It is clear that in Europe we need to increase the military budget and establish a common army.
After that, it would also be fair to free ourselves from American bases on European soil.
casenmgreen 32 days ago [-]
I may be wrong, but I think a cross-EU military alliance is a good, and an EU army at the current time is a bad idea, and the reason I think it is a bad idea is because the EU is an economic union, not yet a political union, and so it way well yet fail, and if it fails, an army based on the EU will necessarily renationalize (as happened in the Soviet Union - soldiers go back to the country they have a passport for).
The other problem with an EU military is the ongoing and I think enormous Russian funding of political instability.
mytailorisrich 32 days ago [-]
That would be the advent of the EU a actual state and the death of member countries as sovereign states.
A country like France has its own nukes for a reason and that is to be sovereign and independent.
32 days ago [-]
thesaintlives 32 days ago [-]
Exactly. Also stop being a US patsy and cats paw. Maybe even develop friendly relations with our neighbour Russia and buy energy from them etc.
How about that for a crazy idea?
linotype 32 days ago [-]
Didn’t Germany try that already?
fofoz 32 days ago [-]
The coming years will be a long war for global dominance between you and China. Since you are letting us go, we have no choice but to find our own position of balance among the remaining power blocs. It seems to me that you are making a clear long-term choice with Trump. Am I wrong?
raverbashing 32 days ago [-]
Cool you go there then
Just don't come crying back when you're taken as prisoner
giacomoforte 32 days ago [-]
What puzzles me the most about the current administration, is why are they dismantling US influence abroad? How do they profit from it?
meheleventyone 32 days ago [-]
To steelman it a bit they want two things:
* Remove support they are ideologically opposed to irregardless of merit. USAID is the most obvious example where many of the things it does/did are opposed to the political and religious beliefs of those involved in scrapping it.
* With the 'America First' agenda it reduces the scope of what 'national interest' is in terms of foreign policy so they want to force regional partners to take more of role. This is clearest at the moment in Europe but they'll be doing the same to everyone else (e.g. Korea with China/North Korea).
Broadly the administration is continuing along the Project 2025 path. So the end goal is a more distant America waiving nukes at China.
immibis 32 days ago [-]
They're going on vibes - a general feeling of "I'm not paying for that!" International aid is in the expenses category, and it's not a payment to me, so it must be cancelled! It helps that Putin makes big "donations".
Never mind that just a few years ago we were talking about how China's belt and road initiative would help it take over the road and now we are cancelling the American belt and road initiative.
Never mind that America is only rich because of its worldwide influence.
red-iron-pine 32 days ago [-]
a handful of oligarchs get unfettered control to the US in exchange for a withdrawal from international agreements. simple overlap with some libertarian ideology.
heavily funded by Russia, and to a lesser extent China.
same playbook that pushed Brexit.
reacharavindh 32 days ago [-]
May be it unifies Europe a little more.. European Defense org that has a mandate to build out capacity for defense equipment production in the EU member countries.. spend 5% GDP that employs EU citizens in turn. Just like the US does.. May be it grants the wish of the Americans to stop relaying on them(also stop/reduce buying American defense systems).
verzali 32 days ago [-]
America has a weird stance on this. They have consistently opposed European efforts to develop independent military tech - see what they did to British nuclear and missile programs, and how they have fought against the French desire to maintain their own defense programs. Now they seem to want to abandon Europe and blame them for not having their own military hardware.
munksbeer 32 days ago [-]
> Now they seem to want to abandon Europe
We should be clear here, who "they" are. Trump is Trump, he is a populist, so he'll just do whatever. The question is, is the support for his type of populism embedded in the US now, or not. I don't think it is, I think the US will see through his type of populism at some point.
So I don't think the US will be abandoning Europe in the medium or longer term, and mostly only making noises about it in the short term. I think it is worthwhile for Europe to mitigate the short term, strengthen its military, but we should be aiming to keep the medium term alliance with the US going.
rnd0 31 days ago [-]
They is NOT Trump; THEY is Musk and he has economic ties to China and Russia.
Musk the lens that all future U.S. actions and rhetoric needs to be seen through, at least in the near-term.
jltsiren 32 days ago [-]
Nobody is expected to take the 5% goal seriously. Even the US has not reached that level since 1992, with the current defense spending at 3.4%.
If the US decided to leave NATO completely, European military spending might stabilize somewhere around 3%, with lower spending in the west and higher in the east. At that level, the overall spending would be a bit below US figures in absolute terms and higher than the US in PPP terms.
ChocolateGod 32 days ago [-]
> If the US decided to leave NATO completely
If the US decided to leave NATO, given much of the hostility to it is because it's seen by countries like Russia to extend US influence and troops, I wouldn't be surprised if European countries could spend less on defence.
verzali 32 days ago [-]
How can you say that? People have consistently said not to take Trump seriously. But he does seem serious about imposing tariffs, abandoning allies, annexing random parts of the world, and about drastically cutting the government. Why shouldn't we take the 5% thing seriously? What can be more serious than this anyway?
jltsiren 32 days ago [-]
Because 3% would already be enough to make the US irrelevant for European security. At that level of spending, the combined military power of European NATO member states would eventually be comparable to the US. If Trump kept insisting for more, European leaders would just call his bluff. And maybe even secretly hope that the unreliable partner would leave NATO.
rnd0 31 days ago [-]
Trump is a puppet. The people pulling his strings, however, should be taken very seriously.
Feel free to buy it from Russia or the Chinese I guess.
ojl 32 days ago [-]
We do have defence industry in Europe as well.
ahartmetz 32 days ago [-]
We have in fact nearly every major technology except 5th generation jets (less observable, SOTA radar and communication technology) and the most advanced microelectronics.
It's not up to Europe, it's just a bunch of client states with dellusions of independence...
orf 32 days ago [-]
*delusions
(Of an education system, maybe)
coldtea 32 days ago [-]
educational system (also not my primary language, but sure...)
orf 32 days ago [-]
> educational system
Wow. Why make my case for me?
profsummergig 32 days ago [-]
They're not "making your case for you",
they're pointing out a grammatical error in your post,
just like you pointed out one in their post.
Touché, I think.
But you already knew that.
orf 32 days ago [-]
It’s not a grammatical error though, hence making my case?
And his was a spelling mistake.
tacomagick 32 days ago [-]
Come on people, this is no platform for flame wars.
zshrdlu 32 days ago [-]
also known as colonies
maxglute 32 days ago [-]
No US "peacekeeping" troops in UKR, sure.
No US being primary security guarantor, sure.
But what does actually mean. If Europe continues to coast and NATO country is attacked and triggers art5, US would stand back and do nothing?
immibis 32 days ago [-]
Yes. See how the new regime is ignoring treaties left, right and center.
funnybeam 32 days ago [-]
Not just the ’new regime’
Check out the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Russia, USA and UK all agreed to preserve Ukraine’s borders in return for them giving their nukes to Russia.
All parties seen to have forgotten about that one
zfg 32 days ago [-]
> European leaders were already uncertain whether Mr Trump would honour the alliance’s Article 5 clause – which states that a military attack on one ally is considered an attack on all – and come to their aid.
Article 5 has only ever been invoked once in NATO history. It was invoked by America. NATO allies came to America's aid:
The US president has also tabled demands that would see Nato military spending targets more than doubled to 5 per cent of GDP in a bid to end Europe’s reliance on Washington.
Isn't the whole goal of Trump's 2% demand to buy more American-made weapons?
If the US does not back NATO countries, and demand 2-5% spending, what's the point of NATO countries even buying American weapons?
Lastly, is it really fair for NATO countries to spend at least 2% on their military if much of that budget goes to American companies?
linotype 32 days ago [-]
Is it fair that the US has to keep subsidizing Europe, a collection of countries that constantly complain about the US? That tax and fine our companies while criticizing the US for its lack of a welfare state?
meheleventyone 32 days ago [-]
This is the populist rhetoric to sell it to the base rather than the actual state of things. The US taking a more isolationist position does nothing but hurt the US.
mytailorisrich 32 days ago [-]
They don't subsidise Europe. They keep Europe on a leash.
That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.
ahartmetz 32 days ago [-]
The leash has been pretty long and the dog food was good (free defense through NATO!)... If any of that changes, the relationship will change.
adrian_b 32 days ago [-]
There has been no free defense through NATO, because a great part of the military spending of the NATO countries has always gone to US companies, even in cases when alternative better deals had existed.
The only benefit that USA can claim is that without being allied to USA many countries would have been forced to spend more for their defense. However most of that spending would not have gone to US companies, so USA has benefited from the alliance at least as much as the other members.
USA has practically acted exactly like an insurance company. For now, until a war would involve NATO and USA would be forced to pay for it, during all the 3 quarters of a century during which USA never had to pay for a NATO war, USA has received yearly payments from the allies for military equipment, exactly like receiving insurance fees, so the balance for USA from the effects of the alliance is hugely positive.
(Of course, like for most things done by the US government in international relations, the positive balance for USA is not felt by simple citizens, because all profits have been grabbed by the shareholders or managers of some big companies, e.g. those producing military equipment.)
The claims about USA "subsidizing" allies are completely stupid, when frequently the "allies" have been blackmailed to accept contracts paying billions to US companies, not only for defense acquisitions, but also for some non-related infrastructure projects.
Especially in the case of the more recent NATO members from Eastern Europe, they have been forced to pay dearly for their admission into NATO by accepting various very expensive and onerous contracts with some US companies (e.g. Bechtel), besides buying expensive US aircraft or the like.
mytailorisrich 32 days ago [-]
Nothing is ever free...
ahartmetz 30 days ago [-]
Of course not, but the deal seemed pretty OK so far...
DrNosferatu 23 days ago [-]
European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America.
(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective Liberal Democracy. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for their economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.
Same applies for prospective new members.
Not interested? Bye, your problem.
red-iron-pine 32 days ago [-]
interesting that this isn't flagged. it's politics, but it's not criticizing tech bro oligarchs
The other problem with an EU military is the ongoing and I think enormous Russian funding of political instability.
A country like France has its own nukes for a reason and that is to be sovereign and independent.
Just don't come crying back when you're taken as prisoner
* Remove support they are ideologically opposed to irregardless of merit. USAID is the most obvious example where many of the things it does/did are opposed to the political and religious beliefs of those involved in scrapping it.
* With the 'America First' agenda it reduces the scope of what 'national interest' is in terms of foreign policy so they want to force regional partners to take more of role. This is clearest at the moment in Europe but they'll be doing the same to everyone else (e.g. Korea with China/North Korea).
Broadly the administration is continuing along the Project 2025 path. So the end goal is a more distant America waiving nukes at China.
Never mind that just a few years ago we were talking about how China's belt and road initiative would help it take over the road and now we are cancelling the American belt and road initiative.
Never mind that America is only rich because of its worldwide influence.
heavily funded by Russia, and to a lesser extent China.
same playbook that pushed Brexit.
We should be clear here, who "they" are. Trump is Trump, he is a populist, so he'll just do whatever. The question is, is the support for his type of populism embedded in the US now, or not. I don't think it is, I think the US will see through his type of populism at some point.
So I don't think the US will be abandoning Europe in the medium or longer term, and mostly only making noises about it in the short term. I think it is worthwhile for Europe to mitigate the short term, strengthen its military, but we should be aiming to keep the medium term alliance with the US going.
Musk the lens that all future U.S. actions and rhetoric needs to be seen through, at least in the near-term.
If the US decided to leave NATO completely, European military spending might stabilize somewhere around 3%, with lower spending in the west and higher in the east. At that level, the overall spending would be a bit below US figures in absolute terms and higher than the US in PPP terms.
If the US decided to leave NATO, given much of the hostility to it is because it's seen by countries like Russia to extend US influence and troops, I wouldn't be surprised if European countries could spend less on defence.
This video breaks down who those people are as well as what their motivations are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
(Of an education system, maybe)
Wow. Why make my case for me?
they're pointing out a grammatical error in your post,
just like you pointed out one in their post.
Touché, I think.
But you already knew that.
And his was a spelling mistake.
No US being primary security guarantor, sure.
But what does actually mean. If Europe continues to coast and NATO country is attacked and triggers art5, US would stand back and do nothing?
Check out the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Russia, USA and UK all agreed to preserve Ukraine’s borders in return for them giving their nukes to Russia.
All parties seen to have forgotten about that one
Article 5 has only ever been invoked once in NATO history. It was invoked by America. NATO allies came to America's aid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_...
If the US does not back NATO countries, and demand 2-5% spending, what's the point of NATO countries even buying American weapons?
Lastly, is it really fair for NATO countries to spend at least 2% on their military if much of that budget goes to American companies?
That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.
The only benefit that USA can claim is that without being allied to USA many countries would have been forced to spend more for their defense. However most of that spending would not have gone to US companies, so USA has benefited from the alliance at least as much as the other members.
USA has practically acted exactly like an insurance company. For now, until a war would involve NATO and USA would be forced to pay for it, during all the 3 quarters of a century during which USA never had to pay for a NATO war, USA has received yearly payments from the allies for military equipment, exactly like receiving insurance fees, so the balance for USA from the effects of the alliance is hugely positive.
(Of course, like for most things done by the US government in international relations, the positive balance for USA is not felt by simple citizens, because all profits have been grabbed by the shareholders or managers of some big companies, e.g. those producing military equipment.)
The claims about USA "subsidizing" allies are completely stupid, when frequently the "allies" have been blackmailed to accept contracts paying billions to US companies, not only for defense acquisitions, but also for some non-related infrastructure projects.
Especially in the case of the more recent NATO members from Eastern Europe, they have been forced to pay dearly for their admission into NATO by accepting various very expensive and onerous contracts with some US companies (e.g. Bechtel), besides buying expensive US aircraft or the like.
(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective Liberal Democracy. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for their economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.
Same applies for prospective new members.
Not interested? Bye, your problem.