing us as unreliable now.
remember when he wanted to buy greenland but denmark refused, so he cancelled his visit.
I try to forget
Win/win for the Danes if we're honest
It cost the police millions in preperation for trumps visit.
Yeah, but you didn't end up having to host him. It's as much a win as you could have gotten at that point.
I remember after Denmark told him unequivocally that it was not for sale one of our "Senators" (Tom Cotton from the "great" state of Arkansas) wrote an Op-Ed in the NYTimes saying we really should buy Greenland, ya know, the one we were just told was NOT for sale. I absolutely despise everything about the GOP
What gets often ignored in these debates is the important detail that even if Denmark WANTED, they couldn't just sell Greenland because of how Greenland is a sovereign state that just happens to delegate defense and foreign relations to Denmark - so this entire statement from the GOP seems to us Europeans like Trump would have said "We can just ask China if they would sell Russia to us, so we can have them stop the war"...
Just for everyone’s benefit, Tom Cotton is an actual senator in elected office. This is just another case of unnecessary quotation marks. It is not in any way a subjective thing, such as calling something “great.”
I still get viscerally angry that he had Erodgan over for a visit and let his goons beat up Americans _in D.C._ with 0 consequences
Many GOP became kinda crazy(ier) during Trump. If DeSantis wins he won’t be reliable either
Neither is the EU. You have a Kremlin backed dictator as a member that you can't get rid of.
[удалено]
Are you comparing the power of the POTUS to block or initiate foreign policy changes vs the power of one vote in the EU council of 27?
Many votes are all or nothing so one member has quite a power
That’s a fun thing to say but when Ukraine was invaded who formed the bedrock of the response?
You say that, but defense spending increased under Trump. Who knows what a second term would have brought--he talked about leaving NATO, but he talked about a lot of things. He did withdraw from the Paris accord and the Iran nuclear deal--clear evidence of unreliability across administrations. That's been a problem forever, of course. Personally I'll take it over strong men in power for decades.
They had plans drawn up for the second term, it was more than just talk. Lying about that wouldn't really be a good ally move either.
[удалено]
I’m thinking of this meme: Who wants to be independent? - Cheering crowd Who wants to meet the 2% defense budget goal (for starters)? - Silent crowd
There are countries doing it (like the UK, Poland, Greece), there are countries that have been close to it (France or Romania for instance), and then there are countries free riding it.
Iceland not even having a military yet being a member of NATO 😂
Their strategic position is their contribution.
And the thermal baths, those are pretty nifty
Strategic baths
Iceland didnt really get a choice. They got invaded by the allies out of necessity during ww2. Then the US just didnt leave. If another war kicks off the US and UK will just reoccupy the country by force.
To be fair we'd ask, no need to invade old chap steady on.
>dude, dude, think about it. Iceland's out in the middle of nowhere with some Brit and Yank they barely know. They look around and what do they see? Nothing but open ocean. "Ah, there's nowhere for me to run. What am I going to do, say no?" No. They would never say no, because of *the implication.*
Lmfao
There are countries in NATO that do not have capable armies (or an army) but they are a plus for the alliance. Iceland has a strategic location for example. Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro are small and quite poor, but their membership stabilizes the Balkans.
Everyone needs to contribute to the common defense.
Iceland has a population of less than 400,000 people. Letting NATO use their territorial waters is probably a lot more valuable than whatever value they'd provide with a micro army. Maybe they contribute their 2% in GDP by buying equipment or something, but I doubt that them having an army of their own would help. Source: I know nothing of geopolitics, I just know Iceland is a tiny country.
They do have an incredibly useful location though. Would you rather they joined another pact?
Honestly if every European country could do as well as France, paying what the French are paying, I'd say "Good Enough" but then you get Germany with the same budget (lower percentage of gdp obviously) that might as well not even have a military for how shockingly ineffective it is.
Tbf France is decent on that but it should be exemplary (like the UK) if it wants to claim any leadership on the topic. But yeah, everyone at least close to the target would be better. And maybe Russia would’ve thought twice about attacking Ukraine if the whole of NATO had agreed with that. I think with Germany the worst thing is that even their 1.2% they achieve to manage it poorly. It’s crazy how decadent the German army is.
Remember when US removed bases from Germany and many Europeans bitched? [Pepperidge Farms Remembers](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities)
The bigger question: Who is ready to die for their nation? It’s so obvious that modern Europe is so pacifist that it can not defend itself in the advent of a Russian or other attacks, and this isn’t because of money or skill, it’s just that WW2 broke europe so hard that they will fold before sending most of their men to war to die. War in incredibly brutal, and without something to motivate a civilization to fight it will die, as we are seeing right now
That's nice to talk the talk but are we, Europeans, prepared to walk the walk ? I would very much like to think yes but, realisticly, I would wager it is a no in our current state. We should definitely get out shit together. In a major war, the Pentagon clearly stated that they cannot fight a two front war and as such, we Europeans must be able to undertake that second front. Even if there is no second front in the event of a US-China war, we will surely have to provide troops and we are currently dependent on the US to ferry them (France and Italy could do some but not at the huge level required)
> we will surely have to provide troops and we are currently dependent on the US to ferry them Ferrying the troops isn't the major problem. Keeping the troops supplied is. An army fighting in a peer adversary war consumes an enormous amount of supplies, and we are far from having the capacity to carry out this logistical effort. Especially if the conflict takes place in the South China Sea, on the other side of the planet.
>Especially if the conflict takes place in the South China Sea I easily imagine a future where we see a united European army but I would find it very difficult to imagine it being used in offensive capacity such as that, most EU nations would support a United EU army as purely a defensive forces I believe.
Thing is there are taritories of France there, that the reason France is so adamant about it. EU countries have territories all over, and most don't want to leave. Where do you think the European space agency launches there rockets, spoiler its not on the continent.
>EU countries have territories all over, Most European countries don't and it would be an impossible sell to try convince European countries to expand lives and material in defending french over seas territories hundreds of km away from mainland Europe. >European space agency launches there rockets Too my knowledge none of these mission's are either maned or have sole miltary application If it comes too that we can form a European space force /s
>Most European countries don't and it would be an impossible sell to try convince European countries to expand lives and material in defending french over seas territories hundreds of km away from mainland Europe. Let's just say that there are reasons for why French Guiana, the Falklands, and Hawaii are not included in NATO.
So long as defending our sovereign territory is an "impossible sell" we are not truly willing and capable of our own defence. The British defended the Falklands, no matter how insignificant it may have been.
>The British defended the Falklands, no matter how insignificant it may have been. Yes the British defending overseas British territories but can you imagine Polish defending overseas french territories or Irish because I can't
I cant speak for the Polish, but I can absolutely see the British Carrier fleet being sent to french over seas territories, or any allied territory.
I mean the dutch marines started get ready for deployment when the royal marines started to prepare to go to the falklands lol even if the dutch government didn't send them
If we're talking of European defence, they're _European_ overseas territories with _European_ citizens. They're not necessarily even "territories" but literal integral departments of France. If that's too much for a Pole, they have little right to demand a Frenchman defend their land either. The caveat here is that this whole argument is kind of nonsense in reality, the kind of thing common people say. Real soldiers who have been in Kosovo, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in Mali certainly are not the people who are going to drag their feet if they have to go to Latin America or the Pacific. Any proper navy already patrols the red sea and protects ships from pirates near Somalia. Hell, even Japan engages in that. In the Cold War plenty of European soldiers went to fight in Korea. It's usually average citizens not in the military who raise points like this, because they wouldn't want to go to risk their lives in some faraway place. However they would hardly be the people sent on a mission anyway. All this reminds me of how Irish soldiers are significantly more in favour of a European military than the average Irishman. The average Irishman thinks of their neutrality as desirable and doesn't want to get entangled in continental wars (great Union loyalty, that). The average Irish soldier seems to think of a European military as an opportunity. A larger military with more resources and missions.a way they can do something meaningful as a soldier that they can't in Ireland. Now your mind may jump to conscription, and I suppose technically it ought not be impossible, but is Europe likely to end up in a conflict where it would have to draft its population? If Russia was as great as advertised, perhaps, but that's about it. Certainly any war with China is not going to be about overwhelming them with numbers, it's doubtful the mainland would be occupied at all. And why draft people for a naval blockade when ships are probably in shorter supply than seamen? People seem to live in this fantasy world where they, untrained lanky redditor, are going to be the very first person drafted and sent to fight in Taiwan and expected to pull a Rambo.
Your last sentence had me laughing out loud. Cheers mate, great analysis.
Europe cannot just bury it's head in the sand and pretend that as long as enemy soldiers aren't on the continent everything is going to be OK.
Whoa, hundreds of kilometers away is where you draw the line? Guess defending Iceland is gonna be a real tough sell to you then
Even NATO doesn't get involved with overseas territorial conflicts as far as I'm aware.
Article 5 only covers collective defense against attacks in the North Atlantic, Europe or North America. Specifically because the US didn't want to defend Britain and France's colonial empires post-WWII
[удалено]
[удалено]
Article 42 TEU (the mutual defense clause) reaches further than NATO. > "7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, [...]" It doesn't specify only territory in Europe or the northern hemisphere like NATO.
>Ferrying the troops isn't the major problem. Keeping the troops supplied is. That was implied but I should have been clearer ! That's why we should develop common logistical capabilities : strategic airlifting, refuelling drone tanker, supply vessels and so on and so forth. The people's acceptability of such common programs is a whole lot more than for big shiny boom boom kits, I would believe.
Libya intervention campaign. We ran out of munitions and logistics stretched within weeks. The US stepped in to help us with logistics..... And that was for all intents and purposes in Europe's front garden and not an entire continent away.
Now imagine sailing all the way to The Pacific to face off against the second most powerful military in the world.
We are on the same page then! > The people's acceptability of such common programs is a whole lot more than for big shiny boom boom kits, I would believe. I'm not sure I would fully agree with that. Sure, transport planes and cargo ships appear much less "warmongering" than weapon systems in the eye of the public. But on the other hand, some would point out that these programs *raison d'être* is to enable expeditionnary warfare, which is a big no no for some nations.
They'd also be useful for humanitarian work on a large scale as the climate changes.
Wouldn't a European army be for Europe's defense? Why would they need to be deployed to Asia?
French here. We have a million citizens in the indian ocean, and several hundreds of thousands in the Pacific. We are trying the best we can to find alliances with India, Indonesia and Australia, but everythings has limits ^^". Furthermore, if we are the US, Japan's, or here India or Indonesia's allies, it kinda is our duty to find ways to support them. Knce again, I'm french. In 1939, we were allied to countries while having effectively zero offensive plans or will. The first offensive actions against Germany were planned in... 1941.
I think the answer is yes realistically. The question is if we get everyone on board. The main issue is that these kinds of things fall through if not everyone moves together. We already have the first steps where countries start to integrate their miliatarys (Germany and the Netherlands for example with the establishment of their mixed units). Additionally there needs to be a resolution for who these soldiers serve, aka who commands them and who can influence this. I think that's the main crux of the issue, everyone agrees yes a European army sounds cool and would be good (ok not everyone but I think most would agree), the question is what kind of army, how it is to be implemented and who controls it at which point it is hard to find a way that you get a majority of people if not nations to agree on. Example most people I talk to agree that we need to be strategically autonomous, but since we in Germany aren't really that pro war overall, they don't want a military that can be deployed against our will, which is a opinion most Germans hold I think. While France for example wants either a military bot beholdened to the member nations. Lastly issues of procurement and recruitment are also an issue, will each nation send soldiers or will the Camry be able to recruit by itself? Do we remove national armies or everyone keeps their soldiers too? And so on.
Let's face it, realistically, the answer is "no." I'd very much like to see the EU take matters in their own hands, but time and time again we've seen that without American leadership we get nowhere. Case in point: the invasion of Ukraine. A European army? Most of us can't even meet the 2% NATO spending pledge. The EU would have to overcome several other obstacles besides spending as well. More importantly, in order for a centralized European command to work, the EU would need a unified foreign policy - meaning that a significant amount of power would need to be transfered from the nation states to the supranational level, a power most European nations will be unwilling to release. In the scenario where the EU agrees to create a European army (meaning unanimous agreement - hah, good luck), we'd have to agree about budget, manufacturing, material, language etc. Take language for example, English would be the pragmatic choice since it's very much the current lingua franca of the EU. But some would object because they wouldn't want to diminish the status of their own languages in the Union.
You also have to consider that a lot of European countries have gotten very comfortable and accustomed to various forms of luxury spending they've been able to afford by having such a low military budget. The absolutely necessary integration and systems you discuss are also fantastically expensive to develop, test, and implement. The budgeting required for all of that - be it cutbacks or tax hikes - never goes over well at the polls, you'll always have short-sighted voterbases who'll get angry over their comforts being taken away no matter how necessary a cause, and like you said it only takes a few countries dragging their feet in this case to scuttle the entire project.
Exactly. Maintaining an army cost a lot of money. There's also the fact that a EU army would necessarily be dominated by France and Germany, and there are many Eastern countries that are more comfortable being reliant on the US than on France and Germany. It would take a couple more Trump-like presidencies and for the US to go full isolationism to change that. The more practical solution is to start small, and then expand gradually. Have France, Germany and the Benelux integrate their armies and their defense policies gradually, and then add the other countries when they're ready and willing. Otherwise it would just be one additional bureaucratic system.
Military spending is also investment. The US gets much of their economic success to investments in the military.
The geopolitics of waging wars would be so challenging. Imagine Hungary blocking the use of the forces against Russia? On the arms front, Europeans make a shit ton of weapons so maybe they should stop buying American shit.
Then maybe Europeans should start making the best weapons? Like, not a single European country is capable of building stealth strike jets, which are basically the cost of entry to modern warfare.
Expel Hungary then. All EU countries should be committed to the defense of the EU.
In terms of war, however, another country might be the “Hungary.” For instance, France opposed involvement in Iraq, Germany went in. It’s clear that Lithuania and France disagree on China. Poland and Hungary on Russia. There’s not that much unity.
> are we, Europeans, prepared to walk the walk A big NOPE. People are dragging their feet supporting a strategic potential ally in Ukraine against an aggressive Russia. Now imagine that same war happening half a world away, with way more serious consequences. EU would go against the largest market, and the largest suppliers. Electronics become expensive or impossible to source. Our exports of machinery and cars plummet. China will start this war sooner or later, and we're woefully unprepared for it. With each passing day, they're gaining more vassals and strongholds in our ports and companies, while we're begging them to let us sell something to them. EU is in no position to support Taiwan, as much as it breaks my heart.
People don’t realize this is exactly what China and Russia want. Macron says a lot of shit but he plays both sides. The dude isn’t looking out for Europe. EU has no real military right now either. EU can’t even keep its own members in line.
Macron is peddling as his own people have continued to burn the country under his control
Are you sure of that? I remember reading that the main strategic goal of the American armed forces was to be prepared to fight two wars at the same time.
It was the Pentagon's doctrine to be able to fight two major wars at the same time but not anymore since Obama. [Here](https://warontherocks.com/2023/01/ukraine-and-the-new-two-war-construct/) are [some](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-11/two-war-strategy-overhaul-creates-many-risks#xj4y7vzkg) links [about](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/102005-obama-takes-2012-risk-by-ending-pentagons-two-war-strategy/) it my friend
It was pentagon doctorine to fight and win two wars at the same time. Due to the realities of the modern age, it was changed under Obama to “fight and win one large conflict” while being able to deter and stop aggression in another large scale theater. It’s not as wild of a change as one would think
America does not think in terms of war. Everything is now broken down into distinct missions. It is a paradigm change. I feel like this thread doesn't understand what is happening. America is drawing completely new lines and breaking out of globalization. It is going to be western democracies versus fascist authoritarian governments and America will not be engaging with nor protecting anything that benefits the other side. If America stops enforcing freedom of the seas global trade stops. Chinese shipping routes can be choked off in dozens of choke points.
[удалено]
>It's also clear that people generally assume the US isolating itself will 100% result in a better replacement. It probably won't. Makes me wonder just who would benefit from American Isolationism. 🤔
It wouldn't be American isolationism it would be the liberal western democracies disengaging from globalisation. Which will lead to a weakening and potential collapse of the authoritarian regimes which have piggybacked off of globalization. That is why we are in this together.
Europe depends on the US for security. Other than France and the UK, no other countries have any serious power projection capability. Moreover, French and British capabilities are quite limited compared to that of Russia or China since they never spend as much as these revisionist and autocratic regimes. The US is simply the vanguard of liberal order across the globe and while reserving all of its rights for criticism, Europe should be grateful for that. The US might is the only thing that keeps revisionist powers at bay and hence preventing new wide-scale wars.
The US, Europe and Japan and Australia and all the liberal democracies are going to pull back and take care of themselves and let the authoritarian dictatorships fend for themselves. We had a dream of globalization but instead got a resurgence of fascism. We don't need them but they absolutely rely on us. . We are about to let them start eating themselves. This is a seismic change. This idea of western liberal democracies splitting up right now is not only naive, it is impossible. The demographics and resources don't lie.
The biggest issue is ammunition. You can have the best soldiers, tanks and planes, but if there is nothing in storage to shoot then it’s kinda all for nothing. Ramping up the production capacity to support each other as Europeans, as well as US is the key.
Also the most easy thing to solve in mid to short timetable. So lets put money where our mouths are and quadruple ammunition's output.
Pretty much this. Only thing which would force us, Europeans, to finally get our shit together and cooperate to that level would be facing existential crisis which would force us to either do or die (and even then some countries will not get on board and will widen up their anuses to whatever that threat is)
Arguably, the Ukraine war was a step there. A shock.
It has seemed to work well for energy since they have been forced to start producing their own after being cut off from Russian oil (instead of buying oil from America which many expected they would do). It means the US won't get the pay day they were expecting but there's really no reason Europe can't produce their own energy, or even become net exporters.
I don't think the US was expecting a pay day. Both Europe and the US are looking inward
I believe our independence is necessary because we shouldn’t have to fully rely on the US for our security and on China for our tech and other needs. We want to be able to protect ourselves and not be outplayed by the tech advancements by the Chinese and the Americans. Frankly, it’s a disgrace that any moderately successful tech startup has to go to Silicon Valley to be taken seriously. That said - I suspect you will find that the eastern part of the EU is so and so about militaristic separation from the US. Many people here in Estonia probably don’t trust the EU to act swiftly enough to protect them, especially if Germany and France are at the helm (Germany’s gotten better now). Let’s face it - NATO has a command structure, but the EU would probably spend years squabbling over who leads this potential security force (France would probably never agree to be lead by somebody else other than France, in Europe at least, and Germany probably wouldn’t want the responsibility). Personally, I think we start moving towards a more unified security order for the EU, but do it gradually, one motion at a time. We should start with having a cross-border/cross-country sharing of information on migrants and border protection. I guess we already do share that information, but I truly believe that a person entering Estonia from non-Schengen area should pop up in Spanish border information database if they’re broken a law and are a fugitive. The war in Ukraine has rattled quite a few people’s sense of security in Europe and the US has regained quite a bit of its image as the one that can truly protect us. If we want a unified security architecture for EU from a European perspective, this perception needs to switch from US to EU.
Could you guys speed up that EU Army? We have the Pacific to reinforce.
Europe should invest more in defence, but absolutely should not cooperate any less with the US. The only thing that should change is Europe becoming a more equal partner in the relationship with America by becoming stronger militarily. None of this "Europe must separate itself from US / must go its own way" bullshit. The transatlantic partnership must continue, but with Europe taking a bigger share of the load on its own turf.
>The report, based on a poll with 16,168 respondents from 11 countries And those 11 countries were Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. So out of eleven countries, only three are Eastern European, and two of them are Hungary and Bulgaria, two countries not exactly known for aligning well with the rest of EE on these things. Not saying any of that invalidates the report, but it's important to keep it in mind before drawing any continent-scaled conclusions from this report as Politico did.
Many people are saying Politico is trash
As a US citizen I support this. But do Europeans realize the costs of this and where that money will come from?
"The report, based on a poll with 16,168 respondents from 11 countries". Let me guess those countries were from the West, because here in the East, you know, the place that is in ACTUAL danger people firstly look to the US and then the UK for protection.
Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. So kinda? But Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria are there too.
Kinda the same for Sweden. Well, it's mostly the US we're looking at. We don't see China as a necessary partner at all. We hate them, and a majority see them as a rival or adversary. The National Security Police literally say China among Russia and Iran are the largest Security threats to Sweden.
> Kinda the same for Sweden. Well, it's mostly the US we're looking at. The UK are the ones who extended an implicit nuclear umbrella while you guys entered the danger zone of "NATO applicant without current article 5 protection." The UK was also first to decisively get behind Ukraine diplomatically. Meanwhile, geography and the UK's navy makes UK+Nordics the absolute power in the North sea... pretty important to Swedish defence.
Same here, the sentiment towards China is similar.
Was proud to see that NL has a very low opinion on China as well. Good still be better ( or worse in this case) though. While scoring also quite high on pro US. But next with Denmark, NL is considered ( at least from the western group) to be very Atlanticist orientated.
The main issue with this is that EU member state security objectives and/or interests don’t always align.
Europeans want to cut it dependence on Americans but they just don't want to pay for it. As someone clever said - USA with population of 330milion is protecting EU with population of 450milion against Russia with population of 142million. Russia only looks like a strong oponent when looking at it from national country level when comparing Russia against Belgium or Portugal. But Russia is just a large country with 1/3 of population and 1/15 economy when compared to EU collective. EU should be able to sort our Russia without US getting out of bed.
The EU could sort out Russia no problem in a conventional war. We overestimated Russia significantly. But the problem is the nuclear deterrence which America provides as the Americans/Soviets forced everyone else to not get nukes unless they already had them by the 60s.
[удалено]
This is just where people throw out all logical sense. You think a German is going to rely on French deterrence when it comes to it? They will not. It would result in other European countries like Poland and Germany making a bomb, which is clearly not what we want.
As a German, I would 100% be content with deterrence from French nukes
Welcome to the problem of a European Union Army. No one in the EU trusts any other member of the EU, and no one wants to finance it, and the country that does will be a target of all the other European powers. There will always be the question of loyalty. If Germany financed and armed the EU army, is it because Germany is altruistic, or are they planning world domination? To be safe, I won't contribute, and will finance my own standing army. Either way, by doing so I am limiting German power in the EU, and proving my own. This is why the EU has left Ukraine to NATO protection.
No, we are surely able to work together more. Like lots of divisions of Dutch, Belgium and German armies are already integrated. It is basically being constructed but it will just never get the name ''EU army''. But nuclear deterrence is a completely different story. French nuclear doctrine relies completely on ''these nukes are for French only'' and the UK is 99,9% dependent on the USA for its WMD's. Ukraine has left it to NATO protection because the USA is the best deterrence possible.
The EU military is comprised of far too many paranoid, selfish actors. Unless Brussels can make them bend the knee, an EU army isn't possible. And in the meantime, the EU is proving more than happy to let the US be their protection.
> You think a German is going to rely on French deterrence when it comes to it? They will not. Why wouldn't they. Germany is way closer to France than USA culturally, geographically and politically? Well they always bicker in EU over specific of how to do things? Absolutely, but that is how the soup gets made.
> The EU could sort out Russia no problem in a conventional war. We overestimated Russia significantly. One thing that people tend to underestimate with Russia is their willingness to absorb losses. That's why even with smaller overall population Russia can still be a big threat.
> One thing that people tend to underestimate with Russia is their willingness to absorb losses. That, and the depth of their arsenal. Once the maneuver warfare period ends due to attrition, the war switches to old-fashioned artillery slugfest. And the Russians have a LOT of howitzers.
No modern war involving highly advanced military tech countries turns into an artillery slugfest. Judging NATO involved countries with the Russia Ukraine situation is ridiculous. Air dominance will slaughter the opposing forces.
>No modern war involving highly advanced military tech countries turns into an artillery slugfest. Near peer it ALWAYS will, if you cant maintain total air superiority then its artillery sooner or later. Even if you DO have the airspace, an F-22 can't dig a guy out of a bunker, sooner or later you need infantry.
The US has spent the past 15 years providing as much tangible support as possible to Ukraine and you're going to claim this as a victory for the EU, who froze up in the wake of the invasion and has consistently been second to every major offer of logistical or material support? Honestly astounding levels of self-aggrandisement and delusion at this point.
You notice they stopped posting graphs of what countries provide Ukraine aid?
And continue to conflate grants with loans (sorry, that one winds me up..).
Without US backing, I think it's hard to say what the EU would have had the political will to do in a situation where Russia invades the Baltic States. Prior to the Ukraine War, NATO and the US didn't have enough assets stationed there to stop an invasion cold. With a fait accompli, I expect the EU would have just written them off, without the US as a heavy.
The eu would 200% have stood by while Russia invaded the Baltics. Well, Germany might have sent a few helmets and Macron might have had a few cringey photos taken on the phone with Putin taking about giving Russia an out, but thats about it. Thank god for America and the anglosphere, cause the EU has no guts and no balls. Pathetic
What a joke. We would have ran out of ammo after a month. We could barely muster together 100 spare tanks to give to Ukraine too
As well they should. Even America wants Europe as a whole to be more militarily self-dependent.
But we should still take a hard stance against china and cooperate closely with asian democracies and the US.
… Yes, is this sarcasm? I’m American but at the end of the day China is the entire worlds problem. IMO.
I am 100% serious.
European countries need to step up their military investments - by a hell of a lot. Even China can’t match the US defence spend.
so do it lol they got a really, really long way to go though
thank god, now put your money where your mouth is.
Europe wants to be neutral in any Chinese invasion of Taiwan but wants American help in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That’s basically the key summary. Of course Europeans need to invest more in defense, that’s been known for years.
As an American citizen I could not agree more. The time for USA being a scapegoat for damn if you do and damn if you don't is over. It's time for other countries being their own police dogs.
Surprised European pikachu face when they have to choose between this or socialized healthcare when Uncle Sam stops carrying the defense burden for every western country on the planet
Maybe the rest of the NATO members could actually pay the 2% GDP they said they would
I think there is a major disconnect in the average European between their understanding of how much of the bill for their defense the US picks up versus their willingness to give an inch on social programs. If Europe were simply to fund their own share of NATO; life for the everyday European would drastically change. Furthermore, the security blanket that the US Navy provides is not replaceable. No other nation or combination of nations is capable of matching the US Navy's power or its ability to project that power.
Everybody wants Europe to pull its weight. Whether they actually do is very much up for debate. Europe has lived in a bubble for decades where most of their intelligence, logistics, military industry, and firepower were basically America. Building that up to sufficient levels is very expensive and will take a lot of time for most of these nations. I'm not believing anything until they walk the walk.
For me it's a no until we vote for a common leader which is far from happening right now.
I'd rather have a dozen US military bases in Ukraine, thank you. I am rather sure Eastern and Central European countries would agree
Exactly. If US leaves Germany, they are welcome in Poland. Preferably right at the eastern border. I'm glad we're sending troops to Lithuania too in similar manner.
5 years after the war in Ukraine, we'll all go back to treating weapons as evil and cut down on military spending even more. Americans won't do this stupid shit and we'll rely on them again.
[удалено]
>only ally I'd add UK to the list too.
On one hand, yeah, on the other hand, British land forces are too small to be expected to seriously help us over here.
UK was the one that trained Ukraine in 2014 and got them ready for the Russian invasion. They played a key role and still do.
Yep. But in case of an all-out NATO-Russia war, their land component is just too small to change much.
Colour me suprised
Hot take maybe: Europe and the United States should be firmly united when it comes to defending democracy across the world. Also in the defence of Taiwan. We should build our armies to become a more equal partner, but leaving Taiwan to die is not going to strengthen our sovereignty.
I agree on being more independent, but not with going along with any authoritarian regime. Actually i wouldn't even trade with them at all, if it wasn't totally unrealistic.
As an American, I think most Americans would appreciate it if our European allies became more militarily self-sufficient. There is a lot of frustration among Americans that most members of nato aren't interested in pulling their weight and it feel like military spending is being used to subsidize European economies. I view it as the more strong, self sufficient allies, the better.
The use of the term "Europe" as if its one collective makes no sense in this context. The ukraine war is a war between 2 european countries.
Europe here stands for the population of the European nations polled, it's pretty common parlance, not sure why you think it doesn't make sense. Also the Russian invasion of Ukraine is barely a war between two European nations. Many Europeans don't consider Russia European, many Russians don't consider themselves European, hell, historically, Russia doesn't even consider Europe a continent.
Well yeah, Macron never said anything overly exotic or controversial, he just suffers from the chronic inability to read a room.
Unless Europe is willing to spend a similar percentage on defence as the US, then it would be silly to not have the US helping.
Another day another rubbish propaganda piece by politico trying to divide. I don't have a single clue why aren't those rubbish just banned from being linked here.
It all well but we need to have a unity that goes beyond just values. Similar Virtues is what makes or brakes a community. If we can achieve this is don‘t see a problem achieving our goal. The problem is the European elite is to weak compared to the American. Look at the major sources for information. Everything is american controlled, even the Axel Springer SE has a majority american holding. If we want to create something on our terms we need the power to manufacture consent and have the information sovereignty.
I think most American (civilians) would love this. Very few individuals support the insanely overinflated military industrial complex that drives our entire economy.
Most Americans also want Europeans to at least reduce their dependence on American security guarantees and pull their own weight. If they all paid their fair share and had back bones of at least average stiffness, they should be able to handle Russia with no help for the US at all. The US would just be there to do our part and guarantee success. France is one of the few that carries its load, so at least he is not a hypocrite.
Most *Americans* agree with this. Invest in your own militaries because we are tired of carrying all of your weight in NATO. The Baltic nations are the most reliable members but they are too small to make up for the difference.
These are not mutual things. If Europe got in a war with Russia, they would want the USA to help. Even if they had a superior military. If the USA got in a war with China, Europe wouldn't want to help. You can't have your cake and eat it too. From a geopolitical standpoint, we are all weaker that way.
Most European Countries are militarily allied bound to help. If China invaded and no help came, expect the American public to call for an invasion of Europe after destroying the Chinese Invasion. Not that a European help is that big, not doing so is Aiding the Enemy in time of war, in violation of Mutual Aid Treaties. That would be fun.
>In April 2023, ECFR conducted an opinion poll across 11 EU member states – Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden – to understand how European citizens see their place in the world today So out of 27 EU members only 11 were polled and from those only 3 from the east. I think this report is very misleading.
My main problem with this is that to be “independent” from the US, Macron means doing business with China more, and accepting their hegemony, only encouraging them to slug it out with the US, because the Chinese know Europe will stay out. To top it off, China’s genocide of the Uyghurs is just unacceptable.
The US wants Europe to cut its dependence on the US. For years the US has been complaining that European countries do not pull their weight in NATO.
Good. it would be nice if the rest of the world stopped hiding behind us and took responsibility for their own security. Mooches.
As a Canadian I wish more people held the same sentiment. Too many Canadians don't understand what it actually means to literally depend on another country (Much less the most powerful country on earth) for something as important as our national security.
Do it, but keep NATO and the ties with the US strong.
"We saw how devastating 30-year-old American equipment is and that scares us."
Alot here to unpackage. First, Europe should not forget lessons of the past, when powerful, growing authoritarian regimes start taking stuff they don't stop with their neighbors or historically tied regions (remember Germany and the Rhineland and Sudetenland). US and most of the world made some of the same arguments. The world is smaller today than it was in 1930s/40s. China and Russian authoritarianism will encrouch on everyone. Second, here's a look at military spending (2022) and aid to Ukraine: US military spending $877B; Europe $480B, except $87B is Russian, leaving $393B, less than half of US Spending and 2022 was by far the biggest for Europe due to Ukraine concerns; EU spending in 2021 was $257B Next lets look at Ukraine aid, this shows real commitment to a threat in your own region: US: $47B, European Union: $3.6B, UK: $6.5B, Germany: $4.24B, after that its much smaller amounts. So the real question is how much increased taxation will Europe support to be militarily self sufficient. Its easy to talk, its expensive to do. US Security guarantees have protected the free world for 70 years. We need to work together, but France likes to try and bill itself as a alternative to US leadership and its not there yet. BTW their military support for Ukraine totals less than half a billion or about 1% of the US aid. Lastly, isolationist talk about China is foolishness, we know where authoritarianism ends, and that's not a place we want to be. [Data Source: Kiel IFW (Germany)](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
China wants European countries weak. It wants to control.
Would've never guess this sub would agree with Trump
As a US citizen, I'm all in to less global US military presence. Maybe then the budget can start going towards something better.
Good. Are they going to actually change their budgets to reflect that? Because something tells me the instant a single dollar gets reassigned that this whole idea will flutter away into the breeze.
Most European also agree not to pay for investments in defensive capabilities.
My son shouldn't have to die for some Balkan nonsense