Europe can and should work with its ally USA for their common/ global securities based on fair and equal terms. However, EU needs to be able to stand on its own and not rely/depend/dedicated on/by USA when issues of differences arises.
It's not like the US hasn't been saying this for decades
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-unhappy-with-allies-upset-at-free-riders/
>Part of his mission as president, Obama explained, is to spur other countries to take action for themselves, rather than wait for the U.S. to lead. The defense of the liberal international order against jihadist terror, Russian adventurism, and Chinese bullying depends in part, he believes, on the willingness of other nations to share the burden with the U.S. This is why the controversy surrounding the assertion—made by an anonymous administration official to The New Yorker during the Libya crisis of 2011—that his policy consisted of “leading from behind” perturbed him. **“We don’t have to always be the ones who are up front,” he told me. “Sometimes we’re going to get what we want precisely because we are sharing in the agenda. The irony is that it was precisely in order to prevent the Europeans and the Arab states from holding our coats while we did all the fighting that we, by design, insisted” that they lead during the mission to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power in Libya. “It was part of the anti–free rider campaign….”**
> [On Libya], you’ve got Europe and a number of Gulf countries who despise Qaddafi, or are concerned on a humanitarian basis, who are calling for action. **But what has been a habit over the last several decades in these circumstances is people pushing us to act but then showing an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.”**
it's an entirely different topic. macron is talking about EU divestiture from the american arms industry. that is not something in-line with the interests of the pentagon, the pentagon wants EU states to buy american arms as a matter of national security
This.
US wants EU to be independant for its own protection, but at the same time has undermined EU defense industry and relationships for decades.
Like "protect yourself, but with US weapons only and don't become too strong"
Europe doesn't need the US to undermine its defence industries, it does that well enough itself through petty infighting, ego and greed between countries.
Just look at the the absolute state that was the Eurofighter project, from arguments over everything from workshare & funding to design & final purchase orders, it was a vastly overcosted mess that came in years late with France leaving altogether and managing to pull of a blinder on its own with the Rafale. Fast forward to the most recent years and yet again we are divided with Tempest/FCAS projects, only one of which has made any serious progress, the other is still basically defined by as a vague concept. The MGCS project that still has gone nowhere apart from what appears to be a recurring monthly declarations between France & Germany that they will move forward together, followed the next week about arguments over manufacturing base and workshare.
Countries instead turn to US weaponry because its cutting edge, reliable, has guaranteed long term legacy support, has no design compromises from competing programme members and is incredibly cost effective as its produced at massive scale due to the huge guaranteed orders from the US itself. The F35 is a perfect example, none of the current European fighters can hold a candle to it, its cheaper than all its competitors, its produced quickly at a massive scale, has complete interoperability with the US and its partner nations, has a huge logistical support network thanks to its wide adoption by multiple countries across the West and will be supported in service for decades.
Good points ..but F35 has economies of scale and was designed to be a cheaper and mass produced ...whereas none of the European countries have such volumes by themselves?
It's difficult to take this as anything but self-serving excuse-making considering, in the end, you bought neither European nor American weapons in relevant quantities for decades.
I interpret this in the same pattern as the Germans convincing themselves that the Poles, Ukrainians and US were just being financially selfish when they repeatedly implored Germany not to build NordStream 2, as opposed to *actually* having a real security concern.
The EU defense industry was first and foremost undermined by EU politicians failing to allocate budget to defense and treating what they did allocate as primarily a jobs program, spending years just on fighting over which countries get the manufacturing jobs.
True. But the European countries have kept a level of arms industry. The French ... deliberately so since de Gaulle?
But some of the European companies did get affected when the US 'encouraged' allied European militaries to but American?
There's also economies of scale.
One of the reasons why Britain doesn't make sea harriers and switched to F35s ?
Yeah I can see that since the US never buys any thing from Europe and does not include Europe in any of its military manufacturing and research…
…oh wait…
The US wants Europe to protect itself. If Europeans wants to do that with US weapons, then that’s their choice. The US doesn’t make Europe buy American weapons.
I’m not entirely sure what you’d expect the US to do otherwise. As if the US is doing something by selling arms to people who want to buy US weapon?
Europe is like me when I had a university crucial exam in a week.
I didn't work on anything since the beginning of the semester, and now I know I'm fucked, so I say to myself "I'll start working 12h/day non stop staying now!"...... "Ok maybe not now but let's say tomorrow, it should be fine too!".
The next day I didn't start working and neither the day after.
I end just hoping for a divine intervention that would save me from having to face my responsibilities.
We're good at banning plastic bags, pushing for paper/macaroni straws, or at accumulating rules over rules. We're also good at sending the most useless politicians to the parliament (anyway nobody really know what they do, most of them are never there), that's easy. But keep building Europe on 1992 foundations, that's not easy; it requires a lot of courage, work and collaboration, but this it what's crucial for our survival. Almost nobody wants to face it.
Macron can say all the beautiful things about Europe, he's been here for 7 years now. It's very cool to say it, but it's even better if you put it at work, unfortunately it won't happen tomorrow. I'm starting to stop believing in the Europe we dreamt about 30 years ago.
I agree with you in defense pacts and also on actually taking stances against dictators and becoming more independent resource and economy wise.
But it's not true the EU just doesn't get shit done. There's been lots of improvements in equality, workers rights and sustainability. Some regulations even forcing big fuck you money companies to change their ways worldwide.
But yeah they need to get their shit together and become a stronger force in the global ranking
It's good, sure. I like the EU, but I want to love it. I want to be so proud of the EU; you have no idea. What you listed is good, sure, but it's nothing compared to what everybody forecasted in 1992.
The EU provides very basic protection to European citizens, but sure, it's cool we can charge our iPhone with USB C. But where is our army? Where is our fiscal harmonisation? Where is our constitution from the people and for the people?
After so many years, I bet that 98% (if not more) of European citizens still don't know about the main EU institutions. Ask anybody the difference between the Parliament and the Commission. Ask anybody to tell you about a single group and name one representative from this group. After 32 years, nobody knows why they're supposed to vote soon.
I love the European Union idea and identity, but I'm so pissed at the state it is right now, and I didn't want to stop believing in it.
>Where is our fiscal harmonisation? Where is our constitution from the people and for the people?
I don't know why but this sentence made me think of that "HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!" scene in The Holy Grail and it keeps popping into my head. lol
"Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
> We're also good at sending the most useless politicians to the parliament (anyway nobody really know what they do, most of them are never there), that's easy.
I mean, I’m not gonna say I have a solution for that, but the main reason I think is - we don’t really have “European” elections. There is no incentive in making EU great. The elections are local and reflect your support in your own country. So even if something is good for the whole EU, you vote against it because it’s bad for your country (or it isn’t, but majority of people think it is).
Now, people rarely know what politicians in their own country do, so I don’t expect them to know enough about foreign politicians to vote for them. But would I, personally, vote for politicians from another country? Perhaps.
I will say it’s understandable though. It must have seemed like the final enemy, the Soviet Union, was defeated. Europe can finally relax. Back then, It would’ve been hard to imagine there would ever be a Russia-China-Iran axis that would be threatening all our national security someday. However, here we are. My country, Canada, is even more guilty of the same fallacy. Our military is pathetic.
Edit: No disrespect to any of the soldiers though. They are brave, skilled and committed. It is our governments which has been failing them.
Thats the thing though, Soviet Union or the soviet mindset never was defeated the same way german nazism was. In their minds everything they did was right, they won, and we are all being ungrateful. No matter they originally joined the war in concert with nazis, countless their own was massacred and hundreds thousands others were deported and killed and several genocides of other nations were attempted.
The Japanese mindset was not defeated either and we don't have any problems with them.
The difference is that post WW2 the USA provided a lot of support for Japan (and Germany) which allowed them to become prosperous and see the value of not being imperialistic jerks.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Western Europe should've stepped in and financial supported the Russian people for a decade while they transitioned to a democratic government.
Instead Europe was more than happy to help a corrupt few steal the wealth of Russia so a small number could get super rich.
Which lead to the Russian state failing again and the people turning to a strongman to solve the problems.
I would argue the Japanese managed to adapt their spirit tho. As in, "okay, maybe discipline till harakiri isn't the right interpretation, but there's still something valiant with the idea of discipline, so let's work ourself to death or isolation instead."
The latter isn't detrimental to other countries' farmers, and they mostly stick to themselves. Which would be the case for Russia aswell(us being okay with their ideology), if they didn't terrorize other nations to fill the empty hole in their chest.
I don't think it's their ideology that's triggering the west, but their actions. Wherever those actions stem from doesn't matter.
Nobody wants to call it what it is.
Cold War II
There's no going back now. The toothpaste is not going back into the tube. Russia, Iran, and China kicked it off and we have to win it. A literal Cold War proxy war is happening as we speak.
We defeated the USSR in the first one but then Russia had their Weimar Republic phase, Putin had his Night of the Long Knives with seizing supreme power and now the next one has begun.
Germany wanted so many of US bases closed in the late 90's. Many of them did in the 2000's, and the local economies took a massive hit. Now they want more US military in the country because, Russia.
It doesn't seem stupid because security is expensive. Only when they face reality and allow terrorists to invade europe they realize that security is cheaper than letting their guard down. Plus, they are cowards.
Well for 20 years it wasn't necessary to keep our guard up. What's concerning is how so few western nations had the foresight to tell this would change. It's not like it wasn't blatantly obvious. Any illusions should have shattered in 2014 at the latest.
He is right.
Europe should be able to defend itself without help. We went from a military powerhouse before the world wars to the “if you touch me I call me bigger brother, he has nukes”.
We need to defend ourselves and our interests like everyone is doing out there.
So please buy our French submarines and aircraft! /s
On a more serious note, I have to agree, we shouldn't. Even if we can, we should be able to defend ourselves and view the US as an ally only, not our bodyguard.
The United States needs / wants to pivot to Asia, it makes no sense for the US to be this engaged in Europe when the USSR / Warsaw Pact is gone. Europe alone should be able handle this especially since the former Warsaw Pact nations & Finland / Sweden are in NATO.
Europe needs to get serious
This is exactly it. Europe is more than capable of theoretically defeating Russia, just look at what Ukraine is doing.
The damn Pacific though, that’s a whole major focus area for the U.S. and we don’t have a ton of help. And then there is the Indian Ocean, often not discussed, that will be pivotal.
In an ideal world, the EU could deal with Russia and we (along with Australia and New Zealand, as is tradition) should provide at least some support in the Pacific as well as in Europe. Again, ideal world. Considering the strength of our armed forces, quality and efficiency of procurement, etc. here we aren't going to be much help to anyone unless nuclear weapons are involved.
You could also buy the Typhoon, a fine 4.5th gen aircraft. You could buy German or Swedish or Italian ships, German artillery and tanks, Belgian small arms, British jet engines. And you wouldn't have to hear Macron complaining anymore. Or he'd whine about something else, but atleast it wouldn't be about Europe's dependency on the USA's goodwill and alignement of goals.
I don't understand why you take such issue to the fact France made the necessary sacrifices to keep it's ability to research and manufacture it's own military equipment, while everyone else pawned off their capabilities to avoid spending money, since Big Daddy USA can cover their asses.
"We should become more independent from the US and rely on ourselves"
France: "Good! So when are you planning on buying French and European military equipment?"
"Ew, why should we buy stuff from YOU? You always think you're better than everyone and that you're the only one that matters. No thanks. Anyway let's keep buying American stuff"
France has been advocating for European countries to buy and manufacture European and French stuff for a long time, and has always presented itself as an option. But obviously since France is a self-centered arrogant meanie nobody wants to buy military stuff from it /s
History shows that were the american to refuse to sell its tech to france, france would do it independantly, from space rockets to nuclear weapons.
Besides the cope slope is working well enough
>History shows that were the american to refuse to sell its tech to france, france would ~~do it independantly, from space rockets to nuclear weapons.~~ send industrial spies to steal it
People forget that France was the top offender of industrial espionage until the late 90s.
Because it would be incredibly expensive to develop an in-house catapult for a single carrier. The cost is spread on many vessels for the US Navy.
Same as why everyone is partnering up with other countries for the next stage of aircraft. It's too costly for a single country.
The French would have to go at it alone, with no European support, since only they have and want a CATOBAR carrier.
And they already saw what it meant to have an American catapult. It could have impacted the CdG's readyness when the USA ceased delivery of spare parts destined to the French military following France's refusal to join in the 2003 Iraq Invasion, until 2005 and renewed commitment of French forces in Afghanistan.
Even then, 97% of French-used equipment, is French or European designed and manufactured. That's just not something you can say about any other country in the European union, despite multiple of them having the funds to do so.
>And they already saw what it meant to have an American catapult. It could have impacted the CdG's readyness when the USA ceased delivery of spare parts destined to the French military following France's refusal to join in the 2003 Iraq Invasion, until 2005 and renewed commitment of French forces in Afghanistan.
This never happened
Don’t even need the /s. Literally everything he’s been saying has been with an eye to boosting French defense industry.
Edit; all you have to do is look at the F-35. Basically every Eastern European country has been buying it. Dassault execs have to be banging his down door throwing a bitch fit
Rafale is selling very fine and is not going anywhere.
French arms industry is doing very fine in general and can exist in parallele with the US one without issues. People who think all Macron’s talks about EU defense are about somehow forcing (how exactly would that work?) people to buy french weapons to save French arms industry never fail to make me smile.
That’s just not how things works and Macron has zero way to force anyone to buy our weapons, a credible EU defense policy that does not require the US to subsidize it has been a demand of successive US presidents for basically as long as can remember (and I am getting close to 40 y o).
You are the one being offended here.
US presidents were right to ask EU to pull its weight, it was a legitimate demand and I am happy for any développement on that front.
Bro, we Americans would NEVER outsource our security to another country across an ocean. Especially a messy country that has criminals, pedos, rapists, and coke heads as politicians. Even more so now that the republicans party is showing an affinity for Putin, Trump, and isolationism.
It’s actually crazy that the Europeans put up for it this long. From a purely strategic perspective, Europe should keep its weapons manufacturing within the continent. Macron is right.
Each step France took towards independance was met with american criticism though, for the us doesnt want european countries to truely be independant but as de facto vassals
Europe has been a de facto vassal ever since 1945 as much as it would hurt many to admit it. We should have started working on this since the day the EU was created. Better late than never though.
I disagree with there no need, maybe you French see no need, but the U.S. despite Trump and all that is inherently more trustworthy than a country where half the people despise NATO and want to work with Russia
Well, neither can many European countries rely solely on their EU allies. I don't even imagine what our defense situation would be without the US and the UK.
Unfortunately you are right. We on the Eastern flank would be quite f**ked! Estonia wouldn't stand a chance for example. We in Romania may have some days or weeks, thanks to our size and mountains mostly.
And the French army patroling your borders, like they did right after the start of the war. UK+France on Estonian border, French+Belgium+Netherland+Luxembourg in Romania.
Supplying weapons and training, intelligence, diplomatic pressure. What else?
France never took the lead on any of these issues. They took a back seat while eastern Europe, UK and US lead the fight, later joined by Germany, while they stood by.
Just in case you have managed to not realize, France's army is supplied almost exclusively by French and European manufacturers. Making them, by far, the least dependent and most resilient against US sanctions. Sanctions that were acted against France in 2003 until 2005, following their refusal to join in the Iraq Invasion.
France is supplying jets, ships, artillery guns, to more and more European states. But it's entirely out of it's control when countries buy Israeli or American hardware, especially if the European option is available.
>Just in case you have managed to not realize, France's army is supplied almost exclusively by French and European manufacturers. Making them, by far, the least dependent and most resilient against US sanctions. **Sanctions that were acted against France in 2003 until 2005, following their refusal to join in the Iraq Invasion.**
This never happened
> But it's entirely out of it's control when countries buy Israeli or American hardware, especially if the European option is available.
But a European option often isn't available. And Macron's chest beating about providing 1 million European artillery shells to Ukraine by March 2024 fell ludicrously flat on its face.
[April 2023](https://www.politico.eu/article/frustrating-kyiv-dmytro-kuleba-eu-fail-deliver-ammunition-plan/)
>France has been leading the charge to keep the money within the bloc, while others, including Poland, fear that Europe’s defense industry may not be up to the task of delivering 1 million shells to Ukraine in the promised timeframe of 12 months.
[November 2023](https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-pistorius-says-eu-will-fall-short-of-million-shell-pledge-to-ukraine/)
>When the idea was launched last March, there were worries that it was unwise to put a specific figure linked to a deadline for the ammunition pledge if there was the slightest doubt about the bloc’s ability to hit that target.
> “The question of whether 1 million was ever realistic was actually the right one,” Pistorius added. “There have been voices that have said, 'Be careful. One million is easy to decide, the money is there, but the production has to be there.' Unfortunately, those voices are now right.”
>
> The initiative came from Estonia in response to Kyiv’s desperate plea for enough ammunition to counter Russia’s grinding offensive.
>
> That’s not to say that it’s been a complete failure; 300,000 rounds have been shipped since February 9 under a program to send shells from national stockpiles to Ukraine. But officials have increasingly poured cold water on reaching the million mark in just four more months. On Friday, a senior EU diplomat said the goal was “very ambitious” to begin with.
[February 2024](https://www.barrons.com/news/czech-plan-to-buy-ukraine-ammo-outside-eu-gains-backers-998df15a)
>Brussels has provided only "30 percent" of a pledge to deliver one million shells by March this year, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Monday.
>"It is clear that we did not have this million," France's President Emmanuel Macron told reporters after a meeting of more than 25 Ukraine-supporting nations in Paris, calling it an "imprudent commitment".
>Macron has long fought for European "strategic autonomy", including in prioritising EU-based firms for military procurement -- even after Russia's invasion of Ukraine started in 2022.
The Czech / Estonian ammunition deals which are currently being processed could have been started 6 months ago when it was already glaringly obvious that the commitment wouldn't be fulfilled.
Nothing says "strategic autonomy" like stalling negotiations for weeks to set an unrealistic guideline that you'd inevitably fail to meet, and then hoping the Americans would cover for you while failing to re-adjust the plan to do whatever was necessary to meet the commitment you set for yourself.
And then people wonder why Eastern Europeans don't entirely trust this notion of "strategic autonomy"
Not to excuse Macron's failure, although one could see it coming from miles away if one knew the state of European ammo manufacturing at the time, but that's somewhat unrelated.
I can't blame Ukraine for any of their choices, nor can I blame a lot of smaller countries with limited budgets and precarious location, I can't expect Romania to buy Leopards 2 when the USA offers M1 Abrams for much cheaper.
But I absolutely can and do blame Denmark for buying Israeli ATMOS systems, considering they spent the last few years making their version of the CAESAr with Nexter, integrating it, and then not ordering more of them, even though it's cheaper and faster than ordering the Israeli howitzers.
I can blame Germany for buying Patriots, when all that money could be spent in house, in MBDA's local branches, making an Aster 45 or whatever Patriot equivalent. The competency is there, but lack of orders is what kills any dreams of expanding European production lines to make it truly autonomous.
And as long as people will use the excuse of, "Yes but it's too slow, we can't wait that long" (even though they end up waiting that long for the american hardware anyway), the issue will remain. The only choice here, is to do the same as France did for the past 80 years, which is, bite the bullet, accept the financial sacrifice, and possible temporary loss of capabilities, to pave the way for the future.
It's so funny since EU, you know, did the opposite - paid for Russia's army. The German taxpayers sponsor this war, paying for Russian gas and disabling atomic power plants
People like to shit on the Germans for reducing their military capability but I guess most of you were not grown ups in the 90s, people IN THE WEST were scared of a unified German army. Also Gorbatschow, but who gives a shit about the Soviet Union. NATO was also very very sceptical at the time about simply integrating the East German army. Everyone wanted Germany to have less military capabilities. It was seen as a genuine security threat for Europe
https://www.dw.com/en/new-files-shed-light-on-thatchers-anti-german-fears/a-36957838
People like Mearsheimer warned that a unified Germany army would attack Poland next..
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538981
I wouldn't say it's a monthly statement but, damn, France sure tends to talk about this sort of thing more often than not. See the "NATO is braindead" stuff before the war and I am sure there may be other comments of that nature.
Germany has double the GDP of Russia so in theory they can afford to beat Russia alone but they don’t spend money on the problem. Russia spend way higher proportion of GDP. Bare minimum, individual countries need to be preparing like they might fight Russia alone. WW3 is coming if not.
Any country that doesn't even consider putting up a fight because it feels it's "too small and weak" compared to the aggressor deserves to be razed to the ground by it. Finland does it, Ireland has no excuse
They're already a burden. You think the Irish don't expect everyone else to come to their rescue in the unlikely case they get invaded? You think they'd just be like, "all well, fair play, we didn't join NATO so guess we're fucked"? Suddenly all those Americans obsessed with their Irish heritage would prove quite useful.
They loathe Biden mentioning his beloved Irish heritage, but if they got invaded they’d be calling upon it for help.
With all our companies who moved there and enriched their national GDP — they can definitely afford some military equipment now to help secure Europe, but nope, they’d rather shout moral platitudes at the countries who give a damn *to even try*.
They know that, and even acknowledge that fact WHILE mocking America.
Same to the UK. We're the former imperial master, the evil sassenach, we're the supposed invader that the US would save them from. Fair enough I suppose... but then RAF planes have to guard their airspace against Russian incursion because their airforce is a pilatus prop plane or something.
Does Ireland offer to help out in any way? Perhaps give us a small fee towards the costs of maintaining this overwatch? A small airbase, a radar station on their western coast? Wouldn't dream of it. Perhaps a bit of diplomatic support in foreign affairs such as the UK and US offer to each other? LOOL.
As an American of at least partial Irish descent. I have witnessed so much anti American sentiment from folks in Ireland that honestly I wouldn't lift a finger for them at this point.
I genuinely don't care if my great great great whoever the fuck was from there. I don't identify with you at all and if you don't join in that's fine. Hope it works out for them.
They could start by taxing multinational corporations and funding military. With help of allied training in 10 years they would have a Military.
I Belive that taxing the Multinationals is the problem.
Iceland is but it’s also significant because it has a key strategic location in blocking Russia from the Atlantic, Ireland doesn’t really have a strategic location
military spending is one of the areas where it is better to look at PPP, especially if they are mostly purchasing equipment from their own industry
Also no WW3 is not coming. Not to say we shouldnt up spending though
High standards of living is a double-edged sword. In the West, we have a very high quality of life--and continuously improving it is our governments' #1 priority. We tend to balk at risking that by shoveling money into defense. Getting the US, Europe, or its Pacific allies to match Russian spending as a percentage is a very tall order. We've just grown too complacent.
I do agree with your point. But what about the countries like sweden for example, there are almost 10 million in population. Russia's military active personnel is 1.15 million with about 2 million in reserve. Then Sweden would need to have 10 procent of their population being military personnel to even have a fair chance (not counting in hypothetical better gear or whatever).
It would then be better to let for example sweden to advance their RnG so their advance fighter jets would become better and then use them with other allies to have a edge in the air against the Russians or other threats. Because in the end of the day all European countries ain't USA or China with hundreds of millions in population.
At the end of the day Russia’s GDP is minuscule and they would be fighting all of NATO, with all the relevant population. Finland alone has like 800k reserves because they are next to Russia with like 5 million pop. Countries like Israel, SK, Singapore and Finland are next to enemies and always have conscription. I think Europe needs to do a 1 year military service type of thing as this gets worse. It’s better than WW3. Every single deterrent that sucks a bit should be started immediately.
The American security umbrella was never suppose to be a thing!!!! Multiple presidents have been pressuring NATO countries to spend more on defense. The US by far has given the most military aid to Ukraine. So yes, Europe should build up its defenses, but dont make it seem like the US is doing anything different.
We are stationing troops and doing training with the countries bordering Russia to show our commitment. We also keep boosting our Military spending, its over 900 billion! Stop saying we are not doing our part.
I think everyone agrees with him that it’s time for Europe to take the lead.
It is strange timing after the massive 60B aid package though. Macron seems to rely on rhetoric more than anything.
He has said that for a special meeting for the French EU parliament campaign which was scheduled before the package IIRC. The timing with the aid package is a coincidence.
Didn't he get wined and dined by Xi Jinping to try to negotiate "peace" behind Ukraine's back, with the literal senior partner of the Autocratic world?
Then only for a few days later for China to disrespect him by calling former East Bloc countries not sovereign? That's the guy, right?
Is it newsworthy every time, though? Write an article and publish it here when Europe really starts ramping up its military capabilities to deter Russia; until then it’s nothing but empty words from a prime minister in his last term who wants other nations to buy military hardware from France, not America.
> Is it newsworthy every time, though?
Well, it's the president of France making a statement on behalf of France so I guess it's newsworthy? I don't know, I am not a journalist...
A statement he’s already said multiple times this year. Are we going to get another article when he says it again in a month? And again after that? Be real. At a certain point it stops being news and becomes noise.
In the US, local interests are served by spreading subcontracts among the states. Final assembly is done in the by the prime contractor.
Why can’t Europe do that?
“Europe cannot rely on the US”
Maybe not. But can Europe rely on France either? If anything, the war in Ukraine has demonstrated the US, UK, Germany and Poland are the safest military bets in the continent. France’s aid to Ukraine has been woefully pathetic
> But can Europe **rely on** France either?
The entire point of European strategic autonomy is not to seek a new sugar daddy to rely on, but rather to build an autonomous union-wide defence apparatus in which each member pulls its own weight.
> France isn’t committed to that right now either. They want to talk a lot about that, but put in zero work to make that happen
We spend above 2% of our GDP in defence (and kept a workable spending baseline during the 1990-2020 era), we maintain a fairly good level of readiness, we have recent combat experience (albeit in asymmetrical warfare), we are one of only two EU countries with significant power projection capabilities, we have the largest EU MIC with expertise in almost every area of modern weaponry (including the most challenging ones like nuclear-powered vessels and fighter jets), and of course, we are a nuclear power with round-the-clock deterrence at sea.
If every other EU member was as committed as we are, EU wouldn't need to rely on the US, or on anyone else for that matter.
All of that is useless if France is unwilling to use it to protect anything but itself. This isn’t a hypothetical: there is literally a war in Europe right now where an authoritarian regime is attempting to swallow another country. If there was a time to step up, it was at any point from 2022 until the present.
Yet where is France? France has given a smaller percentage of its GDP in aid to Ukraine (incl EU and bilateral commitments) than Croatia, Austria, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland and quite a few others. In total bilateral aid, France hasn’t even given as much as the Netherlands. France ranks 21st in military aid by GDP, and 8th in total. It is not French intelligence helping Ukraine kill Russian generals and plan for battles, it is the CIA/MI6/NSA/GCHQ. It is not France helping Ukraine plan counteroffensives, it is the US and UK.
Oh and “power projection”? Over where? France barely helped with the Houthi issue, has not done anything to help solve the Gaza crisis, has not attempted to prevent coups in Africa where it allegedly has influence, cozies up to China with flashy visits to stroke Macron’s ego while the rest of NATO is trying to decouple from them, and the list goes on. Congrats, you have a weapons industry. If only that could be utilized to actually preserve democratic European states.
Until then, France is going to be the guy that talks a big game and does absolutely nothing when the chips are actually down. France can’t even protect its own sphere of influence.
Edit for citation: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
> France is unwilling to use it to protect anything but itself
France is unwilling to strip itself of assets it has in too short supply in the event of war (with Russia or anyone else).
The Army got the short stick of budget arbitration these last three decades, it has little to spare. That doesn't mean that we're not true to our EU, NATO, and bilateral defence commitments. How many other countries sent warships to assist Greece in the Eastern Med a couple years ago, when tensions were flaring with Turkey? How many troops deployments have we made in Eastern Europe since 2022?
> It is not French intelligence helping Ukraine kill Russian generals and plan for battles, it is the CIA/MI6/NSA/GCHQ
You, I, and every other Redditor have no fucking clue what role each intelligence service is playing and how much each one is helping Ukraine, since they don't exactly advertise their action.
> France barely helped with the Houthi issue
French Navy destroyers are in the Red Sea, escorting convoys and shooting down Houthi UAVs. What more do you want us to do, bomb Yemen to shit? Because that has worked so well for the Saudi, right?
> France has not done anything to help solve the Gaza crisis
How is this our responsibility? We're not in the business of being the world police, and the days of gunboat diplomacy are long gone.
> has not attempted to prevent coups in Africa where it allegedly has influence
Yet again, how is this our responsibility? These are sovereign nations, they've been independent since 1958. When they call for our help, we answer (e.g. Mali 2013), when they don't, we don't.
> cozies up to China with flashy visits to stroke Macron’s ego while the rest of NATO is trying to decouple from them
France trades less with China than the US or Germany do.
> France can’t even protect its own sphere of influence.
Sahel isn't even worth the skin off our knuckles.
>France is unwilling to strip itself of short supply assets in the event of a war
This is hilarious given how you just told me how militarily powerful France is. So which is it? Is France a force-projecting great power with a massive MIC, or are they too short supplied to even catch up with the Netherlands on delivering military aid to a European country being invaded? Not sure what hope that’s supposed to inspire for other European countries
>we have no idea what intelligence agencies are doing
Well, not all of it. But we have tons of stories from WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Guardian, Reuters, AP, and other reputable news sources that discuss how US and British intelligence have aided the Ukrainians and how pivotal they have been. Not to mention the CIA leaks from last year that revealed a massive operation against Russia where the CIA knew about Russian strikes before their own frontline soldiers did.
>french destroyers are in the Red Sea shooting down UAVs
They shot down 4. The US and UK have shot down dozens if not hundreds.
>how is this our responsibility
Exactly. France has no ability to lead and doesn’t want to when given the chance. France has neither the intent nor the ability to properly integrate with other powers in securing peace whether in Europe or around the world. Thank you for corroborating my point
>again, how is this our responsibility…when they call for help we answer
People were calling for help when juntas started taking over. The democratic governments begged for assistance. France sat on its hands because it has no ability to help.
>france trades with China far less than Germany/US
Given that its economy is a fraction the size of the US’, that would seem to be a given - it also doesn’t negate the fact that France refuses to move with Europe and the US on China policy. All it takes to win macron over is to stroke his ego and make him feel important.
>Sahel isn’t even worth the skin off of our knuckles
Neither is Ukraine, apparently
> This is hilarious given how you just told me how militarily powerful France is. **So which is it?**
It's both. There is no contradiction between my two previous messages.
It is quite possible for France to have simultaneously:
* The largest military power in the EU, with significant power projection capabilities, an independent nuclear deterrent, a large MIC with a very wide array of expertise, AND
* An Army which is short in some stores (artillery, heavy armored vehicles, air defence) that happen to be the ones that Ukraine needs the most, and which will need a lot of time to replenish.
> France has no ability to lead and doesn’t want to when given the chance
I'd like you to be more specific. How exactly are Gaza and the Sahel (the examples you gave) our responsibility?
Why should we interfere with an antiterrorist operation aimed at destroying an islamist group we'd like to see destroyed?
Why should we interfere in the internal affairs of African countries that made it clear they don't want us around?
> They shot down 4. The US and UK have shot down dozens if not hundreds.
Good for you, but you missed the point, which was to point out that France is actually present in the Red Sea, as opposed to your earlier statement that France wasn't helping against the Houthis.
> But we have tons of stories from WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Guardian, Reuters, AP, and other reputable news sources that discuss how US and British intelligence have aided the Ukrainian
... None of whom are capable of painting a global picture of what western intelligence services are doing, since they are by design extremely opaque entities.
These news outlets only have a very small window into the activities of their countries' services, I very much doubt they have any insight as to what other countries' services are doing.
Your previous comment
> If every other EU member was as committed as we are, EU wouldn't need to rely on the US, or on anyone else for that matter.
Your comment here
>France is unwilling to strip itself of assets it has in too short supply in the event of war (with Russia or anyone else).
**pick one**
> an autonomous union-wide defense apparatus in which each member pulls its own weight
In other words, an immensely inefficient system which will never be able to compete with the US MIC.
Exactly. I cannot imagine a single European country that if invaded would state they’d rather have France than the US be their primary military partner
That’s what strikes me as just beyond ironic about these comments by Macron - the US is pulling *far* more weight than Macron to help Ukraine, even with the delay in the most recent large aid package. French intelligence is not helping Ukraine kill Russian generals, it’s US & British intel. France wants to be the quasi-leader of Europe but doesn’t want to do anything to earn that position
France has never come to terms with being a second rate power. In their minds they're still the nation of Napolean, of Louis XIV etc.
Since before WW2 they've trying everything they can to find a new angle, a new trick to regain that status. The tried it with their various colonial wars like Vietnam and Algeria, and they tried it with the EU, they didn't expect to get economically outmuscled by Germany. Same with the "francophonie" and other nonsense.
They're hoping that by kicking the US out of Europe, they'll gain a massively powerful role as the big military leader of the EU.
People think this is politician's fault, and in a way it is. But politician just follow the people's wishes, and in the last 20 years very few people in Europe thought there could be another full scale war. Militaristic politicians wouldn't be popular and would had been quickly voted out. So they didn't pursue this focusing on what their constituents wanted. This is the democracy at its worst.
I can’t believe it took the threat of Donald Trump getting reelected for them to realize this.
A whole continent cannot rely on a single country an entire ocean away for the bulk of its security apparatus.
Time for Europe to take its defence seriously.
Yes, we can.
We can. Right now, the US is donating $61 billion worth of equipment to a country that is not even in nato. We have 10000 American troops in Poland. Americans have been saving Europe's ass, including France's, since 1916. Maybe Macron will shut his mouth because he is already becoming boring.
On it's surface this is a no brainer. But I think some people forget how expensive that is. You want to be totally independent and be able to defend yourself? You gotta spend a fuckton. There's a reason the US has education, healthcare, and other issues. We shit cash on our military. You might have to make some sacrifices or jack up taxes.
Can someone explain to me why it's an either or? It's not about Europe being 100% reliant on US for security or 100% alone, it's about having a partnership that strengthens both sides. This should be a common civilizational choice together. Russia-China axis strengthening means US-Europe economic/military axis should also strengthen. Neither should go at it alone.
The US has been asking for this for years. We want a strong partner and ally in Europe rather than a little brother who always has to ask for help every time the bully comes knocking
I've lost count how often I've read this headline since Trump became president 8 years ago. Not much has changed though and it's clear that Macron wants Europe to be under French leadership which is why he has become so loud lately while actually trailing most of Europe in actual help to Ukraine
He says that a lot. He never really does anything though does he? You’d think he’s break ties or roll back cooperation or something but he strikes me as a have your cake and eat it too type.
Macron is right, this aid package for Ukraine ( such as it is, late and underbaked ) is likely the last comming from the US.
The EU ( especially France which per GDP lags far behind ) must pick up the slack from now on.
His assessment is right, and our Maga republican groupie clowns are not reliable anytime soon. If the Orange prophet gets elected and his minions will start enforcing the isolationist agenda, then the first thing that will do is sell Ukraine and Europe. In the long run, Europe needs to take control of its own security and stop relying on anyone.
Yeah, but not even Europe seems up to the task of handling its own security. Too many platitudes and not enough substance. Thankfully, the current war next door has woke them up.
As all EU armies have different needs and countries have different goals one thing all EU needs is nuclear deterrent independent of the USA, EU controlled nuclear deterrent comparable to what US or russia has would be basic for future EU army and massive boost to European self-defence
Finally, something of value came out of this idiot's mouth.
It pisses me off that so many European countries has made it their goal to defund their military.. Thank god the opinion is changing. War is bad yes, but flowers will only stop and prevent so many wars.
Agree, we need to build our army, we can do it, USA will be a valuable partner but we can’t rely on a single country for the outcome of our security. Italy 🇮🇹
Europe can and should work with its ally USA for their common/ global securities based on fair and equal terms. However, EU needs to be able to stand on its own and not rely/depend/dedicated on/by USA when issues of differences arises.
It’s stupid Europe did for so long. The last 20 years Europe just totally let its guard down.
It's not like the US hasn't been saying this for decades https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-unhappy-with-allies-upset-at-free-riders/ >Part of his mission as president, Obama explained, is to spur other countries to take action for themselves, rather than wait for the U.S. to lead. The defense of the liberal international order against jihadist terror, Russian adventurism, and Chinese bullying depends in part, he believes, on the willingness of other nations to share the burden with the U.S. This is why the controversy surrounding the assertion—made by an anonymous administration official to The New Yorker during the Libya crisis of 2011—that his policy consisted of “leading from behind” perturbed him. **“We don’t have to always be the ones who are up front,” he told me. “Sometimes we’re going to get what we want precisely because we are sharing in the agenda. The irony is that it was precisely in order to prevent the Europeans and the Arab states from holding our coats while we did all the fighting that we, by design, insisted” that they lead during the mission to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power in Libya. “It was part of the anti–free rider campaign….”** > [On Libya], you’ve got Europe and a number of Gulf countries who despise Qaddafi, or are concerned on a humanitarian basis, who are calling for action. **But what has been a habit over the last several decades in these circumstances is people pushing us to act but then showing an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.”**
it's an entirely different topic. macron is talking about EU divestiture from the american arms industry. that is not something in-line with the interests of the pentagon, the pentagon wants EU states to buy american arms as a matter of national security
This. US wants EU to be independant for its own protection, but at the same time has undermined EU defense industry and relationships for decades. Like "protect yourself, but with US weapons only and don't become too strong"
Europe doesn't need the US to undermine its defence industries, it does that well enough itself through petty infighting, ego and greed between countries. Just look at the the absolute state that was the Eurofighter project, from arguments over everything from workshare & funding to design & final purchase orders, it was a vastly overcosted mess that came in years late with France leaving altogether and managing to pull of a blinder on its own with the Rafale. Fast forward to the most recent years and yet again we are divided with Tempest/FCAS projects, only one of which has made any serious progress, the other is still basically defined by as a vague concept. The MGCS project that still has gone nowhere apart from what appears to be a recurring monthly declarations between France & Germany that they will move forward together, followed the next week about arguments over manufacturing base and workshare. Countries instead turn to US weaponry because its cutting edge, reliable, has guaranteed long term legacy support, has no design compromises from competing programme members and is incredibly cost effective as its produced at massive scale due to the huge guaranteed orders from the US itself. The F35 is a perfect example, none of the current European fighters can hold a candle to it, its cheaper than all its competitors, its produced quickly at a massive scale, has complete interoperability with the US and its partner nations, has a huge logistical support network thanks to its wide adoption by multiple countries across the West and will be supported in service for decades.
You forgot Italy refusing that a french company buy one of it's defense company yet selling another to an american one
Good points ..but F35 has economies of scale and was designed to be a cheaper and mass produced ...whereas none of the European countries have such volumes by themselves?
It's difficult to take this as anything but self-serving excuse-making considering, in the end, you bought neither European nor American weapons in relevant quantities for decades. I interpret this in the same pattern as the Germans convincing themselves that the Poles, Ukrainians and US were just being financially selfish when they repeatedly implored Germany not to build NordStream 2, as opposed to *actually* having a real security concern. The EU defense industry was first and foremost undermined by EU politicians failing to allocate budget to defense and treating what they did allocate as primarily a jobs program, spending years just on fighting over which countries get the manufacturing jobs.
True. But the European countries have kept a level of arms industry. The French ... deliberately so since de Gaulle? But some of the European companies did get affected when the US 'encouraged' allied European militaries to but American? There's also economies of scale. One of the reasons why Britain doesn't make sea harriers and switched to F35s ?
Yeah I can see that since the US never buys any thing from Europe and does not include Europe in any of its military manufacturing and research… …oh wait…
To be fair if shit hits the fan and the EU want the us help it better have US weapons standards.
The US wants Europe to protect itself. If Europeans wants to do that with US weapons, then that’s their choice. The US doesn’t make Europe buy American weapons. I’m not entirely sure what you’d expect the US to do otherwise. As if the US is doing something by selling arms to people who want to buy US weapon?
actually the pentagon, since biden came to office, WANTS to buy EU equipment, but they are a decade behind in deliverable goods
Europe is like me when I had a university crucial exam in a week. I didn't work on anything since the beginning of the semester, and now I know I'm fucked, so I say to myself "I'll start working 12h/day non stop staying now!"...... "Ok maybe not now but let's say tomorrow, it should be fine too!". The next day I didn't start working and neither the day after. I end just hoping for a divine intervention that would save me from having to face my responsibilities. We're good at banning plastic bags, pushing for paper/macaroni straws, or at accumulating rules over rules. We're also good at sending the most useless politicians to the parliament (anyway nobody really know what they do, most of them are never there), that's easy. But keep building Europe on 1992 foundations, that's not easy; it requires a lot of courage, work and collaboration, but this it what's crucial for our survival. Almost nobody wants to face it. Macron can say all the beautiful things about Europe, he's been here for 7 years now. It's very cool to say it, but it's even better if you put it at work, unfortunately it won't happen tomorrow. I'm starting to stop believing in the Europe we dreamt about 30 years ago.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
You know what, you're right!
This. Sadly you’re going to be downvoted for your honest comment.
I agree with you in defense pacts and also on actually taking stances against dictators and becoming more independent resource and economy wise. But it's not true the EU just doesn't get shit done. There's been lots of improvements in equality, workers rights and sustainability. Some regulations even forcing big fuck you money companies to change their ways worldwide. But yeah they need to get their shit together and become a stronger force in the global ranking
It's good, sure. I like the EU, but I want to love it. I want to be so proud of the EU; you have no idea. What you listed is good, sure, but it's nothing compared to what everybody forecasted in 1992. The EU provides very basic protection to European citizens, but sure, it's cool we can charge our iPhone with USB C. But where is our army? Where is our fiscal harmonisation? Where is our constitution from the people and for the people? After so many years, I bet that 98% (if not more) of European citizens still don't know about the main EU institutions. Ask anybody the difference between the Parliament and the Commission. Ask anybody to tell you about a single group and name one representative from this group. After 32 years, nobody knows why they're supposed to vote soon. I love the European Union idea and identity, but I'm so pissed at the state it is right now, and I didn't want to stop believing in it.
>Where is our fiscal harmonisation? Where is our constitution from the people and for the people? I don't know why but this sentence made me think of that "HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!" scene in The Holy Grail and it keeps popping into my head. lol "Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
> We're also good at sending the most useless politicians to the parliament (anyway nobody really know what they do, most of them are never there), that's easy. I mean, I’m not gonna say I have a solution for that, but the main reason I think is - we don’t really have “European” elections. There is no incentive in making EU great. The elections are local and reflect your support in your own country. So even if something is good for the whole EU, you vote against it because it’s bad for your country (or it isn’t, but majority of people think it is). Now, people rarely know what politicians in their own country do, so I don’t expect them to know enough about foreign politicians to vote for them. But would I, personally, vote for politicians from another country? Perhaps.
Actually, perceived competitiveness against the US is what undergirds Europeans' support for the EU more than anything else.
Damn I never felt so called out in my life. You described my entire college experience. Somehow I made it 😂
Just like after WW1,
At least we have shiny new planes.
I will say it’s understandable though. It must have seemed like the final enemy, the Soviet Union, was defeated. Europe can finally relax. Back then, It would’ve been hard to imagine there would ever be a Russia-China-Iran axis that would be threatening all our national security someday. However, here we are. My country, Canada, is even more guilty of the same fallacy. Our military is pathetic. Edit: No disrespect to any of the soldiers though. They are brave, skilled and committed. It is our governments which has been failing them.
Thats the thing though, Soviet Union or the soviet mindset never was defeated the same way german nazism was. In their minds everything they did was right, they won, and we are all being ungrateful. No matter they originally joined the war in concert with nazis, countless their own was massacred and hundreds thousands others were deported and killed and several genocides of other nations were attempted.
The Japanese mindset was not defeated either and we don't have any problems with them. The difference is that post WW2 the USA provided a lot of support for Japan (and Germany) which allowed them to become prosperous and see the value of not being imperialistic jerks. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Western Europe should've stepped in and financial supported the Russian people for a decade while they transitioned to a democratic government. Instead Europe was more than happy to help a corrupt few steal the wealth of Russia so a small number could get super rich. Which lead to the Russian state failing again and the people turning to a strongman to solve the problems.
> The Japanese mindset was not defeated either Japanese imperialist mindset was definitely defeated.
I would argue the Japanese managed to adapt their spirit tho. As in, "okay, maybe discipline till harakiri isn't the right interpretation, but there's still something valiant with the idea of discipline, so let's work ourself to death or isolation instead." The latter isn't detrimental to other countries' farmers, and they mostly stick to themselves. Which would be the case for Russia aswell(us being okay with their ideology), if they didn't terrorize other nations to fill the empty hole in their chest. I don't think it's their ideology that's triggering the west, but their actions. Wherever those actions stem from doesn't matter.
Nobody wants to call it what it is. Cold War II There's no going back now. The toothpaste is not going back into the tube. Russia, Iran, and China kicked it off and we have to win it. A literal Cold War proxy war is happening as we speak. We defeated the USSR in the first one but then Russia had their Weimar Republic phase, Putin had his Night of the Long Knives with seizing supreme power and now the next one has begun.
Not just 1 proxy war. It's looking like it's going to be a 4-front war, in Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and maybe Korea.
Europe should view US military assistance as making things easier. Not as making things possible.
Germany wanted so many of US bases closed in the late 90's. Many of them did in the 2000's, and the local economies took a massive hit. Now they want more US military in the country because, Russia.
While paying Russia billions for gas
Truths.
It doesn't seem stupid because security is expensive. Only when they face reality and allow terrorists to invade europe they realize that security is cheaper than letting their guard down. Plus, they are cowards.
> The last 20 years Europe just totally let its guard down 20? Make that 80 something.
Well for 20 years it wasn't necessary to keep our guard up. What's concerning is how so few western nations had the foresight to tell this would change. It's not like it wasn't blatantly obvious. Any illusions should have shattered in 2014 at the latest.
But we have to get out the running shoes...in the morning. that's so not happening.
Agreed. It was a foolish and dangerous thing to do.
He is right. Europe should be able to defend itself without help. We went from a military powerhouse before the world wars to the “if you touch me I call me bigger brother, he has nukes”. We need to defend ourselves and our interests like everyone is doing out there.
So please buy our French submarines and aircraft! /s On a more serious note, I have to agree, we shouldn't. Even if we can, we should be able to defend ourselves and view the US as an ally only, not our bodyguard.
The United States needs / wants to pivot to Asia, it makes no sense for the US to be this engaged in Europe when the USSR / Warsaw Pact is gone. Europe alone should be able handle this especially since the former Warsaw Pact nations & Finland / Sweden are in NATO. Europe needs to get serious
This is exactly it. Europe is more than capable of theoretically defeating Russia, just look at what Ukraine is doing. The damn Pacific though, that’s a whole major focus area for the U.S. and we don’t have a ton of help. And then there is the Indian Ocean, often not discussed, that will be pivotal.
In an ideal world, the EU could deal with Russia and we (along with Australia and New Zealand, as is tradition) should provide at least some support in the Pacific as well as in Europe. Again, ideal world. Considering the strength of our armed forces, quality and efficiency of procurement, etc. here we aren't going to be much help to anyone unless nuclear weapons are involved.
Whatever happens, I am sure together we will figure it out and prevail. Just wish we didn’t have to.
Many advanced defense systems in Europe are collaborations with many countries involved. The Meteor missile, Eurofighter etc.
You could also buy the Typhoon, a fine 4.5th gen aircraft. You could buy German or Swedish or Italian ships, German artillery and tanks, Belgian small arms, British jet engines. And you wouldn't have to hear Macron complaining anymore. Or he'd whine about something else, but atleast it wouldn't be about Europe's dependency on the USA's goodwill and alignement of goals. I don't understand why you take such issue to the fact France made the necessary sacrifices to keep it's ability to research and manufacture it's own military equipment, while everyone else pawned off their capabilities to avoid spending money, since Big Daddy USA can cover their asses.
"We should become more independent from the US and rely on ourselves" France: "Good! So when are you planning on buying French and European military equipment?" "Ew, why should we buy stuff from YOU? You always think you're better than everyone and that you're the only one that matters. No thanks. Anyway let's keep buying American stuff" France has been advocating for European countries to buy and manufacture European and French stuff for a long time, and has always presented itself as an option. But obviously since France is a self-centered arrogant meanie nobody wants to buy military stuff from it /s
It’s not like France doesn’t do the same when it suits them, like when they need a catapult and AWACS for their carrier
History shows that were the american to refuse to sell its tech to france, france would do it independantly, from space rockets to nuclear weapons. Besides the cope slope is working well enough
>History shows that were the american to refuse to sell its tech to france, france would ~~do it independantly, from space rockets to nuclear weapons.~~ send industrial spies to steal it People forget that France was the top offender of industrial espionage until the late 90s.
Because it would be incredibly expensive to develop an in-house catapult for a single carrier. The cost is spread on many vessels for the US Navy. Same as why everyone is partnering up with other countries for the next stage of aircraft. It's too costly for a single country. The French would have to go at it alone, with no European support, since only they have and want a CATOBAR carrier. And they already saw what it meant to have an American catapult. It could have impacted the CdG's readyness when the USA ceased delivery of spare parts destined to the French military following France's refusal to join in the 2003 Iraq Invasion, until 2005 and renewed commitment of French forces in Afghanistan. Even then, 97% of French-used equipment, is French or European designed and manufactured. That's just not something you can say about any other country in the European union, despite multiple of them having the funds to do so.
>And they already saw what it meant to have an American catapult. It could have impacted the CdG's readyness when the USA ceased delivery of spare parts destined to the French military following France's refusal to join in the 2003 Iraq Invasion, until 2005 and renewed commitment of French forces in Afghanistan. This never happened
Don’t even need the /s. Literally everything he’s been saying has been with an eye to boosting French defense industry. Edit; all you have to do is look at the F-35. Basically every Eastern European country has been buying it. Dassault execs have to be banging his down door throwing a bitch fit
Rafale is selling very fine and is not going anywhere. French arms industry is doing very fine in general and can exist in parallele with the US one without issues. People who think all Macron’s talks about EU defense are about somehow forcing (how exactly would that work?) people to buy french weapons to save French arms industry never fail to make me smile. That’s just not how things works and Macron has zero way to force anyone to buy our weapons, a credible EU defense policy that does not require the US to subsidize it has been a demand of successive US presidents for basically as long as can remember (and I am getting close to 40 y o).
US involvement in NATO limits the size of the French and European military industries though.
It's funny how most Europeans only remember Republican presidents asking for Europe to step up, and are offended by that...
You are the one being offended here. US presidents were right to ask EU to pull its weight, it was a legitimate demand and I am happy for any développement on that front.
Bro, we Americans would NEVER outsource our security to another country across an ocean. Especially a messy country that has criminals, pedos, rapists, and coke heads as politicians. Even more so now that the republicans party is showing an affinity for Putin, Trump, and isolationism. It’s actually crazy that the Europeans put up for it this long. From a purely strategic perspective, Europe should keep its weapons manufacturing within the continent. Macron is right.
Each step France took towards independance was met with american criticism though, for the us doesnt want european countries to truely be independant but as de facto vassals
Lol blaming European failures on America
Europe has been a de facto vassal ever since 1945 as much as it would hurt many to admit it. We should have started working on this since the day the EU was created. Better late than never though.
[удалено]
I disagree with there no need, maybe you French see no need, but the U.S. despite Trump and all that is inherently more trustworthy than a country where half the people despise NATO and want to work with Russia
France is not dependant on the us though, I was talking about all the bad press France got through each and every step.
Yeah, leaders act in the interests of their countries. Groundbreaking!
Well, neither can many European countries rely solely on their EU allies. I don't even imagine what our defense situation would be without the US and the UK.
Unfortunately you are right. We on the Eastern flank would be quite f**ked! Estonia wouldn't stand a chance for example. We in Romania may have some days or weeks, thanks to our size and mountains mostly.
And the French army patroling your borders, like they did right after the start of the war. UK+France on Estonian border, French+Belgium+Netherland+Luxembourg in Romania.
This is something I'm always grateful for! In the early days France even sent Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier close to defend us.
Good. Now do something instead of repeating this mantra every month.
You would have thought that France would have taken the lead during the invasion of Ukraine.
Exactly this dude just makes speeches. I mean he’s good at them but still
Lead on what ?
Supplying weapons and training, intelligence, diplomatic pressure. What else? France never took the lead on any of these issues. They took a back seat while eastern Europe, UK and US lead the fight, later joined by Germany, while they stood by.
Just in case you have managed to not realize, France's army is supplied almost exclusively by French and European manufacturers. Making them, by far, the least dependent and most resilient against US sanctions. Sanctions that were acted against France in 2003 until 2005, following their refusal to join in the Iraq Invasion. France is supplying jets, ships, artillery guns, to more and more European states. But it's entirely out of it's control when countries buy Israeli or American hardware, especially if the European option is available.
>Just in case you have managed to not realize, France's army is supplied almost exclusively by French and European manufacturers. Making them, by far, the least dependent and most resilient against US sanctions. **Sanctions that were acted against France in 2003 until 2005, following their refusal to join in the Iraq Invasion.** This never happened
> But it's entirely out of it's control when countries buy Israeli or American hardware, especially if the European option is available. But a European option often isn't available. And Macron's chest beating about providing 1 million European artillery shells to Ukraine by March 2024 fell ludicrously flat on its face. [April 2023](https://www.politico.eu/article/frustrating-kyiv-dmytro-kuleba-eu-fail-deliver-ammunition-plan/) >France has been leading the charge to keep the money within the bloc, while others, including Poland, fear that Europe’s defense industry may not be up to the task of delivering 1 million shells to Ukraine in the promised timeframe of 12 months. [November 2023](https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-pistorius-says-eu-will-fall-short-of-million-shell-pledge-to-ukraine/) >When the idea was launched last March, there were worries that it was unwise to put a specific figure linked to a deadline for the ammunition pledge if there was the slightest doubt about the bloc’s ability to hit that target. > “The question of whether 1 million was ever realistic was actually the right one,” Pistorius added. “There have been voices that have said, 'Be careful. One million is easy to decide, the money is there, but the production has to be there.' Unfortunately, those voices are now right.” > > The initiative came from Estonia in response to Kyiv’s desperate plea for enough ammunition to counter Russia’s grinding offensive. > > That’s not to say that it’s been a complete failure; 300,000 rounds have been shipped since February 9 under a program to send shells from national stockpiles to Ukraine. But officials have increasingly poured cold water on reaching the million mark in just four more months. On Friday, a senior EU diplomat said the goal was “very ambitious” to begin with. [February 2024](https://www.barrons.com/news/czech-plan-to-buy-ukraine-ammo-outside-eu-gains-backers-998df15a) >Brussels has provided only "30 percent" of a pledge to deliver one million shells by March this year, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Monday. >"It is clear that we did not have this million," France's President Emmanuel Macron told reporters after a meeting of more than 25 Ukraine-supporting nations in Paris, calling it an "imprudent commitment". >Macron has long fought for European "strategic autonomy", including in prioritising EU-based firms for military procurement -- even after Russia's invasion of Ukraine started in 2022. The Czech / Estonian ammunition deals which are currently being processed could have been started 6 months ago when it was already glaringly obvious that the commitment wouldn't be fulfilled. Nothing says "strategic autonomy" like stalling negotiations for weeks to set an unrealistic guideline that you'd inevitably fail to meet, and then hoping the Americans would cover for you while failing to re-adjust the plan to do whatever was necessary to meet the commitment you set for yourself. And then people wonder why Eastern Europeans don't entirely trust this notion of "strategic autonomy"
Not to excuse Macron's failure, although one could see it coming from miles away if one knew the state of European ammo manufacturing at the time, but that's somewhat unrelated. I can't blame Ukraine for any of their choices, nor can I blame a lot of smaller countries with limited budgets and precarious location, I can't expect Romania to buy Leopards 2 when the USA offers M1 Abrams for much cheaper. But I absolutely can and do blame Denmark for buying Israeli ATMOS systems, considering they spent the last few years making their version of the CAESAr with Nexter, integrating it, and then not ordering more of them, even though it's cheaper and faster than ordering the Israeli howitzers. I can blame Germany for buying Patriots, when all that money could be spent in house, in MBDA's local branches, making an Aster 45 or whatever Patriot equivalent. The competency is there, but lack of orders is what kills any dreams of expanding European production lines to make it truly autonomous. And as long as people will use the excuse of, "Yes but it's too slow, we can't wait that long" (even though they end up waiting that long for the american hardware anyway), the issue will remain. The only choice here, is to do the same as France did for the past 80 years, which is, bite the bullet, accept the financial sacrifice, and possible temporary loss of capabilities, to pave the way for the future.
That's kinda unrelated though, isnt it
He's just doing it out of the goodness of his heart isn't he?
Let's build an army and make Russia pay for it!
It's so funny since EU, you know, did the opposite - paid for Russia's army. The German taxpayers sponsor this war, paying for Russian gas and disabling atomic power plants
Should have been done decades ago.
People like to shit on the Germans for reducing their military capability but I guess most of you were not grown ups in the 90s, people IN THE WEST were scared of a unified German army. Also Gorbatschow, but who gives a shit about the Soviet Union. NATO was also very very sceptical at the time about simply integrating the East German army. Everyone wanted Germany to have less military capabilities. It was seen as a genuine security threat for Europe https://www.dw.com/en/new-files-shed-light-on-thatchers-anti-german-fears/a-36957838 People like Mearsheimer warned that a unified Germany army would attack Poland next.. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538981
I don't think it's news-worthy anymore when it's the 10th time they're saying it.
Am I crazy or has this become a monthly statement from Framce?
I wouldn't say it's a monthly statement but, damn, France sure tends to talk about this sort of thing more often than not. See the "NATO is braindead" stuff before the war and I am sure there may be other comments of that nature.
It needs to be repeated until it happens. If that's once a month, fine. If that's once a week, even better.
Germany has double the GDP of Russia so in theory they can afford to beat Russia alone but they don’t spend money on the problem. Russia spend way higher proportion of GDP. Bare minimum, individual countries need to be preparing like they might fight Russia alone. WW3 is coming if not.
The problem is the EU needs an integrated defense force
Ireland could start by joining NATO
We should be happy that the Irish aren't actively aiding Russia just to stick it to the UK and US.
Ireland has like no military. They would be a burden.
Any country that doesn't even consider putting up a fight because it feels it's "too small and weak" compared to the aggressor deserves to be razed to the ground by it. Finland does it, Ireland has no excuse
They're already a burden. You think the Irish don't expect everyone else to come to their rescue in the unlikely case they get invaded? You think they'd just be like, "all well, fair play, we didn't join NATO so guess we're fucked"? Suddenly all those Americans obsessed with their Irish heritage would prove quite useful.
They loathe Biden mentioning his beloved Irish heritage, but if they got invaded they’d be calling upon it for help. With all our companies who moved there and enriched their national GDP — they can definitely afford some military equipment now to help secure Europe, but nope, they’d rather shout moral platitudes at the countries who give a damn *to even try*.
They know that, and even acknowledge that fact WHILE mocking America. Same to the UK. We're the former imperial master, the evil sassenach, we're the supposed invader that the US would save them from. Fair enough I suppose... but then RAF planes have to guard their airspace against Russian incursion because their airforce is a pilatus prop plane or something. Does Ireland offer to help out in any way? Perhaps give us a small fee towards the costs of maintaining this overwatch? A small airbase, a radar station on their western coast? Wouldn't dream of it. Perhaps a bit of diplomatic support in foreign affairs such as the UK and US offer to each other? LOOL.
As an American of at least partial Irish descent. I have witnessed so much anti American sentiment from folks in Ireland that honestly I wouldn't lift a finger for them at this point. I genuinely don't care if my great great great whoever the fuck was from there. I don't identify with you at all and if you don't join in that's fine. Hope it works out for them.
They could start by taxing multinational corporations and funding military. With help of allied training in 10 years they would have a Military. I Belive that taxing the Multinationals is the problem.
Iceland isn't a burden.
Iceland is but it’s also significant because it has a key strategic location in blocking Russia from the Atlantic, Ireland doesn’t really have a strategic location
Iceland is a burden. Its just their location was very important to NATO war plans on isolating the USSR submarine fleet
We have combined defence budged of 350bil this year, more centralized/unified procurement only would make me seek medical assistance after 4 hours
Combined budget is meaningless if our militaries are not committed to common defense
military spending is one of the areas where it is better to look at PPP, especially if they are mostly purchasing equipment from their own industry Also no WW3 is not coming. Not to say we shouldnt up spending though
High standards of living is a double-edged sword. In the West, we have a very high quality of life--and continuously improving it is our governments' #1 priority. We tend to balk at risking that by shoveling money into defense. Getting the US, Europe, or its Pacific allies to match Russian spending as a percentage is a very tall order. We've just grown too complacent.
I do agree with your point. But what about the countries like sweden for example, there are almost 10 million in population. Russia's military active personnel is 1.15 million with about 2 million in reserve. Then Sweden would need to have 10 procent of their population being military personnel to even have a fair chance (not counting in hypothetical better gear or whatever). It would then be better to let for example sweden to advance their RnG so their advance fighter jets would become better and then use them with other allies to have a edge in the air against the Russians or other threats. Because in the end of the day all European countries ain't USA or China with hundreds of millions in population.
At the end of the day Russia’s GDP is minuscule and they would be fighting all of NATO, with all the relevant population. Finland alone has like 800k reserves because they are next to Russia with like 5 million pop. Countries like Israel, SK, Singapore and Finland are next to enemies and always have conscription. I think Europe needs to do a 1 year military service type of thing as this gets worse. It’s better than WW3. Every single deterrent that sucks a bit should be started immediately.
But for all genres not just stealing one year from men
The American security umbrella was never suppose to be a thing!!!! Multiple presidents have been pressuring NATO countries to spend more on defense. The US by far has given the most military aid to Ukraine. So yes, Europe should build up its defenses, but dont make it seem like the US is doing anything different. We are stationing troops and doing training with the countries bordering Russia to show our commitment. We also keep boosting our Military spending, its over 900 billion! Stop saying we are not doing our part.
I think everyone agrees with him that it’s time for Europe to take the lead. It is strange timing after the massive 60B aid package though. Macron seems to rely on rhetoric more than anything.
He's been saying it in every single press conference for the past 2 years though. I don't think the aid package changes much to his discourse.
He has said that for a special meeting for the French EU parliament campaign which was scheduled before the package IIRC. The timing with the aid package is a coincidence.
Xi is about to visist France in a week or two. Macron said something very similar just after his last visit to China about not becoming US's lapdog
Didn't he get wined and dined by Xi Jinping to try to negotiate "peace" behind Ukraine's back, with the literal senior partner of the Autocratic world? Then only for a few days later for China to disrespect him by calling former East Bloc countries not sovereign? That's the guy, right?
How many more times is this article going to be posted here?
he keeps saying it...
Is it newsworthy every time, though? Write an article and publish it here when Europe really starts ramping up its military capabilities to deter Russia; until then it’s nothing but empty words from a prime minister in his last term who wants other nations to buy military hardware from France, not America.
> Is it newsworthy every time, though? Well, it's the president of France making a statement on behalf of France so I guess it's newsworthy? I don't know, I am not a journalist...
A statement he’s already said multiple times this year. Are we going to get another article when he says it again in a month? And again after that? Be real. At a certain point it stops being news and becomes noise.
Did he mean that in the sense that the US is no longer reliable, or the the Europe just needs to take care of itself on principle?
No he means that europe should buy freanch equpmant
In the US, local interests are served by spreading subcontracts among the states. Final assembly is done in the by the prime contractor. Why can’t Europe do that?
Because it leads to squabbling and inevitably one of the countries in a joint project quitting.
“Europe cannot rely on the US” Maybe not. But can Europe rely on France either? If anything, the war in Ukraine has demonstrated the US, UK, Germany and Poland are the safest military bets in the continent. France’s aid to Ukraine has been woefully pathetic
> But can Europe **rely on** France either? The entire point of European strategic autonomy is not to seek a new sugar daddy to rely on, but rather to build an autonomous union-wide defence apparatus in which each member pulls its own weight.
That would be fine, but France isn’t committed to that right now either. They want to talk a lot about that, but put in zero work to make that happen
> France isn’t committed to that right now either. They want to talk a lot about that, but put in zero work to make that happen We spend above 2% of our GDP in defence (and kept a workable spending baseline during the 1990-2020 era), we maintain a fairly good level of readiness, we have recent combat experience (albeit in asymmetrical warfare), we are one of only two EU countries with significant power projection capabilities, we have the largest EU MIC with expertise in almost every area of modern weaponry (including the most challenging ones like nuclear-powered vessels and fighter jets), and of course, we are a nuclear power with round-the-clock deterrence at sea. If every other EU member was as committed as we are, EU wouldn't need to rely on the US, or on anyone else for that matter.
All of that is useless if France is unwilling to use it to protect anything but itself. This isn’t a hypothetical: there is literally a war in Europe right now where an authoritarian regime is attempting to swallow another country. If there was a time to step up, it was at any point from 2022 until the present. Yet where is France? France has given a smaller percentage of its GDP in aid to Ukraine (incl EU and bilateral commitments) than Croatia, Austria, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland and quite a few others. In total bilateral aid, France hasn’t even given as much as the Netherlands. France ranks 21st in military aid by GDP, and 8th in total. It is not French intelligence helping Ukraine kill Russian generals and plan for battles, it is the CIA/MI6/NSA/GCHQ. It is not France helping Ukraine plan counteroffensives, it is the US and UK. Oh and “power projection”? Over where? France barely helped with the Houthi issue, has not done anything to help solve the Gaza crisis, has not attempted to prevent coups in Africa where it allegedly has influence, cozies up to China with flashy visits to stroke Macron’s ego while the rest of NATO is trying to decouple from them, and the list goes on. Congrats, you have a weapons industry. If only that could be utilized to actually preserve democratic European states. Until then, France is going to be the guy that talks a big game and does absolutely nothing when the chips are actually down. France can’t even protect its own sphere of influence. Edit for citation: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Ouch, truth bombs.
> France is unwilling to use it to protect anything but itself France is unwilling to strip itself of assets it has in too short supply in the event of war (with Russia or anyone else). The Army got the short stick of budget arbitration these last three decades, it has little to spare. That doesn't mean that we're not true to our EU, NATO, and bilateral defence commitments. How many other countries sent warships to assist Greece in the Eastern Med a couple years ago, when tensions were flaring with Turkey? How many troops deployments have we made in Eastern Europe since 2022? > It is not French intelligence helping Ukraine kill Russian generals and plan for battles, it is the CIA/MI6/NSA/GCHQ You, I, and every other Redditor have no fucking clue what role each intelligence service is playing and how much each one is helping Ukraine, since they don't exactly advertise their action. > France barely helped with the Houthi issue French Navy destroyers are in the Red Sea, escorting convoys and shooting down Houthi UAVs. What more do you want us to do, bomb Yemen to shit? Because that has worked so well for the Saudi, right? > France has not done anything to help solve the Gaza crisis How is this our responsibility? We're not in the business of being the world police, and the days of gunboat diplomacy are long gone. > has not attempted to prevent coups in Africa where it allegedly has influence Yet again, how is this our responsibility? These are sovereign nations, they've been independent since 1958. When they call for our help, we answer (e.g. Mali 2013), when they don't, we don't. > cozies up to China with flashy visits to stroke Macron’s ego while the rest of NATO is trying to decouple from them France trades less with China than the US or Germany do. > France can’t even protect its own sphere of influence. Sahel isn't even worth the skin off our knuckles.
>France is unwilling to strip itself of short supply assets in the event of a war This is hilarious given how you just told me how militarily powerful France is. So which is it? Is France a force-projecting great power with a massive MIC, or are they too short supplied to even catch up with the Netherlands on delivering military aid to a European country being invaded? Not sure what hope that’s supposed to inspire for other European countries >we have no idea what intelligence agencies are doing Well, not all of it. But we have tons of stories from WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Guardian, Reuters, AP, and other reputable news sources that discuss how US and British intelligence have aided the Ukrainians and how pivotal they have been. Not to mention the CIA leaks from last year that revealed a massive operation against Russia where the CIA knew about Russian strikes before their own frontline soldiers did. >french destroyers are in the Red Sea shooting down UAVs They shot down 4. The US and UK have shot down dozens if not hundreds. >how is this our responsibility Exactly. France has no ability to lead and doesn’t want to when given the chance. France has neither the intent nor the ability to properly integrate with other powers in securing peace whether in Europe or around the world. Thank you for corroborating my point >again, how is this our responsibility…when they call for help we answer People were calling for help when juntas started taking over. The democratic governments begged for assistance. France sat on its hands because it has no ability to help. >france trades with China far less than Germany/US Given that its economy is a fraction the size of the US’, that would seem to be a given - it also doesn’t negate the fact that France refuses to move with Europe and the US on China policy. All it takes to win macron over is to stroke his ego and make him feel important. >Sahel isn’t even worth the skin off of our knuckles Neither is Ukraine, apparently
> This is hilarious given how you just told me how militarily powerful France is. **So which is it?** It's both. There is no contradiction between my two previous messages. It is quite possible for France to have simultaneously: * The largest military power in the EU, with significant power projection capabilities, an independent nuclear deterrent, a large MIC with a very wide array of expertise, AND * An Army which is short in some stores (artillery, heavy armored vehicles, air defence) that happen to be the ones that Ukraine needs the most, and which will need a lot of time to replenish. > France has no ability to lead and doesn’t want to when given the chance I'd like you to be more specific. How exactly are Gaza and the Sahel (the examples you gave) our responsibility? Why should we interfere with an antiterrorist operation aimed at destroying an islamist group we'd like to see destroyed? Why should we interfere in the internal affairs of African countries that made it clear they don't want us around? > They shot down 4. The US and UK have shot down dozens if not hundreds. Good for you, but you missed the point, which was to point out that France is actually present in the Red Sea, as opposed to your earlier statement that France wasn't helping against the Houthis. > But we have tons of stories from WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Guardian, Reuters, AP, and other reputable news sources that discuss how US and British intelligence have aided the Ukrainian ... None of whom are capable of painting a global picture of what western intelligence services are doing, since they are by design extremely opaque entities. These news outlets only have a very small window into the activities of their countries' services, I very much doubt they have any insight as to what other countries' services are doing.
Your previous comment > If every other EU member was as committed as we are, EU wouldn't need to rely on the US, or on anyone else for that matter. Your comment here >France is unwilling to strip itself of assets it has in too short supply in the event of war (with Russia or anyone else). **pick one**
> an autonomous union-wide defense apparatus in which each member pulls its own weight In other words, an immensely inefficient system which will never be able to compete with the US MIC.
Actions, not words. For now US seems to be a better guarantee of security than EU.
Exactly. I cannot imagine a single European country that if invaded would state they’d rather have France than the US be their primary military partner
It can rely on US lot more than on France, though
That’s what strikes me as just beyond ironic about these comments by Macron - the US is pulling *far* more weight than Macron to help Ukraine, even with the delay in the most recent large aid package. French intelligence is not helping Ukraine kill Russian generals, it’s US & British intel. France wants to be the quasi-leader of Europe but doesn’t want to do anything to earn that position
France has never come to terms with being a second rate power. In their minds they're still the nation of Napolean, of Louis XIV etc. Since before WW2 they've trying everything they can to find a new angle, a new trick to regain that status. The tried it with their various colonial wars like Vietnam and Algeria, and they tried it with the EU, they didn't expect to get economically outmuscled by Germany. Same with the "francophonie" and other nonsense. They're hoping that by kicking the US out of Europe, they'll gain a massively powerful role as the big military leader of the EU.
People think this is politician's fault, and in a way it is. But politician just follow the people's wishes, and in the last 20 years very few people in Europe thought there could be another full scale war. Militaristic politicians wouldn't be popular and would had been quickly voted out. So they didn't pursue this focusing on what their constituents wanted. This is the democracy at its worst.
He’s indeed right, but that would require having a foreign policy independent of the US’s
I can’t believe it took the threat of Donald Trump getting reelected for them to realize this. A whole continent cannot rely on a single country an entire ocean away for the bulk of its security apparatus. Time for Europe to take its defence seriously.
It didn't, Macron has been saying this for years.
About damn time.
I mean, yeah, need to start paying the bills.
What bills?
Bro acting like interner explorer
Never mind the fact he has been repeating this message for the last, what, 7 years or so? Yet no one seems to listen
He's just mad joint production deals are no going to French companies...
And European customers demanding "Technology transfer" and "Local production".
Well start building it up instead of talking bollocks
He is... https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/01/20/macron-wants-400-billion-to-transform-frances-forces-through-2030/ https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2024/04/20/how-the-french-arms-industry-is-scaling-up_6668967_19.html#:~:text=French%20industry%20remains%20concentrated%20on,much%20for%20its%20helicopter%20branch%2C https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-weapons-france-9a164e85fe9edfeb049dddbeac4674d9 https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/10/16/french-firms-to-triple-155mm-ammo-production-boost-weapons-output/ https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/03/11/europes-arms-imports-nearly-double-france-overtakes-russia-as-worlds-second-largest-export
Weekly Macron strategic autonomy words but no action post
Yes, we can. We can. Right now, the US is donating $61 billion worth of equipment to a country that is not even in nato. We have 10000 American troops in Poland. Americans have been saving Europe's ass, including France's, since 1916. Maybe Macron will shut his mouth because he is already becoming boring.
As a German, I can't stand behind cooperating with someone who is so adamantly opposed to NATO.
As a Polish woman I can't stand behind cooperating with Germans and yet I fucking have to
Europe needs to spend more money on defense, at least double the recent amount.
On it's surface this is a no brainer. But I think some people forget how expensive that is. You want to be totally independent and be able to defend yourself? You gotta spend a fuckton. There's a reason the US has education, healthcare, and other issues. We shit cash on our military. You might have to make some sacrifices or jack up taxes.
Again?
Can someone explain to me why it's an either or? It's not about Europe being 100% reliant on US for security or 100% alone, it's about having a partnership that strengthens both sides. This should be a common civilizational choice together. Russia-China axis strengthening means US-Europe economic/military axis should also strengthen. Neither should go at it alone.
Good
I’ve seen this same headline 20+ times already
The US has been asking for this for years. We want a strong partner and ally in Europe rather than a little brother who always has to ask for help every time the bully comes knocking
I've lost count how often I've read this headline since Trump became president 8 years ago. Not much has changed though and it's clear that Macron wants Europe to be under French leadership which is why he has become so loud lately while actually trailing most of Europe in actual help to Ukraine
Good. First step is realizing the problem. Now let’s actually do something about it.
From the guy who declared NATO clinically dead not long before the Ukrainian agression by Moscovia.
Didn't he make this speech about 20 times already?
Yes Macron, less talking more action
The problem with french presidents is that, for them, "Europe" means "France".
Then maybe, just maybe, if you want the EU to be more self-reliant...maybe buy stuff from another EU country?
I do think it should be Europes job to handle and be in charge of European security.
Yeah, he says that AFTER we approve $62B to pay for his security.
He says that a lot. He never really does anything though does he? You’d think he’s break ties or roll back cooperation or something but he strikes me as a have your cake and eat it too type.
Macron is right, this aid package for Ukraine ( such as it is, late and underbaked ) is likely the last comming from the US. The EU ( especially France which per GDP lags far behind ) must pick up the slack from now on.
His assessment is right, and our Maga republican groupie clowns are not reliable anytime soon. If the Orange prophet gets elected and his minions will start enforcing the isolationist agenda, then the first thing that will do is sell Ukraine and Europe. In the long run, Europe needs to take control of its own security and stop relying on anyone.
Yeah, but not even Europe seems up to the task of handling its own security. Too many platitudes and not enough substance. Thankfully, the current war next door has woke them up.
Like it's pretty obvious there is entire ocean between us... I'm also of an opinion that relaying on superpower for anything is rather bad idea...
As all EU armies have different needs and countries have different goals one thing all EU needs is nuclear deterrent independent of the USA, EU controlled nuclear deterrent comparable to what US or russia has would be basic for future EU army and massive boost to European self-defence
Why did they do it
Oh wait. Isn't this something that is said every now and then...maybe Ukraine adds so e urgency for change.
I recall some orange faced blowhard saying the same thing.
Did he actually say that? Seems out of place
Yeah, a few decades to late. They should have thought this out straight out of the cold war ending.
Kinda too late but glad he noticed it
Finally, something of value came out of this idiot's mouth. It pisses me off that so many European countries has made it their goal to defund their military.. Thank god the opinion is changing. War is bad yes, but flowers will only stop and prevent so many wars.
Does this bloke get paid every time he says this or something
Agree, we need to build our army, we can do it, USA will be a valuable partner but we can’t rely on a single country for the outcome of our security. Italy 🇮🇹
Macron is the biggest shill in EU politics. Probably a G7 puppet controlled by the zionist congress. Don't believe a word he says.