Regardless of who wins we really should invest more in our own defence industry. It's obvious that we cannot rely on the US. If we are going to be spending more on defence we should at least make sure that the money stays in Europe.
I do auditing for a living here in Sweden and it is abundantly clear that there is a massive effort to step things up. Huge investment by the government and aggressive hiring in defence.
Norway and Sweden is also ramping up improvements on supply roads and railways between the countries. Especially from middle up, where links are atrocious have needed for years.
Positives include faster response in case of an attack in either country, and faster travel on my alcohol/snus runs across the border!
I'm Swedish. Our railroad system, both domestically but especially that to Norway, has needed maintenance for years. It is not news. And I don't expect to see an improvement anytime soon.
The distance between Stockholm and Oslo is roughly the same as the distance between Stockholm and Gothenburg. Yet it goes much faster to go from Stockholm to Gothenburg than from Stockholm to Oslo, again, due to poor maintenance.
Our welfare systems are already at the brink and it will be extremely difficult to convince people to further cut them down. What we need to do now is stop wasting taxpayers money on 27 incapable armies and instead spend on one European army that can defend us without the US.
Standardization should be such a no-brainer. We don't even need to argue about an EU army yet. If we could at least create an EU defence agency or armaments council where all national armies have to agree on the same equipment that would be a massive step forward. Why do we need 5 new types of MBTs, several howitzers, APCs, Helicopters and so on?
Every country can still maintain their own forces, just tell them if you need new MBTs or wheeled howitzers or standard assault rifles you pick this type, period, even if it might not be 100% optimal for your terrain or doctrine. If there's one clear lesson learned from WW2 it's that quantity ultimately wins wars, not a handful of highly specialized weapons.
Not weapon expert, but isnt throwing away specialized tools wasteful? If finland wants to have special technical equipment for their terrain why not. Just make it compatible with rest of equipment. Im pro for uniform equipment but if country wants something special it shouldnt be compeltly restricted. But otherwise I agree
Specialized equipment for specific roles is fine but we don't need several different types for basically the same role. MBTs for example have more or less the same role across all NATO forces. And yet we can't even agree on a common type there, with Poland and Romania introducing American M1A2s and Korean K2s, Italy and Hungary choosing Rheinmetall's KF51, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Czechia opting for new Leopards 2A8 and France and the UK upgrading their Leclercs and Challengers respectively.
There is some need for specialized tools. But that is more related to being able to operate in Northern Finland in the winter vs Spain in the summer. There is no reason however to have the one use 155mm and the other 154mm munition (this of course being an exaggeration, but it gets the point across). The war in Ukraine has shown that munition is often the weak point of modern warfare, not the amount of weapons we can ship around.
In Austria, much of the inefficiencies in public welfare spending revolves around parallel and/or redundant bureaucratic structures, much of which are staffed through political channels, and the only way to get rid of them constitutionally is if they themselves do it.
Its not just in Austria. Its in Germany as well.
The administrative sector is inefficient, with far too many people employed that we could easily use elsewhere. I know that complex systems need effective administration, but it could’ve been digitalized and at least somewhat automated.
It’s for example insane what PAPERWORK I have to do just to get my kid into kindergarten. I had to fill 5 forms for admission alone - with data the administration already has.
Another example is our current health system. I do prefer public healthcare as a system, but there are about 100 different providers of public healthcare - which is not only unnecessary complicated, it also binds endless amounts of workforce for its administration.
We have forces within that erode this progress, all useful idiots to Pootin’.
Whatever happens, we need to the world’s absolute military hegemon in our corner. It is irreplaceable.
The US is pivoting to Asia and countering China, I don’t think it’s unrealistic or unfair that they expect us to hold our end of the deal and to be able to counter Russia by ourselves.
I have no doubt they’d help but expecting America to have to bear the majority of the burden on two fronts isn’t realistic.
Well, I am Finnish, so all I can say is, by all means, enact our doctrine of Credible Defence: large army reserve through peace time conscription (1/2 of population)+ NATO level defence spending + regular exercises + strategic infrastructure (bomb shelters) + domestic artillery production + emergency reserves of grain and medicine.
This and much harsher treatment of any foreign or domestic agents acting within EU borders to undermine the block's security. The freedom russian assets have in the EU is ridiculous. Also maybe less toothless sanctions? Russian leaky oil buckets are still safely traveling through European waters, companies are selling machines and equipment to russia, and so on.
I never said they would. But in the past, there were professions like a [computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)), which were replaced by, you know, computers. IMO, if you have sophisticated drones, throwing people into trenches starts looking very last century.
I don’t think even russians would dig their trenches in the open instead of forests. Our doctrine on the other hand isn’t centered around fighting from trenches, especially ones without cover. You might be right, but the drones aren’t mature enough yet, and there will be more countermeasures in the future as well, such as counter drones, automated portable anti-drone turrets and radiation weapons etc. Too early to jump into drones at the expense of infantrymen.
Europe once wanted, after the fall of the soviet union, to create a single European army that should have replaced the national militaries.
The US heavily argued and threatened against it. Practically begged us not to create a structure that could have made NATO obsolete for our security.
America didn't want to lose their influence over Europe.
They are just getting what they wanted.
It’s not just the US, smaller European powers historically haven’t loved the idea of France/Germany having even more power in this regard. Then there are the four EU states that are constitutionally neutral: Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus, NATO countries not in the EU (UK and Norway), and bad actors like Hungry.
Basically who decides on a deployment? Who gets a Veto? Does France/UK get to keep exclusive use of “their” nukes? It’s a lot of hard questions, which I hope can be resolved.
Yes you're right I should have mentioned that.
>Then there are the four EU states that are constitutionally neutral: Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus, NATO countries not in the EU (UK and Norway), and bad actors like Hungry.
We already have systems like these in place.
Schengen, the Euro, Euratom, are examples of Systems with the EU where non EU countries collaborate too or EU countries don't.
>Basically who decides on a deployment? Who gets a Veto? Does France/UK get to keep exclusive use of “their” nukes? It’s a lot of hard questions
That are absolutely hard and important questions. But they need to be asked for them to get answered. And right now I don't see them really getting asked.
What do you think Trump is? The amount of people in my country believing bullshit spaammed on BoomerBook by some drunk Kremlin propagandist is insanity.
Same bullshit from Budapest, Vienna, to London and Washington.
If I were you euros I would diversity and not rely. And I don't mean pulling a Macron and trying to fall head over heels for the autocratic world that's working to destroy all of us.
I agree with you! As a Finn, our motto since 1809 has been ”Stand here on your own two feet and never rely on foreign aid”, which is inscribed on one of our most important monuments.
But the world still needs the US. I’m not ready to give up on your guys.
The French president is commander in chief and has veto power and the nuclear codes.
The government (so the prime minister and their cabinet) sets foreign policy (with its foreign office).
The assembly votes on budget, without this budget (and approval / lack of veto from the president for this budget law), then the foreign office has no resource to do much.
In practice, even if Le Pen wins, they will be blocked in the assembly. There will be a technical government to get administration rolling for 1 year at least (until next dissolution). While the president might have veto power, the issue is that there would not really be a foreign office to take decisions or even push forward current policies. They won't have a budget and the technical government would just do the bare minimum.
In theory the president overwatch the foreign policies but I am not sure how does it work more than this. If any french is willing to step in is more than welcomed
Hold on, that's not that simple.
It is the government which implements the chosen policy in terms of budget (voted by Parliament), but it also takes care of the allocation of troops or mission orders.
Not really enough to call it self sustainable in enough fields.. especially really crucial ones that whole military doctrine relies on like military aircraft. While eu can make many different types and models of their own, none of them compete in terms of cost, capabilities and numbers to usa cluterparts thanks to the sheer scale of f35 production. If eu could source few good projects that fit most of the countries instead of 4 different concurent projects that fulfill similar roles then you could say thst they are already doing it. Not to mention that most of eu platforms still rely heavily on usa made parts, supply of which could get cut off with few words from the totally honest and totally not russian asset orange man.
You can't make this shit up. History is proof that no status quo remains forever. There's no guarantee for anything. The belief that times will always be getting better because technology advances is naive.
But honestly, the danger from fascism within the EU is also very real and high. Idk where to go if shit hits the fan.
> History is proof that no status quo remains forever.
This, a 100 times. The problem is that alot of people don't realize it.
They think just because we are in the 20th century and more "modern", things will always be the same in all nations, which is flat out wrong and a dangerous mindset.
We are in for a rude awakening soon.
Well to be fair.... The Egyptian empire lasted 3000 years, so.... Not forever, sure, but I expected more of the 21th century than this mess we're in now. With Mango Mussolini in the US, several wanna-be fascists in Europe and Mr. Potatohead in the East. This is madness....
You are not quite right regarding ancient Egypt. During its history, it had periods of greatness, however it also had periods of decline and even civil war. It was not a flourishing empire uninterrupted for 3000 years.
Correct. "The end of history" and status quo forever is a fools belief. Empires rise and fall. Black swan events eventually occur. Nothing lasts forever.
Where to go? Argentina perhaps? I hear good things.
Argentina? Thank you, I needed a good laugh.
If you were serious I recommend you to put your money where your mouth is and invest in some Argentinian bonds.
Trump isn't in any meaningful sense a Christian, and Christianity in the US is declining. The US is going to continue to become less interested in defending Europe irrespective of who wins the next election, but it will happen more quickly with Trump.
This is the thing I wish people understood. If you go to urban cities and talk to the working class. They couldn’t give two sheets about Europe and would prefer that money is spent in their neighborhoods. Some of these people are Christian but they aren’t evangelicals foaming at the mouth for trump.
It’s basically a group of people who have zero historical ties to Europe and have no reason to care about Europe. So invest in defense because sooner or later the working class might band to together with whoever fills the void.
Polarization is rampant in the US. The actual powerhouses for the US economy on the east and west coast are mostly secular. They would have a civil war on their hands before becoming belligerent towards other nations.
I hate to break it to you all, but his plan will be well received in the US. The US spending multiple times what Germany or France does just on European defense projects hasn't been reasonable for decades. The US first stepped into this role mostly due to the continent being destroyed and WW II and needing to rebuild. That has long since changed. Europe does need to step up with or without Trump. The EU needs a legit fast reactionary force among many other things.
The UK needs to suck it up and ask to rejoin the EU also.
The USA did not do this out of pure kindness, but to be the world super power - for strategic and geo politics reasons! China or Russia would give their right arm to have only one base in Europe.
Next the USA is telling Guam it is not paying its fair share for "protection."
Having bases in EU is a privilidge not a burden for the US.
Both have already been happening, especially the protectionist policies which happened more than a decade earlier. It is a big reason why people in the US wonder why we continued to subsidized European defense. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s reality.
Yes, I agree we need to quickly ramping down the buying US weapon systems. It has become glaringly clear that those come with significant political risk as well.
The F16 coalition delays with WH's political micro managing of military details, and the blocking of gripen fighter jets for Ukraine (most likely, because Sweden refused to comply to the same political restrictions as for the F16s), proves that european security requires vertically integrated european weapons with self-reliant logistics chains and training capacity.
If we have to buy outside europe, south korea with its massive production capacity, functional affordable and quality kit looks very attractive. With russia and NK allying more closely, they look to develop quickly into a reliable supplier for european security.
When South Korea finds itself alone against Russia-propped North Korea all this production capacity will be halted at home. We may even (in an extreme scenario) end up with the hardware ordered by Europe requisitioned at factory gates for the SK military. There is no alternative to domestic production.
Yea, of all of the deplorable things about trump, the push to get europeans to pick up the slack is not something I disagree with. Although we can question his true motivations.
Trump adviser proposes new tiered system for NATO members who don't pay up -
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-adviser-proposes-new-tiered-system-nato-members-who-dont-pay-up-2024-02-13/
"Sorry, it appears that you're only signed up for the Bronze-level NATO Plan. While this does give you baseline protection against nuclear attacks, it doesn't provide coverage for grey-zone conventional incursions of your territory. That service is only available to Gold and Platinum customers."
and then there would be no point in having US military bases in that country, if they want those to stay they can pay the necessary amount to cover nato "protection money" themselves.
alternatively since nato is now useless to them those countries will open themselves to alliances with other factions. it will be interesting to see how quickly US backtracks once there's even a whiff of suspicion that Russia or China could be placing bases in their territory instead.
the question should be which booted out ex nato country tomorrow would allow a Russian or Chinese military base in their territory? it'd only take someone like Orban to take power
Tl;dr: they plan to potentially fire thousands of non-politicial government workers and replace them with yes-men who will implement whatever Trump & Co. wants. This will also help Trump to avoid roadblocks he ran into when trying to do undemocratic things.
To note, those thousands could mean something like 50 000 and if they change the classification system, up to 200 000.
You know those stupid people that keep ranting about "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels"? That's why they're idiots, you want unelected and non-political experts to man the administration trenches, people that actually know what they're doing when implementing healthcare policies, designing infrastructure, etc.
I, for one, would never want to drive over a bridge designed by Jared Kushner's step-niece.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
ChatGPT summary of that page:
Project 2025 is an initiative by the Heritage Foundation aimed at restructuring the U.S. federal government if a Republican candidate wins the 2024 presidential election. The project proposes extensive policy changes including reclassifying federal workers, expanding executive power, reducing environmental regulations, and promoting Christian nationalism. It also seeks to abolish several federal departments, cut funding for climate research, and implement conservative social policies. Critics argue it undermines the rule of law, civil liberties, and the separation of church and state.
During Trump’s first mandate, civil servants and many of his own men hindered his plans and tried to make him do reasonable things. Project 2025 aims to remove these human barriers to ensure Trump’s “policies” are actually implemented. Scary
It's not that exaggerated really, it's just the first step towards Gilead.
Once those things pass they will keep on making it worse and worse, until we end up in an authoritarian hell hole.
Project 2025 is basically "The Handmaid's Tale" brought to real life. Except it's not just about enslaving women, it's about all out Christian phanaticism, totalitarianism and white supremacy. It's a reinterpretation of the American Constitution in terms of "what it *really* means" and "what *God* meant".
It's being prepared to start becoming reality next year in the US if Trump wins the elections.
Republicans want to great a facist religious state restricting basic human rights of anyone who isn’t a white male and instating Trump as a de-facto king of the US with pretty much unchecked powers
Trump is a vapid and empty vessel who is easily manipulated by those able to massage his ego. We saw it last time with Steve Bannon and John Bolton having turns basically running the show.
This time at least Europe is prepared for it. For example, David Lammy (the incoming UK foreign secretary) has spent a lot of time building connections with US Republicans, and Poland's government has been utilising Duda's good relationship with him despite PiS being out of office.
Trump was never going to leave NATO because they need to keep bases, clients and sea access BUT signaling they will not defend allies is essentially the same thing. Trump will have his cake and eat it too and there is nothing we could do about it.
I think you're overestimating Trump.
Keeping the things you mentu9ned is food for the US, but is it good for Trump?
Nope.
What's good for Trump is for Russia to bribe him to ease sanctions while his family gets a few juicy deals.
There's nothing for Trump in NATO.
At this point, becoming President is a business effort AND an effort to keep himself out of prison.
You can't make this shit up. It's likely that US voters will actually grant him everything he wishes for, ultimately sealing their own doom. This is what the US has come to.
I don’t think Trump would fail to send in troops if a NATO member gets attacked. Above all, he wants to appear strong and would view it as a personal attack on him, thinking that under his leadership the US is weak and won’t retaliate. He would never allow that accusation to stand.
I actually worry that his reaction would be exaggerated instead. Like, “How dare you do this under my watch? I’m going to flatten the Kremlin in response!” That’s what I’m more worried about, to be honest.
'As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep, according to two other Trump-aligned national security experts.'
So - give Russia everything it wants, ensure permanent instability in Ukraine and Georgia and leave the other ex-Soviet states unsure of any security guarantees previously offered by the West.
Neville Chamberlain, stand down - you're no longer the role model for bad solutions to international problems.
Its extra dumb, because NATO does not really even have jurisdiction to make these agreements.
Sure they could pinky promise to not allow Ukraine and Georgia to join. But other than that, NATO isn't a superpower with a sphere of influence. Its a defensive alliance.
What the fuck is “the Grand Armeé”, I only know “La Grande Armeé”
*a string of onions materialise around my neck, a baguette appears in my hand, la vie en rose starts playing*
I really hope not.. every EU sceptic party in the EU are against federalization, if the EU moves further into federalization it should require new votes in all member countries, else the EU sceptic parties are gonna win and there will be no more EU
If that's the case then the EU is dead no matter what.
If we cannot defend ourselves, and cannot act on global matters in time-frames that matter, then the union will either die slowly, or be squeezed/attacked by stronger entities.
I've read the entire article. It's not good. It's pretty bad. Especially for Ukraine and Georgia.
But it's not as catastrophic as so many people claim.
I don't like Trump. Never did. But he's not wrong about Europe needing to take more responsibility for its own backyard.
It's a tragic situation that Europe is starting to wake up to this reality in the 12th hour...
It would be really awkward if we kick our Pro-Russian Government out of office in October and two weeks later the West (The US particularly) waves us goodbye….
I think that what the West did, indeed, do wrong on NATO expansion was lacking clear commitment.
You either let Georgia and Ukraine in or you don't. But you don't give people false hope.
Very much this. Goes for Armenia as well. If NATO/EU feels they cannot offer membership, there should at least exist a clear plan of action what can be offered and how to shield those countries as much as possible from Russia.
The truth hurts.... It's going to take fucking decades to fix the shit caused by naive post cold war lobbyists who thinks you can stop a bully by giving him flowers.
Because we are still in shock from his last election win. People were so sure he'd lose and then wham! Like a giant reality dick in the face. And then same thing with Brexit, etc. We're at a stage where Idiocracy is becoming true and everyone can feel it.
Hey, at least the UK has realised their mistake and kicking out the party eventually 8 years later by a landslide for a pro EU party that wants to normalize relations.
Meanwhile, 8 years later the US is on the verge or re electing the same moron they narrowly voted out, nothing was learnt at all
There's a big difference between rejoining and the hardest version of Brexit we had.
We are not rejoining, but I'd be very surprised if we didn't join the customs union again. Maybe not single market given the current immigration climate, but customs union is a separate decision.
Certainly better friends with the EU and not treating them as a boogeyman
Because the current democratic nominee is a senile old man who doesn't know what he's saying and mumbles half the time, if the election was right now the odds heavily favors Trump and unless a divine miracle happens that's likely to stay. The democratic party is quadrupling down on Biden.
Because he effectively has. Before the debate Trump was already ever so slightly ahead in the popular vote according to polls, and way ahead by electoral votes with more states where his lead is outside of the margin of error and more electoral votes. He was already leading in most 'swing states'. The first presidential debate went horribly wrong for Biden and, even worse, Democrats are panicking over it. An increasing number of Democrats is openly calling for Biden to withdraw from the ticket and the first post debate polls are showing a sharp increase for Trump in the popular vote. Now keep in mind that democrats.almost.always are ahead in the popular vote because they are more popular in large urban areas. In addition to all of this the outer left wing of Democrats is boycotting Biden because of his support for Israël.
because it's the most likely outcome. Also it's good to shake European powers-that-be from complacency. Take away the "yanks will show up, defend us and then finance reconstruction" paradigm and suddenly things can actually be done (or coherent authority collapses, but anyway there is movement). If Biden had 70+% in polls I bet the entire discussion would not happen.
We had four years to prepare since he left office. We had two years to prepare since Russia invaded Ukraine. And still, we completely squandered the chance to unite and make meaningful steps to secure our defense in the past European elections, choosing to engage in meaningless petty nationalist politics instead. Do you really need to wait for November to realize Europe is facing an existential crisis and that we need to prepare now a common united response?
Future of Europe is getting darker. Being surrounded by Putin, Trump, and may be the extreme right in France and other countries is going to be really hard.
That's assuming:
a. the far right doesn't undermine our democratic systems
b. there is valid opposition, forceful/violent if needed, if the far right tries to undermine our democratic systems
You're missing the dangers of far right.
I think it's well established how effective disinformation is at fucking with peoples heads. Look at Hungary or PiS in Poland.
Poland almost fucked up their rule of law... Shit is crazy.
Sorry, but Europe is 500+ millions of inhabitants if we take Russia out.
Russia is much smaller and weaker than the rest of Europe. We could have our own massive army no problem, and we should.
> We could have our own massive army no problem, and we should.
I don't want to detract from your main point, which I agree with, but it should be noted that (1) modern war is not about body count anymore and (2) coordination and strategy counts for a lot.
"Massive European army" shouldn't mean "everybody picks up a stick". It should mean concerted investment into armament technology and excellent multinational coordination. Those are the main advantages that NATO brings.
Uh yeah no immigration is an ongoing situation since decades and at each election it gets closer to the right as the problems related to it keeps increasing. Not everything is just "russian propaganda".
>Another part of the emerging Trump game plan is a two-tier NATO system. That idea, first proposed by another senior former Trump administration official, retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, means that member countries that have not yet met the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense “wouldn’t enjoy the defense largess and security guarantee of the United States,”
If they leave behind the nukes, some air defence bases, and the fleet, it's enough. It's not like soldiers were involved either way in the Russian conflict.
All bad things bring some good with them (yin/yang) -> Europe has to become a bit more military independent, and they have the capabilities, now that the Nordic countries have joined.
Trump will be in the office for 4 years, but building a strong military capability in Europe will last as long as it is necessary.
Okay? The countries that realistically are the most likely to get attacked like the Baltics spend more than the 2% stipulation already, what’s the point?
Not all of them , most of them have passed the 2%. I mean the countries that are under Russian radar.
What's the point, maybe ask for 3% next target and make them 'sweat' , until there's nothing left to sweat for.
Putler has at max until 2026 to end this war, while not in total shambles ... the longer it takes to reach a cease-fire with Ukraine, the harder it gets for Putin to:
1. Remake his armada
2. Hold onto power.
I'll add 3 - he's gonna die at some point, and I doubt highly that the next in line will have the same 'make the Soviet Union Great Again' strategy.
Nobody knows what could come after Putin. There are people more insane in Russia than him still, and those are activists who are willing to push it if they have any capability left.
Putin has been dropping relatives in his government now, but some military man might take over anyway.
All of them. All the countries that can realistically be threatened by Russia are spending 2% or more.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country
If the USA makes a formal deal with Russia to forbid NATO 'expansion' into Ukraine and Georgia we should give them European coverage instead, like the mutual defence agreement with Finland and Sweden that the UK signed while they waited for NATO accession.
Love this idea. It would require Germany, the UK, France and many other larger european nations to sober up about its place and role in european security though.
It is clear to anyone that main US antagonist is China and area of interest is Asia. Good forbid Europe with 500 mil population should be capable of taking care of itself and its own backyard. Only Trump can think of such a lunacy.
I remember a few months ago I got downvoted for suggesting this:
"The reality is there is a good chance Trump will be reelected. Biden is polling under 50%. The only reason why Trump lost was Covid. Without Covid he would have won.
I don't people here take Trump seriously. You should take him very seriously. Once he is President, the Republicans in Congress particularly the House will follow his lead. And he can effectively cut all Western aid to Ukraine. Almost all the major systems use parts from the US even ones not built by the US like Leopard 2. Tornados and Gripens. it might not end in 24 hours, but Ukraine will no longer be able to conduct offensive operations in 2-3 months, so the war will stalemate (best case scenario) or worse case end on Russian terms."
Trump considers Europe is a economic rival, which is why he wasn't keen on supporting Europe or Ukraine. At the end of the day, most of the economic benefits of Ukraine wins will go to the Europeans. People like Trump believe that the US is offering security for the EU for free, as it expands eastward.
Macron has been continuously ranting about need for European defense force and’s not relying on the U.S. he may well get his wish of Trump wins, which could well happen.
Trumps position is a good one. Europe needs to stand up and be counted now as a powerful block in its own right. If Trump wants to be a tool the EU can just cut a deal with China for trade etc. a multipolar world is healthy and the EU needs to realise the power it has both economically and militarily.
Soo he wants to develop a tinder payment system for military aid? Lmao
I don't really get the idea behind this tbh. From an american perspective: why wouldnit be benefitial if europe arms up again and the USA draws back as ally? Like, why would he want to create a third china /russia like opponent.
Because the main concern of the US is now China. What can Europe do if China invades Taiwan? Not even Australia can do much. Australia is just too far. The only advantage is it's beyond range of China's short range missiles, but so is Guam. By contrast, countries like the Philippines are critical for the purpose of the defense of Taiwan. The distance between Luzon and Taiwan is less than 800 km. The US needs a base in Luzon, especially Subic Bay, to be able to defend Taiwan effectively. A base in Subic Bay would also block Chinese advances in South China Sea.
Trump considers Europe an economic rival, which is why he wasn't keen on supporting Europe or Ukraine. At the end of the day, most of the economic benefits of Ukraine wins will go to the Europeans. People like Trump believe that the US is offering security for the EU for free, as it expands eastward.
Europe is not in any way an opponent nor would it become an opponent. Plus, Russia is not even remotely in the same league as China as a threat to the US, so the American focus on China is reasonable.
gonna be perfect storm for all the assholes in the world, destroying fragile balance. These US elections are terrifyingly crucial for all the world. And yet trump win is still possible, look Brexit case which was apparently fail but in case of US mistep consequences will ripple everywhere. I hope everyone in Europe took that huge wakeup call as Overton window to improve everything lackluster or not working
Trump is nowhere near strong enough to do anything about NATO. People much smarter than him tried and they were dealt with. The actual NATO brain team is stronger and deeper than US presidency and congress combined.
It’s deeply entrenched in euro-American geo-politics since 1940s, they control all the power cliques from Eastern Europe to Balkans. Truman started this, it went wild with Nixon and then went totally out of control with wild budget and secret sources.
They have thousands of operators and sleeping cells all over the world.
Go read Operation Gladio.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump had no idea what NATO was up to the whole time he was in the office.
They wouldn’t tell him. Why would they? The guy is a liability.
NATOs stay behind armies and planning office was hidden from even US senators for years, they just didn’t trust politicians.
Trump stopping the aid to Ukraine, or in any other way crippling Ukraine's ability to defend itself would, on its own, be a crippling blow to NATO's security and stability.
It'd guarantee that within a decade we have a war in Baltics, most likely spilling over to the rest of Europe.
trump stopping aid to ukrain will cripple the economy swing the defense industry in US is experiencing rn. Crippling US by itself.
+ These spendings US is talking about are guidelines and not mandatory. Its totally fine in times of peace to pursue other priorities and in times of distress to crank that spending up again.
Wars nowadays are more than just standing army. Its an economical war as well. Russia tryna invade worldwide hubs like France/Germany and nowadays even poland?
Hell no. No country in the world can justify that.
Yeah, considering Trump wants a "good deal", it will probably just mean the the EU has to buy a lot more American weapons, and in return, the USA will mostly keep supporting Ukraine. However, considering Trumps overall incompetence in governing, the result might also be something really stupid and random, which just hurts everyone, except Russia...
But yeah, let's hope that he will at least considering listening to his own industry lobbyists.
I think you may be underestimating how displeased many americans in power circles are that the largest european countries have so weak military capabilities. Worse, both political leaders and the public opinion in these countries seem to be in denial about this problem.
There is also a second more structurally significant problem for the US. The size of their budget deficit and the size of their national debt. The second biggest owner of that US national debt is China holding about 10 %. China is also bank rolling the deficit every year.
Therefore, the hotter the political situation becomes regarding China and Taiwan, the stronger and more urgent the both military and financial reasons become for the US to reduce their committments in europe.
> The second biggest owner of that US national debt is China holding about 10 %
I don't think that is actually true. Afaik, China holds less than $1tn in American government bonds, so basically nothing.
Edit:
It's $859.4bn, or 2.6% of the total U.S. debt according to this source:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp
And it's $770bn according to this source:
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities
And this source has a nice visualization:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-countries-hold-the-most-us-debt/
This whole “money stays in Europe” thing is exactly why it’s not working. They’re too preoccupied with making sure they spend money on their own industry, but in denial about their production capabilities. How many tanks per year can Nextar or Rheinmetall produce? What about ammunition?
It doesn't matter. Us in Europe will do what we need to do one way or the other. We are probably the richest continent on Earth with more than enough to obliterate Russia if need be. America is a great partner to have, but ultimately we have the means to get er done all by ourselves. 🇬🇧💪🇺🇦💪🇫🇷💪🇵🇱💪🇩🇪💪🇸🇪💪🇫🇮 💪
Regardless of who wins we really should invest more in our own defence industry. It's obvious that we cannot rely on the US. If we are going to be spending more on defence we should at least make sure that the money stays in Europe.
I do auditing for a living here in Sweden and it is abundantly clear that there is a massive effort to step things up. Huge investment by the government and aggressive hiring in defence.
Norway and Sweden is also ramping up improvements on supply roads and railways between the countries. Especially from middle up, where links are atrocious have needed for years. Positives include faster response in case of an attack in either country, and faster travel on my alcohol/snus runs across the border!
I'm Swedish. Our railroad system, both domestically but especially that to Norway, has needed maintenance for years. It is not news. And I don't expect to see an improvement anytime soon. The distance between Stockholm and Oslo is roughly the same as the distance between Stockholm and Gothenburg. Yet it goes much faster to go from Stockholm to Gothenburg than from Stockholm to Oslo, again, due to poor maintenance.
Our welfare systems are already at the brink and it will be extremely difficult to convince people to further cut them down. What we need to do now is stop wasting taxpayers money on 27 incapable armies and instead spend on one European army that can defend us without the US.
Standardization should be such a no-brainer. We don't even need to argue about an EU army yet. If we could at least create an EU defence agency or armaments council where all national armies have to agree on the same equipment that would be a massive step forward. Why do we need 5 new types of MBTs, several howitzers, APCs, Helicopters and so on? Every country can still maintain their own forces, just tell them if you need new MBTs or wheeled howitzers or standard assault rifles you pick this type, period, even if it might not be 100% optimal for your terrain or doctrine. If there's one clear lesson learned from WW2 it's that quantity ultimately wins wars, not a handful of highly specialized weapons.
Not weapon expert, but isnt throwing away specialized tools wasteful? If finland wants to have special technical equipment for their terrain why not. Just make it compatible with rest of equipment. Im pro for uniform equipment but if country wants something special it shouldnt be compeltly restricted. But otherwise I agree
Specialized equipment for specific roles is fine but we don't need several different types for basically the same role. MBTs for example have more or less the same role across all NATO forces. And yet we can't even agree on a common type there, with Poland and Romania introducing American M1A2s and Korean K2s, Italy and Hungary choosing Rheinmetall's KF51, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Czechia opting for new Leopards 2A8 and France and the UK upgrading their Leclercs and Challengers respectively.
There is some need for specialized tools. But that is more related to being able to operate in Northern Finland in the winter vs Spain in the summer. There is no reason however to have the one use 155mm and the other 154mm munition (this of course being an exaggeration, but it gets the point across). The war in Ukraine has shown that munition is often the weak point of modern warfare, not the amount of weapons we can ship around.
In Austria, much of the inefficiencies in public welfare spending revolves around parallel and/or redundant bureaucratic structures, much of which are staffed through political channels, and the only way to get rid of them constitutionally is if they themselves do it.
Its not just in Austria. Its in Germany as well. The administrative sector is inefficient, with far too many people employed that we could easily use elsewhere. I know that complex systems need effective administration, but it could’ve been digitalized and at least somewhat automated. It’s for example insane what PAPERWORK I have to do just to get my kid into kindergarten. I had to fill 5 forms for admission alone - with data the administration already has. Another example is our current health system. I do prefer public healthcare as a system, but there are about 100 different providers of public healthcare - which is not only unnecessary complicated, it also binds endless amounts of workforce for its administration.
Likewise, different country, same picture. But: still too slow, but that won't be for long, the gloves are coming off.
>invest more in our own defence industry Already happening, and on top of that we do have EU army slowly emerging.
We have forces within that erode this progress, all useful idiots to Pootin’. Whatever happens, we need to the world’s absolute military hegemon in our corner. It is irreplaceable.
The US is pivoting to Asia and countering China, I don’t think it’s unrealistic or unfair that they expect us to hold our end of the deal and to be able to counter Russia by ourselves. I have no doubt they’d help but expecting America to have to bear the majority of the burden on two fronts isn’t realistic.
Well, I am Finnish, so all I can say is, by all means, enact our doctrine of Credible Defence: large army reserve through peace time conscription (1/2 of population)+ NATO level defence spending + regular exercises + strategic infrastructure (bomb shelters) + domestic artillery production + emergency reserves of grain and medicine.
This and much harsher treatment of any foreign or domestic agents acting within EU borders to undermine the block's security. The freedom russian assets have in the EU is ridiculous. Also maybe less toothless sanctions? Russian leaky oil buckets are still safely traveling through European waters, companies are selling machines and equipment to russia, and so on.
Yeah everyone Gucci untill the snow starts speaking Finnish.
I'd focus on making a lot of murder drones rather than conscription if I were you.
We have domestic drone production and development too. The Doctrine adapts. Now we have defence jobs for gamers, too, I guess!
Drones are just one tool in the toolbox, and they will never replace troops. It’s apples and oranges.
I never said they would. But in the past, there were professions like a [computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)), which were replaced by, you know, computers. IMO, if you have sophisticated drones, throwing people into trenches starts looking very last century.
I don’t think even russians would dig their trenches in the open instead of forests. Our doctrine on the other hand isn’t centered around fighting from trenches, especially ones without cover. You might be right, but the drones aren’t mature enough yet, and there will be more countermeasures in the future as well, such as counter drones, automated portable anti-drone turrets and radiation weapons etc. Too early to jump into drones at the expense of infantrymen.
Europe once wanted, after the fall of the soviet union, to create a single European army that should have replaced the national militaries. The US heavily argued and threatened against it. Practically begged us not to create a structure that could have made NATO obsolete for our security. America didn't want to lose their influence over Europe. They are just getting what they wanted.
It’s not just the US, smaller European powers historically haven’t loved the idea of France/Germany having even more power in this regard. Then there are the four EU states that are constitutionally neutral: Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus, NATO countries not in the EU (UK and Norway), and bad actors like Hungry. Basically who decides on a deployment? Who gets a Veto? Does France/UK get to keep exclusive use of “their” nukes? It’s a lot of hard questions, which I hope can be resolved.
Yes you're right I should have mentioned that. >Then there are the four EU states that are constitutionally neutral: Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus, NATO countries not in the EU (UK and Norway), and bad actors like Hungry. We already have systems like these in place. Schengen, the Euro, Euratom, are examples of Systems with the EU where non EU countries collaborate too or EU countries don't. >Basically who decides on a deployment? Who gets a Veto? Does France/UK get to keep exclusive use of “their” nukes? It’s a lot of hard questions That are absolutely hard and important questions. But they need to be asked for them to get answered. And right now I don't see them really getting asked.
But who cares what America wanted? It's our security that is in danger here.
Yeah. If we can't handle Russia while having infinitely more money and 3x the population, we are useless.
What do you think Trump is? The amount of people in my country believing bullshit spaammed on BoomerBook by some drunk Kremlin propagandist is insanity. Same bullshit from Budapest, Vienna, to London and Washington. If I were you euros I would diversity and not rely. And I don't mean pulling a Macron and trying to fall head over heels for the autocratic world that's working to destroy all of us.
I agree with you! As a Finn, our motto since 1809 has been ”Stand here on your own two feet and never rely on foreign aid”, which is inscribed on one of our most important monuments. But the world still needs the US. I’m not ready to give up on your guys.
Not fast enough
Do we though? I'm not seeing it.
This is if Le Pen doesn't win in France
Does the prime minister of France have the power to veto this? I thought it would be up to the president.
The French president is commander in chief and has veto power and the nuclear codes. The government (so the prime minister and their cabinet) sets foreign policy (with its foreign office). The assembly votes on budget, without this budget (and approval / lack of veto from the president for this budget law), then the foreign office has no resource to do much. In practice, even if Le Pen wins, they will be blocked in the assembly. There will be a technical government to get administration rolling for 1 year at least (until next dissolution). While the president might have veto power, the issue is that there would not really be a foreign office to take decisions or even push forward current policies. They won't have a budget and the technical government would just do the bare minimum.
In theory the president overwatch the foreign policies but I am not sure how does it work more than this. If any french is willing to step in is more than welcomed
Macron controls the military
He doesn't control defense legislation, he only hold ultimate command of military decisions while in office.
Hold on, that's not that simple. It is the government which implements the chosen policy in terms of budget (voted by Parliament), but it also takes care of the allocation of troops or mission orders.
But building a European army is a political issue, not a military one . Who controls this transition?
There are other countries too.
>that we do have EU army slowly emerging. no we dont
Not really enough to call it self sustainable in enough fields.. especially really crucial ones that whole military doctrine relies on like military aircraft. While eu can make many different types and models of their own, none of them compete in terms of cost, capabilities and numbers to usa cluterparts thanks to the sheer scale of f35 production. If eu could source few good projects that fit most of the countries instead of 4 different concurent projects that fulfill similar roles then you could say thst they are already doing it. Not to mention that most of eu platforms still rely heavily on usa made parts, supply of which could get cut off with few words from the totally honest and totally not russian asset orange man.
Worse even, we have to seriously start pondering what we do if the US turns into an extremist christian state. They might become our enemy eventually.
You can't make this shit up. History is proof that no status quo remains forever. There's no guarantee for anything. The belief that times will always be getting better because technology advances is naive. But honestly, the danger from fascism within the EU is also very real and high. Idk where to go if shit hits the fan.
> History is proof that no status quo remains forever. This, a 100 times. The problem is that alot of people don't realize it. They think just because we are in the 20th century and more "modern", things will always be the same in all nations, which is flat out wrong and a dangerous mindset. We are in for a rude awakening soon.
Well to be fair.... The Egyptian empire lasted 3000 years, so.... Not forever, sure, but I expected more of the 21th century than this mess we're in now. With Mango Mussolini in the US, several wanna-be fascists in Europe and Mr. Potatohead in the East. This is madness....
You are not quite right regarding ancient Egypt. During its history, it had periods of greatness, however it also had periods of decline and even civil war. It was not a flourishing empire uninterrupted for 3000 years.
Correct. "The end of history" and status quo forever is a fools belief. Empires rise and fall. Black swan events eventually occur. Nothing lasts forever. Where to go? Argentina perhaps? I hear good things.
Who the fuck hears good things about Argentina in the past 20 years???
Really? I read captain Super Neo Liberal is turning it into an absolute shitshow... Or were you being sarcastic and I can't tell?
Captain neoliberal?
When has Argentina not been a shitshow?
Argentina? Thank you, I needed a good laugh. If you were serious I recommend you to put your money where your mouth is and invest in some Argentinian bonds.
Trump isn't in any meaningful sense a Christian, and Christianity in the US is declining. The US is going to continue to become less interested in defending Europe irrespective of who wins the next election, but it will happen more quickly with Trump.
Trump isnt but many members of his cabinet and the supreme judges he introduces are
say they are because it pays too
they act as if they are, thats all that matters
This is the thing I wish people understood. If you go to urban cities and talk to the working class. They couldn’t give two sheets about Europe and would prefer that money is spent in their neighborhoods. Some of these people are Christian but they aren’t evangelicals foaming at the mouth for trump. It’s basically a group of people who have zero historical ties to Europe and have no reason to care about Europe. So invest in defense because sooner or later the working class might band to together with whoever fills the void.
Estranged with limited diplomatic interaction maybe, but enemy? Not in our lifetimes (I think).
Never say never, if you read project 2025 it may not seem so weird anymore
> project 2025 Those are people that wanted Pence for 2024 as president.
Polarization is rampant in the US. The actual powerhouses for the US economy on the east and west coast are mostly secular. They would have a civil war on their hands before becoming belligerent towards other nations.
As your western neighbour, I agree! It’s an unfortunate reality that we have to, but necessary!
I hate to break it to you all, but his plan will be well received in the US. The US spending multiple times what Germany or France does just on European defense projects hasn't been reasonable for decades. The US first stepped into this role mostly due to the continent being destroyed and WW II and needing to rebuild. That has long since changed. Europe does need to step up with or without Trump. The EU needs a legit fast reactionary force among many other things. The UK needs to suck it up and ask to rejoin the EU also.
The USA did not do this out of pure kindness, but to be the world super power - for strategic and geo politics reasons! China or Russia would give their right arm to have only one base in Europe. Next the USA is telling Guam it is not paying its fair share for "protection." Having bases in EU is a privilidge not a burden for the US.
Both have already been happening, especially the protectionist policies which happened more than a decade earlier. It is a big reason why people in the US wonder why we continued to subsidized European defense. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s reality.
Yes, I agree we need to quickly ramping down the buying US weapon systems. It has become glaringly clear that those come with significant political risk as well. The F16 coalition delays with WH's political micro managing of military details, and the blocking of gripen fighter jets for Ukraine (most likely, because Sweden refused to comply to the same political restrictions as for the F16s), proves that european security requires vertically integrated european weapons with self-reliant logistics chains and training capacity. If we have to buy outside europe, south korea with its massive production capacity, functional affordable and quality kit looks very attractive. With russia and NK allying more closely, they look to develop quickly into a reliable supplier for european security.
When South Korea finds itself alone against Russia-propped North Korea all this production capacity will be halted at home. We may even (in an extreme scenario) end up with the hardware ordered by Europe requisitioned at factory gates for the SK military. There is no alternative to domestic production.
Yea, of all of the deplorable things about trump, the push to get europeans to pick up the slack is not something I disagree with. Although we can question his true motivations.
Trump adviser proposes new tiered system for NATO members who don't pay up - https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-adviser-proposes-new-tiered-system-nato-members-who-dont-pay-up-2024-02-13/
Better start the microtransaction plan...
Top monthly spenders get some supply boxes dropped over their capitals... I can totally see that proposed by Trump.
Code for opening the box, costs extra!
The countries at risk do spend the required amount though
The 2% is a red herring, if the worst comes to pass, they would just find another excuse not to act on art 5.
Hallucinating. He wants to turn NATO into a subscription-based business.
I want a "freedom & democracy" season pass. Reality is a fucking joke.
he wants to turn NATO into a mafia style pay protection money.
You've misspelled protection racket. Next step is requiring members to spend these 2% in american hardware to get the gold level.
"Sorry, it appears that you're only signed up for the Bronze-level NATO Plan. While this does give you baseline protection against nuclear attacks, it doesn't provide coverage for grey-zone conventional incursions of your territory. That service is only available to Gold and Platinum customers."
Yes, the crazy guy wants everyone to fulfill their obligations. Signs of a despot indeed.
Good. 2% should be the minimum Met
and then there would be no point in having US military bases in that country, if they want those to stay they can pay the necessary amount to cover nato "protection money" themselves. alternatively since nato is now useless to them those countries will open themselves to alliances with other factions. it will be interesting to see how quickly US backtracks once there's even a whiff of suspicion that Russia or China could be placing bases in their territory instead.
[удалено]
Turkey. Edit - Hungary literally has Chinese police working in the country!
Hungary would probably be for it
the question should be which booted out ex nato country tomorrow would allow a Russian or Chinese military base in their territory? it'd only take someone like Orban to take power
Dividing NATO up into Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum Plans is the most American thing I've ever heard.
I'm not convinced Trump actually *plans* anything.
Correctly. People plan for him. The best example is Project 2025
People should really learn more about project 2025
Tldr?
Tl;dr: they plan to potentially fire thousands of non-politicial government workers and replace them with yes-men who will implement whatever Trump & Co. wants. This will also help Trump to avoid roadblocks he ran into when trying to do undemocratic things.
To note, those thousands could mean something like 50 000 and if they change the classification system, up to 200 000. You know those stupid people that keep ranting about "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels"? That's why they're idiots, you want unelected and non-political experts to man the administration trenches, people that actually know what they're doing when implementing healthcare policies, designing infrastructure, etc. I, for one, would never want to drive over a bridge designed by Jared Kushner's step-niece.
To be honest, I don't really want to drive over any American bridges...
And they just gave him immunity to do it all.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) ChatGPT summary of that page: Project 2025 is an initiative by the Heritage Foundation aimed at restructuring the U.S. federal government if a Republican candidate wins the 2024 presidential election. The project proposes extensive policy changes including reclassifying federal workers, expanding executive power, reducing environmental regulations, and promoting Christian nationalism. It also seeks to abolish several federal departments, cut funding for climate research, and implement conservative social policies. Critics argue it undermines the rule of law, civil liberties, and the separation of church and state.
A yes good old fascism
That's really not the kind of Italian you hope for when Americans say, "I'm Italian."
During Trump’s first mandate, civil servants and many of his own men hindered his plans and tried to make him do reasonable things. Project 2025 aims to remove these human barriers to ensure Trump’s “policies” are actually implemented. Scary
Have you seen the Handmaid's tale? Maybe a bit exaggerated, but the idea is there. See for yourself: www.project2025.org it's all there
It's not that exaggerated really, it's just the first step towards Gilead. Once those things pass they will keep on making it worse and worse, until we end up in an authoritarian hell hole.
USA becomes an autocratic regime.
replace everybody with drumpf lackeys.
Dismantle the government. Get rid of the dept of education, epa, osha, etc
I hate to use it as an example, but it’s a bit like The Handmaidens Tale, for lazy people.
Project 2025 is basically "The Handmaid's Tale" brought to real life. Except it's not just about enslaving women, it's about all out Christian phanaticism, totalitarianism and white supremacy. It's a reinterpretation of the American Constitution in terms of "what it *really* means" and "what *God* meant". It's being prepared to start becoming reality next year in the US if Trump wins the elections.
Republicans want to great a facist religious state restricting basic human rights of anyone who isn’t a white male and instating Trump as a de-facto king of the US with pretty much unchecked powers
Correct. He’s the ultimate straw man.
Trump is a vapid and empty vessel who is easily manipulated by those able to massage his ego. We saw it last time with Steve Bannon and John Bolton having turns basically running the show. This time at least Europe is prepared for it. For example, David Lammy (the incoming UK foreign secretary) has spent a lot of time building connections with US Republicans, and Poland's government has been utilising Duda's good relationship with him despite PiS being out of office.
Trump was never going to leave NATO because they need to keep bases, clients and sea access BUT signaling they will not defend allies is essentially the same thing. Trump will have his cake and eat it too and there is nothing we could do about it.
I think you're overestimating Trump. Keeping the things you mentu9ned is food for the US, but is it good for Trump? Nope. What's good for Trump is for Russia to bribe him to ease sanctions while his family gets a few juicy deals. There's nothing for Trump in NATO.
Yup, Trump doesn't need the US to win. Trump only needs Trump to win. He is not just working against the EU, but also against the US itself.
At this point, becoming President is a business effort AND an effort to keep himself out of prison. You can't make this shit up. It's likely that US voters will actually grant him everything he wishes for, ultimately sealing their own doom. This is what the US has come to.
Trump is just a puppet.
I don’t think Trump would fail to send in troops if a NATO member gets attacked. Above all, he wants to appear strong and would view it as a personal attack on him, thinking that under his leadership the US is weak and won’t retaliate. He would never allow that accusation to stand. I actually worry that his reaction would be exaggerated instead. Like, “How dare you do this under my watch? I’m going to flatten the Kremlin in response!” That’s what I’m more worried about, to be honest.
STRATEGIC 👏 AUTONOMY 👏
'As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep, according to two other Trump-aligned national security experts.' So - give Russia everything it wants, ensure permanent instability in Ukraine and Georgia and leave the other ex-Soviet states unsure of any security guarantees previously offered by the West. Neville Chamberlain, stand down - you're no longer the role model for bad solutions to international problems.
Its extra dumb, because NATO does not really even have jurisdiction to make these agreements. Sure they could pinky promise to not allow Ukraine and Georgia to join. But other than that, NATO isn't a superpower with a sphere of influence. Its a defensive alliance.
EUFOR! Macron was right.
Maybe if we call it the Grand Armeé, the French far right might go along with it.
The French far right is likely to not help any EU country militarily and just stay in France while Russians invade the rest.
and then capitulate for 3 days like WW2
What the fuck is “the Grand Armeé”, I only know “La Grande Armeé” *a string of onions materialise around my neck, a baguette appears in my hand, la vie en rose starts playing*
I really hope not.. every EU sceptic party in the EU are against federalization, if the EU moves further into federalization it should require new votes in all member countries, else the EU sceptic parties are gonna win and there will be no more EU
If that's the case then the EU is dead no matter what. If we cannot defend ourselves, and cannot act on global matters in time-frames that matter, then the union will either die slowly, or be squeezed/attacked by stronger entities.
I've read the entire article. It's not good. It's pretty bad. Especially for Ukraine and Georgia. But it's not as catastrophic as so many people claim. I don't like Trump. Never did. But he's not wrong about Europe needing to take more responsibility for its own backyard. It's a tragic situation that Europe is starting to wake up to this reality in the 12th hour...
It would be really awkward if we kick our Pro-Russian Government out of office in October and two weeks later the West (The US particularly) waves us goodbye….
I think that what the West did, indeed, do wrong on NATO expansion was lacking clear commitment. You either let Georgia and Ukraine in or you don't. But you don't give people false hope.
Very much this. Goes for Armenia as well. If NATO/EU feels they cannot offer membership, there should at least exist a clear plan of action what can be offered and how to shield those countries as much as possible from Russia.
The truth hurts.... It's going to take fucking decades to fix the shit caused by naive post cold war lobbyists who thinks you can stop a bully by giving him flowers.
Why is everyone suddenly assuming that trump has already won the election?
I guess it’s better to expect the worst and be positively surprised than the other way around
Because being prepared for the worst is better than being surprised by it
Because we are still in shock from his last election win. People were so sure he'd lose and then wham! Like a giant reality dick in the face. And then same thing with Brexit, etc. We're at a stage where Idiocracy is becoming true and everyone can feel it.
Hey, at least the UK has realised their mistake and kicking out the party eventually 8 years later by a landslide for a pro EU party that wants to normalize relations. Meanwhile, 8 years later the US is on the verge or re electing the same moron they narrowly voted out, nothing was learnt at all
Labour have said they will not reverse Brexit. Pro EU is kind of a stretch.
There's a big difference between rejoining and the hardest version of Brexit we had. We are not rejoining, but I'd be very surprised if we didn't join the customs union again. Maybe not single market given the current immigration climate, but customs union is a separate decision. Certainly better friends with the EU and not treating them as a boogeyman
I wish you the best of luck in those negotiations.
In both cases, russian subversion and propaganda significantly swayed the elections. When are we going to get serious about counter intelligence?
Because last time he won no one expected it. Fool me once...
Because is better to prepare rather than acting surprised and running in panic mode if he does win
Massive support base and his opponent is not of sound mind anymore. That, and the base of voters turned on Joe Biden a while ago.
Because the current democratic nominee is a senile old man who doesn't know what he's saying and mumbles half the time, if the election was right now the odds heavily favors Trump and unless a divine miracle happens that's likely to stay. The democratic party is quadrupling down on Biden.
Probably because he’s running against a corpse
He’s way ahead - even before the debate - in all of the betting sites, more reliable than surveys.
I suggest you watch the last debate. Trump is his usual self but Biden seems completely lost and flustered and mixes up key issues multiple times.
Nobody ever went broke betting against the stupidity of Americans.
Have you seen the debate? Unless Biden drops in favor of someone younger, Democrats are gonna fight an uphill battle
He is ahead in pools and expected to win
Because he effectively has. Before the debate Trump was already ever so slightly ahead in the popular vote according to polls, and way ahead by electoral votes with more states where his lead is outside of the margin of error and more electoral votes. He was already leading in most 'swing states'. The first presidential debate went horribly wrong for Biden and, even worse, Democrats are panicking over it. An increasing number of Democrats is openly calling for Biden to withdraw from the ticket and the first post debate polls are showing a sharp increase for Trump in the popular vote. Now keep in mind that democrats.almost.always are ahead in the popular vote because they are more popular in large urban areas. In addition to all of this the outer left wing of Democrats is boycotting Biden because of his support for Israël.
because it's the most likely outcome. Also it's good to shake European powers-that-be from complacency. Take away the "yanks will show up, defend us and then finance reconstruction" paradigm and suddenly things can actually be done (or coherent authority collapses, but anyway there is movement). If Biden had 70+% in polls I bet the entire discussion would not happen.
We had four years to prepare since he left office. We had two years to prepare since Russia invaded Ukraine. And still, we completely squandered the chance to unite and make meaningful steps to secure our defense in the past European elections, choosing to engage in meaningless petty nationalist politics instead. Do you really need to wait for November to realize Europe is facing an existential crisis and that we need to prepare now a common united response?
Future of Europe is getting darker. Being surrounded by Putin, Trump, and may be the extreme right in France and other countries is going to be really hard.
It's gonna be rough few years, but I'm positive the far right can't fulfill their promises and their voter base will vanish.
That's assuming: a. the far right doesn't undermine our democratic systems b. there is valid opposition, forceful/violent if needed, if the far right tries to undermine our democratic systems
You're missing the dangers of far right. I think it's well established how effective disinformation is at fucking with peoples heads. Look at Hungary or PiS in Poland. Poland almost fucked up their rule of law... Shit is crazy.
Sorry, but Europe is 500+ millions of inhabitants if we take Russia out. Russia is much smaller and weaker than the rest of Europe. We could have our own massive army no problem, and we should.
> We could have our own massive army no problem, and we should. I don't want to detract from your main point, which I agree with, but it should be noted that (1) modern war is not about body count anymore and (2) coordination and strategy counts for a lot. "Massive European army" shouldn't mean "everybody picks up a stick". It should mean concerted investment into armament technology and excellent multinational coordination. Those are the main advantages that NATO brings.
Extreme right is basically just Russian propaganda winning.
Uh yeah no immigration is an ongoing situation since decades and at each election it gets closer to the right as the problems related to it keeps increasing. Not everything is just "russian propaganda".
Nah. Europe needs some shakin'. We'll be fine. Just like when Hitler's party got its first election success. It was fine.
>Another part of the emerging Trump game plan is a two-tier NATO system. That idea, first proposed by another senior former Trump administration official, retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, means that member countries that have not yet met the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense “wouldn’t enjoy the defense largess and security guarantee of the United States,” If they leave behind the nukes, some air defence bases, and the fleet, it's enough. It's not like soldiers were involved either way in the Russian conflict. All bad things bring some good with them (yin/yang) -> Europe has to become a bit more military independent, and they have the capabilities, now that the Nordic countries have joined. Trump will be in the office for 4 years, but building a strong military capability in Europe will last as long as it is necessary.
Okay? The countries that realistically are the most likely to get attacked like the Baltics spend more than the 2% stipulation already, what’s the point?
Not all of them , most of them have passed the 2%. I mean the countries that are under Russian radar. What's the point, maybe ask for 3% next target and make them 'sweat' , until there's nothing left to sweat for. Putler has at max until 2026 to end this war, while not in total shambles ... the longer it takes to reach a cease-fire with Ukraine, the harder it gets for Putin to: 1. Remake his armada 2. Hold onto power. I'll add 3 - he's gonna die at some point, and I doubt highly that the next in line will have the same 'make the Soviet Union Great Again' strategy.
Nobody knows what could come after Putin. There are people more insane in Russia than him still, and those are activists who are willing to push it if they have any capability left. Putin has been dropping relatives in his government now, but some military man might take over anyway.
All of them. All the countries that can realistically be threatened by Russia are spending 2% or more. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country
If the USA makes a formal deal with Russia to forbid NATO 'expansion' into Ukraine and Georgia we should give them European coverage instead, like the mutual defence agreement with Finland and Sweden that the UK signed while they waited for NATO accession.
Love this idea. It would require Germany, the UK, France and many other larger european nations to sober up about its place and role in european security though.
As an anti trump American, i do agree with him that that all NATO countries need to contribute at least 2% to defense.
It is clear to anyone that main US antagonist is China and area of interest is Asia. Good forbid Europe with 500 mil population should be capable of taking care of itself and its own backyard. Only Trump can think of such a lunacy.
I have been looking forward to the creation of a EU military. It's about time!
I remember a few months ago I got downvoted for suggesting this: "The reality is there is a good chance Trump will be reelected. Biden is polling under 50%. The only reason why Trump lost was Covid. Without Covid he would have won. I don't people here take Trump seriously. You should take him very seriously. Once he is President, the Republicans in Congress particularly the House will follow his lead. And he can effectively cut all Western aid to Ukraine. Almost all the major systems use parts from the US even ones not built by the US like Leopard 2. Tornados and Gripens. it might not end in 24 hours, but Ukraine will no longer be able to conduct offensive operations in 2-3 months, so the war will stalemate (best case scenario) or worse case end on Russian terms." Trump considers Europe is a economic rival, which is why he wasn't keen on supporting Europe or Ukraine. At the end of the day, most of the economic benefits of Ukraine wins will go to the Europeans. People like Trump believe that the US is offering security for the EU for free, as it expands eastward.
Macron has been continuously ranting about need for European defense force and’s not relying on the U.S. he may well get his wish of Trump wins, which could well happen.
Trumps position is a good one. Europe needs to stand up and be counted now as a powerful block in its own right. If Trump wants to be a tool the EU can just cut a deal with China for trade etc. a multipolar world is healthy and the EU needs to realise the power it has both economically and militarily.
Just look at Project 2025 and you’ll find the plan that Republicans have for NATO
Soo he wants to develop a tinder payment system for military aid? Lmao I don't really get the idea behind this tbh. From an american perspective: why wouldnit be benefitial if europe arms up again and the USA draws back as ally? Like, why would he want to create a third china /russia like opponent.
Because the main concern of the US is now China. What can Europe do if China invades Taiwan? Not even Australia can do much. Australia is just too far. The only advantage is it's beyond range of China's short range missiles, but so is Guam. By contrast, countries like the Philippines are critical for the purpose of the defense of Taiwan. The distance between Luzon and Taiwan is less than 800 km. The US needs a base in Luzon, especially Subic Bay, to be able to defend Taiwan effectively. A base in Subic Bay would also block Chinese advances in South China Sea. Trump considers Europe an economic rival, which is why he wasn't keen on supporting Europe or Ukraine. At the end of the day, most of the economic benefits of Ukraine wins will go to the Europeans. People like Trump believe that the US is offering security for the EU for free, as it expands eastward.
Europe is not in any way an opponent nor would it become an opponent. Plus, Russia is not even remotely in the same league as China as a threat to the US, so the American focus on China is reasonable.
Looks as if the UK nuclear force is important. However the pressure groups in the soon to be new Labour government are anti. Oh dear.
Just be glad it won’t be Corbyn’s government.
The rational thing would be for more midsized countries to get nukes.
gonna be perfect storm for all the assholes in the world, destroying fragile balance. These US elections are terrifyingly crucial for all the world. And yet trump win is still possible, look Brexit case which was apparently fail but in case of US mistep consequences will ripple everywhere. I hope everyone in Europe took that huge wakeup call as Overton window to improve everything lackluster or not working
~~Trump's~~ Putin's Plan for NATO Is Emerging.
Trump is nowhere near strong enough to do anything about NATO. People much smarter than him tried and they were dealt with. The actual NATO brain team is stronger and deeper than US presidency and congress combined. It’s deeply entrenched in euro-American geo-politics since 1940s, they control all the power cliques from Eastern Europe to Balkans. Truman started this, it went wild with Nixon and then went totally out of control with wild budget and secret sources. They have thousands of operators and sleeping cells all over the world. Go read Operation Gladio. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump had no idea what NATO was up to the whole time he was in the office. They wouldn’t tell him. Why would they? The guy is a liability. NATOs stay behind armies and planning office was hidden from even US senators for years, they just didn’t trust politicians.
Trump stopping the aid to Ukraine, or in any other way crippling Ukraine's ability to defend itself would, on its own, be a crippling blow to NATO's security and stability. It'd guarantee that within a decade we have a war in Baltics, most likely spilling over to the rest of Europe.
trump stopping aid to ukrain will cripple the economy swing the defense industry in US is experiencing rn. Crippling US by itself. + These spendings US is talking about are guidelines and not mandatory. Its totally fine in times of peace to pursue other priorities and in times of distress to crank that spending up again. Wars nowadays are more than just standing army. Its an economical war as well. Russia tryna invade worldwide hubs like France/Germany and nowadays even poland? Hell no. No country in the world can justify that.
Yeah, considering Trump wants a "good deal", it will probably just mean the the EU has to buy a lot more American weapons, and in return, the USA will mostly keep supporting Ukraine. However, considering Trumps overall incompetence in governing, the result might also be something really stupid and random, which just hurts everyone, except Russia... But yeah, let's hope that he will at least considering listening to his own industry lobbyists.
I think you may be underestimating how displeased many americans in power circles are that the largest european countries have so weak military capabilities. Worse, both political leaders and the public opinion in these countries seem to be in denial about this problem. There is also a second more structurally significant problem for the US. The size of their budget deficit and the size of their national debt. The second biggest owner of that US national debt is China holding about 10 %. China is also bank rolling the deficit every year. Therefore, the hotter the political situation becomes regarding China and Taiwan, the stronger and more urgent the both military and financial reasons become for the US to reduce their committments in europe.
> The second biggest owner of that US national debt is China holding about 10 % I don't think that is actually true. Afaik, China holds less than $1tn in American government bonds, so basically nothing. Edit: It's $859.4bn, or 2.6% of the total U.S. debt according to this source: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp And it's $770bn according to this source: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities And this source has a nice visualization: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-countries-hold-the-most-us-debt/
These NATO people sound like intelligent folks. I don't trust politicians either.
If Elbridge Colby is on Trumps National Security team Ukraine is definitely screwed. And definitely not joining NATO
Let me guess, give up
Bet it look a lot like Putins wish list.
When trump did the largest military budget and earned Germany it was giving fuel to war to Russia. Let’s all laugh at him.
This whole “money stays in Europe” thing is exactly why it’s not working. They’re too preoccupied with making sure they spend money on their own industry, but in denial about their production capabilities. How many tanks per year can Nextar or Rheinmetall produce? What about ammunition?
Well in deed . Soon we have a new dictator on the other side Atlantic Ocean. He will only care about US. So we need to stick together
It’s Putin’s plan for NATO, he just needs a useful American idiot to help him achieve it.
It doesn't matter. Us in Europe will do what we need to do one way or the other. We are probably the richest continent on Earth with more than enough to obliterate Russia if need be. America is a great partner to have, but ultimately we have the means to get er done all by ourselves. 🇬🇧💪🇺🇦💪🇫🇷💪🇵🇱💪🇩🇪💪🇸🇪💪🇫🇮 💪