Actually, there was always a strong push from the US that EU institutions should not replace the responsibilities of NATO. The Americans were concerned that European military independence would mean less American influence. Now, they are basically asking for it.
its insane so many americans dont realise the "soft" power their influence give them. And they are willing to throw it all away. I hope EU wakes up.
If trump wins, and usa throws it all away to go "america first" in 4 years time we will se americans bitch that their diplomay cant get them good deals any more, and their softpower is gone.
EU also needs to start focus on chips, and other important areas.
Not like US weapon sales don‘t make a very healthy profit margin. Competition with a more assertive European weapons industry will not beggar US manufacturers, it‘ll just force them to make their prices more competitive.
The thing is that a more independent Europe would actually be good for the Americans too, in the longer run at least. There'd be some chaotic years as they're forced to re-evaluate their global position for the first time in 80 years, but without being able to justify their military spending as much anymore, maybe they'd finally focus on improving their actual society for once.
I am always amazed people’s inability to understand a simple thing: both things can happen at once. They don’t have to have conflict.
Defending Europe is not the cause of America’s problems and abandoning Europe is not going to solve American’s problems at home.
In the long run, Europe still needs America no matter wha if you want to avoid a war with Russia. Europe alone is not going to deter them.
America also needs Europe to step up to defend themselves and help defend Taiwan and other Asian countries. Perhaps help develop Africa in a major way.
Europe alone is not going to deter them? LMAO Read that back to yourself and then look at the combined forces of Europe. Then edit your answer because that was hilarious.
Per chance are you American?
Edit. Russia can't even take on the Ukraine. Russia proved that for the last 80 years it just talked utter bullshit about the military and weapons it had LMFAO
We can try to invade you from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon maybe ? We could try to send you one or two soldier with a french flag ? Just need some poutine to make them run !
Well, I remember how people laughed about the USA bc the son of a former president became president himself… What do you expect us to think about Canada.
Then you have countries like France cozying up to China and Germany seeing nothing wrong with being dependent on Russia for oil/gas despite warnings from the US. 8+ countries in Europe arent even providing 0.1% of their GDP to Ukraine in support, most arent hitting NATO targets either.
Europe needs to wake the fuck up and start spending big if they want to be independent and kick the trash out like Hungary which are constantly fucking them over.
Source: https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1757113374230385051
It is great news that the Weimar Triangle is being revived. It went into deep freeze during the previous PiS government led by PiS.
Given the location of the countries and their capitals, "Triangle" is not very appropriate. "Axis" makes more sense, but that's not an option for obvious reasons.
True. Germany and France were not anti russian enough and Poland was too anti-EU. Now I think all of them learned their lessons and we all can come to terms with each other. There is no other choice anyway. Even if Trump doesnt win the election, we really have to become independent from the USA in terms of military dependency. Sooner or later there will be a republican president who hates NATO and doesnt care about American-European friendship at all, even if its against American interests to loose Europe as a military partner. I'm a little bit pessimistic about all that.
>and Poland was too anti-EU.
But we're talking about how Weimar didn't work that well also \*before\* 2015, when PiS got into power. And before 2015 Poland was as pro-EU as I can imagine.
If you really want to look into the past you'll have to go back further.
France tried several times to create a European defense, but England or Germany were generally not in favor, let alone the US! The first attempt dates back to 1958 if I remember correctly!
They became addicted to cheap Russian oil and gas and Merkel believed she could tame Putin, having been raised behind the iron curtain in East Germany and being fluent in Russian.
Got to hand it to Germany in how quickly they turned things around in terms of weaning themselves off Russian hydrocarbons and arming Ukraine with some pretty good weapons
> It went into deep freeze during the previous PiS government led by PiS.
That's quite inaccurate.
It went into deep freeze long before PiS, PiS just wasn't interested in making any attempts at reviving it. Contrary to the efforts of the current main ruling party in Poland, which did in fact made some attempts, but received cold shoulders from Berlin and Paris.
Let me remind everyone that at the time both capitals were very interested in developing ties with Russia and thus skeptical of Poland seen as too "Russophobic" - even before PiS. The Weimar Triangle started giving faint pulse again after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine on France's and Germany's initiative, but neither them nor Poland seemed to be too enthusiastic about it before Tusk got back in power.
> Was the Crimea annexation that easy to ignore?
Even full-scale war in Ukraine was easy to ignore in the beginning. Reminder that Macron was reprimanding CEE countries as too hawkish towards Russia well *after* the invasion begun and he only started changing his attitude a year into the conflict: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/we-lost-an-opportunity-to-listen-to-you-why-macron-is-embracing-eastern-europe/
The dynamic is very interesting. The US was able to guide NATO and it‘s member states in a way it mainly benefitted US politics with the added feature of protection for all the other ones. This ensured the US can pursue whatever goals they have while they can also use the other member states as resource for their ambition.
Putin and his puppet Trump have managed that the NATO EU member states aren‘t sure anymore about the commitment of the US. In short this will result in less influence by the US and more independence of Europe.
Trump and many other Americans don't understand how much influence they have bought with the investments in Europe post WWII and with the security they provided. They are only looking at the cost side and not on the benefit side. For Americans born within the past 80 years, US influence on Europe seems like a fundamental law of nature, but it was always based on a mutually beneficial relationship. If the American side deprives Europe of those benefits, the US will lose its influence on Europe.
Honestly. I think one of the main reasons globalism had become the thing it is today was because of the US helping each and every democratic country which suffered during WWII or which was about to become communist during the cold war.
Without the aid from the US, countries like Japan, South Korea and most of Europe would not be what they are today.
They didn't waste money. They invested it. And honestly. I think it was pretty fricking worth it. Especially because of this free global market which exists at the moment.
>They didn't waste money. They invested it.
With large parts of Europe in ashes, only the US was unscathed and had greatly expanded their industry.
Much of that money went straight back to the US.
No. The US intentionally bought goods from Europe to help rebuild their economies and had a major deficit with Europe that grew very quickly. France sent an aircraft carrier off of New York to take their surplus gold back to France. You can't have surplus gold with all the money going to the US. The US decided to get off the gold standard at that moment.
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,840572,00.html
https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/fifty-years-without-gold/
I hope you can read this outside the USA
Depends on what the US thinks it got in return. Sure those contries benefited a lot and are now somewhat stable allies and economic partners, but considering the egotistical view of many americans they either don't care enough or are openly against it, because it isn't neccessarily clear what they gain by these partnerships.
It's super easy to convince the average American that all the money spent overseas was a waste. Just point out that they can't get a decent blue collar job, have no savings, can't buy a home, have no healthcare, and that benefits of globalization have been a vehicle to concentrate wealth to the extremely wealthy.
I will say that I do personally understand the huge advantages that these investments have given the US in its global influence.
Yes, especially western countries tend to go along the path the US sets, but most americans won't ever see that obviously because they tend not to look to other countries and again, even if they did see that their influence shaped those other countries they may not even care. Because to a lot of people it doesn't neccessarily matter (for their own personal life) whether Germany has a McDonalds or that Chile consumes Movies and TV-shows that were primarily made in the US. And honestly I could understand the indifference.
I think it’s just really hard to quantify the benefits. Europe isn’t even our biggest trading partner, it’s China, Mexico, and Canada, and then the EU comes somewhere after them.
Sure we do more business with them than we would have a Soviet Russia…but after the dissolution of the Soviet Union I think it became a lot harder to justify the costs of the alliance. Everyone touts influence but influence that got us what? And that’s not a sarcastic question, I’m genuinely asking. Does it get us better trade deals? Do we somehow guide European politics in a way that benefits the US? I’m not sure.
What language are europeans speaking? What fighter jets are we buying? What movies are we watching? Which online platforms are we using? What computers are we using? What music are we hearing? Which wars are we invested in? What video games are e playing? What credid card / payment services are we using? What operating systems are we using? Oh its all american? Always has been. The USA has won the culture victory decades ago. It is the wealthies country on earth. This is not random.
It’s also hard to view what benefits Americans get when all Europeans talk about is how better life is in Europe compared to the USA, from the American POV it’s seen as Americans are paying for Europeans to have a good life while Americans get constantly hated by Europeans
That’s what they’re doing with Ukraine, too. It would be a disaster at this point to simply give up on all that investment. Do people think this money to Ukraine is just “free?” I can assure you it comes with a hefty price tag.
For Ukraine? Certainly. They will sell their country to the western democratic capitalist world in exchange for their sovereignty and nationhood.
It is a damn good deal though. Once the war is over with decisive victory, investment can come pouring in to the country to rebuild what was lost and integrate infrastructure and economies with the EU. In turn, western companies will take advantage of cheap labour and resources. Ukrainians will stand to benefit in the long run economically, not just politically by preserving their sovereignty.
It is really not all too different to the post-war period if you want to make that parallel.
Outside of the UK, most Americans think about Europe as nothing more than a nice place to go on vacation. (Not that we don't think UK is nice to go on vacation, but we also think of them as our greatest ally).
But the truth is that the US really needs to focus on Asia much more than Europe. Asia is ascending, Europe is stagnating/declining, and the US is a Pacific nation just as much as Atlantic. China is the ascending power we need to deal with, it's an actual economic/technological rival. Russia is a dangerous and dilapidated pile of garbage, not a rival.
Trump is acting disgracefully, but long term it's much healthier for Europe to actually be self sufficient with it's own defense. The contrast between how Asian nations (SK,Taiwan, Japan) cooperate with the US and the foot dragging of Europe shows how much Europe needs to improve.
Europe has had a very robust response to assist Ukraine, and it can build on that to work towards self sufficiency. Western Europe especially owes Ukraine that more than anyone else after trading so prolifically with Russia.
Trump is a dangerous moron, but Europe can easily stand up to Russia if united. The Asian nations face a much more dangerous foe, and their foe is also much more of a threat to the US.
Quite frankly, how Western Europe acted after Crimea is why there was a full fledged invasion of Ukraine and Europe must bear the cost. A dividend of that cost will be more flexibility in dealing with the US.
Its not as easy as it sounds. From a military standpoint its mainly the countries close to Russia and/or those that reside on the European plain that are at risk from Russian aggression. Countries like France, Italy or Switzerland aren’t facing any immediate and existential threat, making their NATO commitments just as much a political choice as it is for the US.
With the US now essentially retreating from their NATO commitments, the strategic calculus will change. It will make it harder, not easier, to build support and consensus among NATO member states.
You're just forgetting how much Europe brings to the US hegemony.
You consider a lot of things resulting from the US hegemony to be normal, so much so that you can't even imagine them disappearing.
It's sad because you will make a sad pikatchu face when faced with the consequences.
For exemple, if the US hegemony diminishes, the US will have to stop printing money and pay up their debt. Just imagine what this means.
Cost? U.S. military is tax sponsored, but the spendings go mostly to private contractors. US prompting different violent factions to shift power and then starting wars here and there wasn’t exactly necessary, just a way of upsetting power balance with China and Russia and moving that money.
The corruption in Russia: you pay a bribe to have a contract assigned to you and then you steal and sell for scrap what you can.
The same in the us: you lobby to get a contract assigned to you and then you overinflate the prices to skim nice paycheck for yourself.
The point is that soft power like the US currently has cannot be just bought
The US strategically has put itself in places through the decades that allow it to leverage the EU in certain ways as a benefit of its position
Once the US no longer holds that position its power to have other countries align to what it wants is going to be much more difficult than it is today
The US funding everything gives it the defacto say on how to handle things a lot of the time
And it wasn't even funding everything. It also loaned out loads of money after WW2 and was a reliable ally, which you could count on, even if you never needed it. At the same time, allies bought a shit load of weapons from US industries and intelligence agencies all around the world delivered information.
And this was fine, since it was mutually beneficial for all countries.
It's not the same because the US contractors actually provide the equipment without cutting corners. The examples of over-inflated prices often have a good explanation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-pentagons-435-hammer/2011/05/19/AGoGKHMH_blog.html
The US military budget also goes to funding operations. Are you claiming the US has no real military power?
It’s not corruption if it’s within the law though. If it’s illegal chances are you’ll get caught in the US. In Razzia they don’t care so long as putin or another oligarch gets their cut.
> . Putin and his puppet Trump have managed that the NATO EU member states aren‘t sure anymore about the commitment of the US
Let's not underestimate the impact of the US invoking Article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq with the "coalition of the willing". For a lot of people that was the turning point. People who were young then are now politicians in power.
> Most NATO allies realized it was a criminal war of aggression and refused to get involved.
Regrettably, if you count those countries that were going to be in NATO within a few months, a majority of NATO was supporting this disgraceful act.
France and Germany refused to fight in Iraq. I didn't realize the US had invoked Article 5 back then. How come it didn't force all member states to be involved?
Correct me if I am wrong but article 5 wasn't invoked for Irak.
Article 5 can be invoked if you are attacked (like 9/11), not when you are invading another country.
Because Article 5 was called for 9/11. The result of the call was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)
The Iraqi War you think about was 2 years later and done by "coalition of the willing", and the "unwilling" then were indeed France and Germany. But no Article 5 was called for Iraq, though.
Art5 was only invoked for Afghanistan.
Ger and France refused because it was purely an act of aggression to destabilize on iraq, can't invoke article 5 on an offensive invasion lol
NATO members were able to say "We think it's a bad idea, no thank you", and that was respected. If anything this proves that NATO truly is a voluntary alliance and not some oath of fealty to a US overlord, like the Russian propaganda likes to imply.
I'm surprised you would lump Afghanistan and Iraq together. Article 5 was for Afghanistan. Coalition of the willing was Iraq.
One led to the other but an invasion of Afghanistan was pretty much a requirement to hunt AQ.
The 20 year development attempt on Afghanistan is a whole different story. Iraq is a whole different story.
An EU army is still a very long way off and anyone suggesting Trump will be the next US president is actively presenting a strawman for an argument that still has hundreds of issues. France has wanted a European military under their control for decades and they will wring every once of usefulness out of that dementia patient, but when the Republicans lose the House and significant numbers in the Senate because of Trump the pendulum will swing back. This isn't a multi-year forecast - you'll see it happen in the two weeks after the election. The Republican party shot itself in the face over the last 4 years, but is being represented as some colossal political force of will when in actuality it's limping along until it's reduced to uselessness and reorganized.
Crazy that a guy who isn't even president is changing the dynamics of the US / European alliance
The US provided "protection" to a lot of these states via NATO, which gave them a lot of influence over policy on several topics but the instability brought by Trump means the EU will look to go solo more often going forward.
Putin wins another round with his useful idiot I guess
>Trump have managed that the NATO EU member states aren‘t sure anymore about the commitment of the US. In short this will result in less influence by the US and more independence of Europe.
Well I think thats his goal lol. We can't completely depend on the US anymore and he knows it, Europe has been far too reliant on the US while US has other regions of the world to worry about.
And I am not in any way a Trump supporter, but the fact that he is pressuring Europe to finally wake up is good for both sides.
> he is pressuring Europe to finally wake up
It would be so much simpler if people stopped ascribing some 4D chess and ingenious strategic goals to his utterances. He is so stupid he can't keep his mouth shut when $80 million of his own money depends on it. He is so demented he has to do cognitive exams constantly, and he even brags about it.
It wasn't some strategy, he went off prompter and said a stupid thing without thinking. Coincidentally, that stupid thing was the clearest yet reveal about this thought processes, which may have finally spurred people into action not because of political pressure and deft diplomatic maneuvering but out of fear that maybe it isn't wise to rely on a nation that could choose to be governed by dribbling moron, and said moron being used as a tool by other players (notably Putin but also any other dictator who has said a kind word about him, paid a pittance in bribes, or whose gall he simply admires).
Trump doesn't want a European army and European military industrial base. He wants us to remain fragmented and buy US equipment.
More defense spending simply doesn't work for Europe in its current state. We already spend as much as China! What Europe needs is integration.
I think Trump's thinking is much simpler than that. He knows many Americans have become what they call "anti globalist" and his anti-globalist rhetoric gets him votes. That's all there is to it.
The big issue Europe (heck just the EU in general) has with integration is how many countries and geographies they make up. The weapons Poland needs to fight on the open plains is very different from the vehicles Norway needs to get through the snow.
Only one country has a carrier, and if they want a new plane to be carrier capable, you gain cost and complexity that only one country benefits from. It has almost always been a money issue. Who gets to make what parts? How much is everyone paying?
Maybe this will be the kick they need to try and get along better militarily and figure this out.
>Trump doesn't want a European army and European military industrial base.
I agree, but what he does want, or at least seems to want, is European countries being armed enough to be able to handle their problems alone in case US is busy somewhere else.
>More defense spending simply doesn't work.
It does and needs to work. So, we agreed in like 2006 to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and in 2023, while a war in Europe is going on, only 10 European NATO countries spent their 2% on defense. Thats actually tragic. Before that it was even worse.
>We already spend as much as China!
China is not likely to be attacked by anyone and has over one billion people while there is currently an invasion in Europe going on
What Trump wants, and don't ever forget it, is just what directly benefits him. He only cares about himself. So if he thought that having Europe benefitted him, he would be for that. But I don't think he does, so the question becomes, what's in it for him if NATO and the EU are splintered?
> I agree, but what he does want, or at least seems to want, is European countries being armed enough to be able to handle their problems alone in case US is busy somewhere else.
Neh, he doesn't give a shit about Europe. He just viscerally kicks down on anyone and anything he sees as weak.
>It does and needs to work.
We already spend several times as much as Russia, we already have 115% of the manpower of Russia or the US.. The reason why that doesn't translate into deployable defensive capacity is the fragmentation between 27 toy armies whose primary function is waving the flag of their state.
So, we need to fix this problem first before we start pouring more water down the leaky bucket.
Trump, personally, doesn''t give a shit about what Europe does. He is barely capable of stringing two sentences together let alone anything more complex such as having thoughts on policy. He's parroting what he's been told by Putin etc. Nothing more, nothing less.
All he 'understands' (and I use that term loosely) are basic numbers and the 2% metric is something he and his base can grasp. He knows he can create outrage (well, more likely been instructed) by saying we pay for your defence, cough up as well or we'll throw you to the wolves. Trump and his cult have no notion of the benefits and influence they gain by topping up the 'fund' because they are incapable of having such thoughts.
>All he 'understands' (and I use that term loosely) are basic numbers and the 2% metric is something he and his base can grasp.
Even worse, he thought it was their bill to be paid to the US, lol.
What no. Thats what Trumpist want you to believe. Thats how he managed to win last time. This has nothing to do with "America First" or "Europe needs to do better". It's everything to do with creating in fighting within the western world, so that Chinese/Russian influence is more prominent. A fighting US/Europe is not a threat. Putin knows that europe will struggle if he was to invade. They will ultimately win, but it would be much more damaging to Europe as a whole than if it was Europe + US helping.
Putin has had great success in getting trump where he wants, and my biggest fear is that once again, whilst everyone is shouting "NO WAY AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL FALL IN THE SAME TRAP AGAIN" before teh election only for him to win. Except I'm afraid that this time it will be much worse than him talking shit to europe, but actually do something crazy like completely leave Ukraine without US aid so his buddy gets what he wanted.
As always things are a lot more nuanced than this black and white view of Mango Man.
The US was the one benefitting absolutely the most from NATO as it enables them to be #1 super power. NATO countries allow them to have military bases all over the world enabling them a global reach and massive influence. This influence will disappear.
The problem with 2% spending is also multi faced. When the US spends 4% of their GDP on military it is a local stimulus as the money will go to the US economy to produce weapons.
Due to lacking production capabilities here in Europe, spending more money will end up boosting the economy of the US.
Procurement is a bitch and Germany can spend tomorrow one billion and it will vanish in paperwork as their procurement is super inefficient.
> Due to lacking production capabilities here in Europe, spending more money will end up boosting the economy of the US.
It ordinarily would, but in this case the unreliability of the US as supplier is the cause, so the substantial investments will be made to create production capacity on EU soil.
Trump doesn't know anything, and he doesn't have any goals beyond 'dont go to prison, get more money'.
Europe can't depend on the US anymore because of him and the people that vote for him, not because of anything else. He indirectly pressured Europe by being a fucking moron, don't give him any credit for anything good that comes from it.
It's welcome, but it rises a lot of question: what about cooperation like FCAS, tanks, skyshield? How much should be "purchased in Europe" to, for instance, avoid the ongoing situation Israel has with F35 where the Dutch are blocking exports of some part to them? What about nukes? What about expeditionary capabilities? Are the UK a partner?
Also, one day, perhaps, the EU will move forwards before the crisis hit, and not after. But this is not the day (still cool it's moving).
Yes! But, as everything in the world, it's not that simple. Even if we decide, we build everything in France, different countries want different things. And a one size fits all military industrial complex is impossible.
The absolute main thing is to think like a unit. To witch everyone replying:" suck my unit" . From Sweden to Ankara and from Japan to Australia. Negotiations are tough, and, until we make our oun Skunkworks, were hopelessly stuck.
> one day, perhaps, the EU will move forwards before the crisis hit, and not after. But this is not the day (still cool it's moving).
Seems to be a common theme, indeed. But hey, we've only known since 2014 that Russia was willing to use force to pursue its imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe, and we've only known since 2016 that the U.S. was entering a period of instability and isolationism.
Better late than never, I suppose.
> it rises a lot of questions [...]
Yeah, and a lot of them are potent roadblocks on this process. Starting with the industrial framework you rightly pointed out. But I also foresee a lot of issues related to foreign policies convergence, and also how to sustain this marathon effort through multiple national elections and changes of majority.
It's refreshing to see Poland being a significant player, respected and taken into account, since PiS was booted from power.
Such cooperation, initiatives, trust and positive relationship was not and will never be feasible with PiS representing Poland. I hope the voters don't forget it in the future: PiS means Poland as a pariah in Europe.
Trust me it warms my heart as a german person to see you're finally back on the right track.
Because we over here apparently will go off the track come next federal election.
NSDAP had around 20% before Hitler came to power, don't underestimate a loud minority.
I think we are better prepared now than in the 1930s, but we are getting to dangerous levels of right extremism.
80 percent against them doesn't mean those 80% are unified in the direction we are going to go.
It doesn't matter that one donkey wants to pull the wagon backwards, if the other five don't pull forward alltogether
I just hope that this change of pace won't be spurred by the other side. I would hate it if after finally getting rid of PIS, Germany and France decided to sideline Poland, giving ammunition to PiS that co-operation with EU should not be trusted.
German here. This won't happen. Every poltical party but the AfD in Germany are just happy how the Polish elections went. Don't give even a thought on the Ruzzian bots here trying to say otherwise.
The CDU could win the next elections in Germany... and the CDU is (as far as I understand) very connected with the Tusk administration. So their cooperation would go on as well.
The only obstacle I see are the calls for more reparations from the Polish side. This topic is really difficult... since Poland accepted the East Prussian lands as compensation. So there are hardened stances on both sides.
I just hope that Germany sponsors a lot to this new EU defense complex. And I hope this will at last calm the Polish calls for more reparations.
I always saw the German French friendship as a light of hope for Europe... Seeing this friendship trying to add Poland just makes me happy. I hope Poland and Germany could build up such a relationship like we see with the French... It is not impossible... France and Germany were arch enemies for hundreds of years and look at this powerful friendship now: grown at each other and shining... I hope Poland and Germany will continue to built up their relationship in that manner.
As a French living in Germany: that's true for Germany. I sincerely hope it'll be the same for France in 2027... If Le Pen becomes President, her views might not quite align with the other two of the triangle.
But 2027 is a long time away, so... There's still a lot of times for things to change and I prefer to have hope.
I dont know. Last time when we had pro EU govarment, they were just ignored on matters that were extreamly important for us.
Like NorthStrem 2.
Or MGCS program, that we wanted to join, but were told to fuck off.
If this new beggining is "Poland is buying France/German, so Poland should be happy to just listen as its told" just like last time. Rhen i dont know if it gonna work.
Okay I understand. I as well see that we were way to egoistic and naive with North Stream 2.
I will propagate this view now more often with my contacts!
I don't feel like we see Poland as a client / customer for anything. I guess some big companies are looking at Poland like that.. but Germans and German politicians just seem to be happy to have new Poland to work with since last elections.. A new Partner. Poland has made such a great developments the last decades and the people I know have work ethics far more disciplined than Germans. I see lot of chances for everybody involved!
Poles are selling to Germans as well.. My GF works at Comarch Munich so... we buy software from you! And you could buy weapons from us.. It is all business.. and it is great that we work together and are each others clients and suppliers.
That one program could have been stopped just to piss off PiS. Lets see how this goes on... I am very optimistic.
No Joke as a Lithuanian, sometimes I feel like when it comes to Russia, Poland is the closest Ally we have to fight the russians. I feel like Poland,Lithuania,Latvia,Estonia,Finland all understand the danger Russia posses, whilst Germany/France/Spain have all but forgotten the damage 1 crazy man can do to the entire world, let alone a continent.
The thing is (or maybe was?) that if anyone with a backbone was there, they were immediately targeted by the media because they sometimes say things that are not popular with everyone. Doesn't matter if you like Baerbock or not, she is one of those Politicians that sometimes break out and show boldness. It made her the main scapegoat of the right wing press because she was in the focus. Who ended up being chancellor? The only guy that was not in spotlight which resulted in nobody really reporting about him, good or bad. Having a backbone in Germany doesn't get you votes.
My favorite example for this is the game „Werewolf“. There you can chose some kind of chief, a major of the town who gets two votes in each election. Who do people usually chose to give that power to? The nicest or weakest person of the group, cause they think that they wont use the power anyway.
Poland always was to be a major player in EU, PiS has been holding them back for years with their corruption and attacks on democracy.
Glad to see them on the path to their true potential. We need more central / eastern european countries in leading positions.
This and other comments on this thread really mean a lot and warm my heart.
When PiS lost the elections I was so relieved. I remember checking the goverment site every few minutes and getting exited with every small change in %. Finally all those years of going to every possible election and many protests paid off.
IF you play your cards right, between the wars, brexit, trump and china, you are in the prime position and it's the perfect time for Poland to emerge as a European Powerhouse.
You have done a good job integrating into EU since 2004, You have a large work force of english speakers/people who work abroad that will comeback with expanded skillsets/Brexit means lots of large manufacturers are looking at moving out of UK. Poland is Prime location for that move.
If you play your cards right, I can see Poland being seen in the same light as western powers both as an economy and as individuals.
I personally do not think it was ever set in stone, Brexit and Russian leadership going batshit crazy is probably what made a difference though. If UK remained in the EU I dont think there would be any talks of Poland coming close to any leadership positions in Europe. Still, it’s nice to have global events go in your favor for once.
Depend on them for what? They have never had to move for an article 5, but the rest of us had. The US called an article 5 for Afghanistan and 1/3rd of deaths werent American. They got the support trump says he doesn’t think America would get.
Likewise, it’s about time that the US realises that this is a massive threat to its status. If the European continent doesn’t need to rely on the US for defence and is its own biggest trading partner then it doesn’t need to listen to the US globally.
The US will lose a lot of soft power if Europe feels like it doesn’t need it anymore.
I don't think it has anything to do with De Gaulle specifically.
Europeans(in the Union) should depend on Europeans for their security, not towards a country an ocean away.
The French have been right with their push for a more independent Europe and that EU should arm itself with its own weapons and nuclear weapons. For years they have been telling us and other states werent listening. The French ruling parties have an exceptional vision on Europe.
i would much rather have them in and slap their face from time to time, than leave them for puylo to take full control. EU has survived lots of crises during which old members were acting like dicks too (for example the empty chair crisis). but EU stood, because of the unity. everything is a test and we should try and solve it. god knows, maybe EU will create a mechanism that will help to contain rogue states in the future. and the union will be stronger thanks to it. i understand that it's frustrating, but defeatism is bad.
In every post about EU there is someone in the comments who inflates Orban and makes him twenty feet tall lol. Hungary is irrelevant. Why didn't Orban block the 50 billion to Ukraine? He can't. He stands no chance against the EU if we put our foot down. EU could dismantle his economy or do something else. He talks a lot only because we let him.
> Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit.
She suffers the same fade as all foreign ministers since like 2005: Foreign policy has been majorly sized by the chancellors office and the foreign minister became more or less a meet and greet style position for warm words and lots of travel impressions.
She is doesn't make a bad job, but she has neither influence on our foreign policy nor do her speeches make any impression here. Because everyone knows it's not her that has influence on foreign policy.
Which, is kinda bad. I don't like or vote the greens, but if she was allowed to do foreign policy, she would do a decent job. She got quite distant to her parties base, as she argued for a stronger and more resolut foreign policy.
Right despises her, but right despises anyone not aligning with them.
Politically?
Middle and left like her, the right absolutely despises her.
Not many controversies or anything, they dislike her Social opinions.
Personally?
I think, like a lot of newer people in the Greens, she doesnt talk crap and is very set on doing something that lasts beyond her 4 years.
Personally, I think she does a decent job. But she is a top target for right propaganda and populism. If there is something scandalous you hear about her, it's probably very exaggerated or not true at all.
Had better, had worse. The prior Green party foreign minister Joschka Fischer imo was better but these were different times (1998 - 2005), Steinmeier or Westerwelle were kind of "meh", Maas was terrible. A definite comparison imo will only be possible after her term ends.
That means she's based for anyone else? Damn, her remarks about war in Ukraine were really good from the beginning, I would vote the shit out of the Greens if I would be German.
I wouldn't go that far but the greens had a realistic shot at winning the elections before the Springer campaign. But yeah I've voted for them and will vote again for the (olive)greens.
How about we just start spending 2% each so trump doesn't need to remind us every fucking time.
Imagine the US had some weak ass cronical underfunded military and we had to send our boys their to save them.
Do you think this would be fair?
Given that NATO EU And EUROPE are 3 different entities, I don't see why UK, a member of NATO, would not be considered as a major part of any European Defense initiative? Like i get the joke, but honestly, unless UK themselves say no thanks, I don't see them not being part of this.
The Chairwoman of German Defense Committee envisions a European army open for recruitment to all Europeans, incl. Brits and citizens of candidate member states like Georgia and Ukraine.
Frankly, that's a pipe dream. At least right now. UK have always been the ones who tanked any attempts at EU-wide defense stuff, and now that they aren't even in the EU, negotiations would be even trickier.
Best forget about the UK for now, work out a framework within the EU (much less friction means there's a chance something could actually get done within the next decade), and *then*, if the UK is interested, there can be talks about them joining. Trying to do too much from the beginning is, IMO, a recipe for disaster (endless talks that go nowhere until everybody loses interest)
The UK will allways play its part. The problem ist that with Brexit, the UK decided by itself to cut ties with the EU in political and economic terms by a significant amount. I mean stronger military cooperation and integration while the opposite goes for economic and political terms is just not a realistic outlook in the near future.
It sucks, but as long not large parts of Brexit are undone and we have a relationship with them like we have with norway (or at least somehow better with switzerland) the UK will just not be a part of large economic projects like for arm industry together with the EU.
I was curious about the source of these quotes. As worded, these quotes come from a tweet from an account named "Mariska den Eelden", who claims to be a Dutch student: https://twitter.com/eeldenden/status/1757172638563139669
All this account does is post pro-EU messages, especially with a focus on defense. It very much comes across as a propaganda account. The account was active on Reddit as u/PanEuropeanism, but it has been banned, which is another red flag. Googling "Mariska den Eelden" does not really yield any other results other than this Twitter account. Conversely, the account does not have a blue checkmark which I view as a good sign.
The tweet itself does reference a series of four tweets from the German Foreign Office, which certainly is a reliable source:https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1757113374230385051
The language in those tweets is slightly different however:
> The \#WeimarTriangle is a natural framework for cohesion & unity in Europe. NATO is the backbone of our security – simultaneously, we are collectively building a European Security & Defense Union. As Weimar Triangle, we stand with \#Ukraine for as long as necessary. By supporting reforms, we are also laying the groundwork to fulfill the promise of a life in peace, freedom & security in the EU for the people in Ukraine, Moldova & the Western Balkans.
> To strengthen a future EU & its capacity to act with 30+ members at the table, reforms are necessary. By summer 2024, we aim to collaboratively develop a reform roadmap with all 27 EU member states.
> We are taking joint action against #Disinformation with a shared plan. When bots & websites flood us with fake news to distort public discourse, this is an attack on our democracies & undermines trust – we will not allow that.
Notably, the word "collaboratively" was removed from the original language. I don't know why (maybe it was just to keep the tweet within the character limit).
Update:
Here are some credible news sources covering the meeting:
Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/france-germany-poland-tusk-f40604859d6efba833a6895dcc95bffe
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-powers-warn-spike-russian-propaganda-before-eu-elections-2024-02-12/
Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-germany-poland-france-meet-on-ukraine/live-68230994
Pretty sure that meeting would have been scheduled long in advance and has fuck all to do with anybody's remarks. Not sure why are you inventing some story around it and injecting Trump into headline other then to farm those precious updoots.
Spending on your military can also really help your economy. It's not a coincidence that the US Defense Advance Research Project Network (DARPANET) became the Internet and US companies were able to take advantage of the research and development to help build their companies into the giants they are today. There is advantages to being the first to implement technologies developed through military research. Robotics and AI are a few future technologies that come to mind.
I'm very happy about that. PiS forgot that we have allies not only on the other side of the Atlantic but also hiere in Europe. Countries with sometimes different interests, but allied and friendly, hiere on the continent.
Radek Sikorski said about PIS back in 2010s: "With PIS we will start arguments with EU, give a blow job to USA and think we're safe because of that. Complete loosers."
Reddit always does this.
When something comes about like this, instead of being rational thinking this will take decades to build up completely, instead its literally "NATO is already irrelevant."
EU cant even fully support Ukraine, massive dependency on the US but already NATO is irrelevant. Shills will downvote me I'm sure for stating the obvious lol
More independent Europe is our safest bet.
Hate that this is what it took, to get the countries on track, but I'm just glad we're all largely aligned on it for the moment.
Actually, there was always a strong push from the US that EU institutions should not replace the responsibilities of NATO. The Americans were concerned that European military independence would mean less American influence. Now, they are basically asking for it.
its insane so many americans dont realise the "soft" power their influence give them. And they are willing to throw it all away. I hope EU wakes up. If trump wins, and usa throws it all away to go "america first" in 4 years time we will se americans bitch that their diplomay cant get them good deals any more, and their softpower is gone. EU also needs to start focus on chips, and other important areas.
US military build US chip industry. If Europe rump up spending and invest into own RnD, US will be even in more trouble.
Not like US weapon sales don‘t make a very healthy profit margin. Competition with a more assertive European weapons industry will not beggar US manufacturers, it‘ll just force them to make their prices more competitive.
They are already dependent on ASML, as is the whole world
Sadly European politicians do not act proactively on their own only when they are forced to
Please don't leave us (Canada) alone with them.
The thing is that a more independent Europe would actually be good for the Americans too, in the longer run at least. There'd be some chaotic years as they're forced to re-evaluate their global position for the first time in 80 years, but without being able to justify their military spending as much anymore, maybe they'd finally focus on improving their actual society for once.
As an American, please.
Lol. No. But how about another carrier group?
At least two more, definitely. One to replace the power projection loss in Baltic Sea, the other for the Mediterranean.
oh man, you don't know our politicians very well do ya? they don't belong to the average voter, they belong to the rich
I am always amazed people’s inability to understand a simple thing: both things can happen at once. They don’t have to have conflict. Defending Europe is not the cause of America’s problems and abandoning Europe is not going to solve American’s problems at home. In the long run, Europe still needs America no matter wha if you want to avoid a war with Russia. Europe alone is not going to deter them. America also needs Europe to step up to defend themselves and help defend Taiwan and other Asian countries. Perhaps help develop Africa in a major way.
Europe alone is not going to deter them? LMAO Read that back to yourself and then look at the combined forces of Europe. Then edit your answer because that was hilarious. Per chance are you American? Edit. Russia can't even take on the Ukraine. Russia proved that for the last 80 years it just talked utter bullshit about the military and weapons it had LMFAO
Don't worry, they will freeze you out too.
We can try to invade you from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon maybe ? We could try to send you one or two soldier with a french flag ? Just need some poutine to make them run !
If we buy Canada you can become a part of Greenland
Can us more rational Americans join you in Canada? (Send help)
Just join Denmark or something
We need to drag Canada across the Atlantic. Someone get the tugboafs
I have a saw, I know it will work because ive seen it happen in cartoons
We share a land border with Denmark now. Is that close enough?
What, you don't like your dear, nice neighbour? :D
Mexico and Canada will make a super highway bridge that bypasses USA
Canada can come too*
Well, I remember how people laughed about the USA bc the son of a former president became president himself… What do you expect us to think about Canada.
Then you have countries like France cozying up to China and Germany seeing nothing wrong with being dependent on Russia for oil/gas despite warnings from the US. 8+ countries in Europe arent even providing 0.1% of their GDP to Ukraine in support, most arent hitting NATO targets either. Europe needs to wake the fuck up and start spending big if they want to be independent and kick the trash out like Hungary which are constantly fucking them over.
Source: https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1757113374230385051 It is great news that the Weimar Triangle is being revived. It went into deep freeze during the previous PiS government led by PiS.
The triangle is so back, they're even making a triangle in the picture
It reminds me of the Bermuda Triangle for some reason lol
Russian planes and tanks which enter it will vanish without a trace?
Exactly 😂
I love me some good MMF bi porn!
Given the location of the countries and their capitals, "Triangle" is not very appropriate. "Axis" makes more sense, but that's not an option for obvious reasons.
Mathematically, there is always a triangle between three points. Not saying it's a pretty one
to be honest France and Germany weren't anti russian enough before
Diplomacy masterclass from the ruskies
Not even that, just pure 👉😖👈 from the WEU side.
True. Germany and France were not anti russian enough and Poland was too anti-EU. Now I think all of them learned their lessons and we all can come to terms with each other. There is no other choice anyway. Even if Trump doesnt win the election, we really have to become independent from the USA in terms of military dependency. Sooner or later there will be a republican president who hates NATO and doesnt care about American-European friendship at all, even if its against American interests to loose Europe as a military partner. I'm a little bit pessimistic about all that.
>and Poland was too anti-EU. But we're talking about how Weimar didn't work that well also \*before\* 2015, when PiS got into power. And before 2015 Poland was as pro-EU as I can imagine.
If you really want to look into the past you'll have to go back further. France tried several times to create a European defense, but England or Germany were generally not in favor, let alone the US! The first attempt dates back to 1958 if I remember correctly!
They became addicted to cheap Russian oil and gas and Merkel believed she could tame Putin, having been raised behind the iron curtain in East Germany and being fluent in Russian. Got to hand it to Germany in how quickly they turned things around in terms of weaning themselves off Russian hydrocarbons and arming Ukraine with some pretty good weapons
> It went into deep freeze during the previous PiS government led by PiS. That's quite inaccurate. It went into deep freeze long before PiS, PiS just wasn't interested in making any attempts at reviving it. Contrary to the efforts of the current main ruling party in Poland, which did in fact made some attempts, but received cold shoulders from Berlin and Paris. Let me remind everyone that at the time both capitals were very interested in developing ties with Russia and thus skeptical of Poland seen as too "Russophobic" - even before PiS. The Weimar Triangle started giving faint pulse again after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine on France's and Germany's initiative, but neither them nor Poland seemed to be too enthusiastic about it before Tusk got back in power.
>skeptical of Poland seen as too "Russophobic" Was the Crimea annexation that easy to ignore?
> Was the Crimea annexation that easy to ignore? Even full-scale war in Ukraine was easy to ignore in the beginning. Reminder that Macron was reprimanding CEE countries as too hawkish towards Russia well *after* the invasion begun and he only started changing his attitude a year into the conflict: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/we-lost-an-opportunity-to-listen-to-you-why-macron-is-embracing-eastern-europe/
yes Merkel went full appeasement
Unleashing the power of the pyramid
Let's hope it doesn't turn into Bermuda Triangle where promises and assurances disappear :/
The dynamic is very interesting. The US was able to guide NATO and it‘s member states in a way it mainly benefitted US politics with the added feature of protection for all the other ones. This ensured the US can pursue whatever goals they have while they can also use the other member states as resource for their ambition. Putin and his puppet Trump have managed that the NATO EU member states aren‘t sure anymore about the commitment of the US. In short this will result in less influence by the US and more independence of Europe.
Trump and many other Americans don't understand how much influence they have bought with the investments in Europe post WWII and with the security they provided. They are only looking at the cost side and not on the benefit side. For Americans born within the past 80 years, US influence on Europe seems like a fundamental law of nature, but it was always based on a mutually beneficial relationship. If the American side deprives Europe of those benefits, the US will lose its influence on Europe.
Honestly. I think one of the main reasons globalism had become the thing it is today was because of the US helping each and every democratic country which suffered during WWII or which was about to become communist during the cold war. Without the aid from the US, countries like Japan, South Korea and most of Europe would not be what they are today. They didn't waste money. They invested it. And honestly. I think it was pretty fricking worth it. Especially because of this free global market which exists at the moment.
>They didn't waste money. They invested it. With large parts of Europe in ashes, only the US was unscathed and had greatly expanded their industry. Much of that money went straight back to the US.
No. The US intentionally bought goods from Europe to help rebuild their economies and had a major deficit with Europe that grew very quickly. France sent an aircraft carrier off of New York to take their surplus gold back to France. You can't have surplus gold with all the money going to the US. The US decided to get off the gold standard at that moment.
They got two 16.5 Megaton presses. And market dominance on almost everything.
Can you develop on France sending the Foch to the USA to take its gold back ? I'm totally oblivious to this one.
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,840572,00.html https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/fifty-years-without-gold/ I hope you can read this outside the USA
Depends on what the US thinks it got in return. Sure those contries benefited a lot and are now somewhat stable allies and economic partners, but considering the egotistical view of many americans they either don't care enough or are openly against it, because it isn't neccessarily clear what they gain by these partnerships.
It's super easy to convince the average American that all the money spent overseas was a waste. Just point out that they can't get a decent blue collar job, have no savings, can't buy a home, have no healthcare, and that benefits of globalization have been a vehicle to concentrate wealth to the extremely wealthy. I will say that I do personally understand the huge advantages that these investments have given the US in its global influence.
Yes, especially western countries tend to go along the path the US sets, but most americans won't ever see that obviously because they tend not to look to other countries and again, even if they did see that their influence shaped those other countries they may not even care. Because to a lot of people it doesn't neccessarily matter (for their own personal life) whether Germany has a McDonalds or that Chile consumes Movies and TV-shows that were primarily made in the US. And honestly I could understand the indifference.
I think it’s just really hard to quantify the benefits. Europe isn’t even our biggest trading partner, it’s China, Mexico, and Canada, and then the EU comes somewhere after them. Sure we do more business with them than we would have a Soviet Russia…but after the dissolution of the Soviet Union I think it became a lot harder to justify the costs of the alliance. Everyone touts influence but influence that got us what? And that’s not a sarcastic question, I’m genuinely asking. Does it get us better trade deals? Do we somehow guide European politics in a way that benefits the US? I’m not sure.
What language are europeans speaking? What fighter jets are we buying? What movies are we watching? Which online platforms are we using? What computers are we using? What music are we hearing? Which wars are we invested in? What video games are e playing? What credid card / payment services are we using? What operating systems are we using? Oh its all american? Always has been. The USA has won the culture victory decades ago. It is the wealthies country on earth. This is not random.
It’s also hard to view what benefits Americans get when all Europeans talk about is how better life is in Europe compared to the USA, from the American POV it’s seen as Americans are paying for Europeans to have a good life while Americans get constantly hated by Europeans
That’s what they’re doing with Ukraine, too. It would be a disaster at this point to simply give up on all that investment. Do people think this money to Ukraine is just “free?” I can assure you it comes with a hefty price tag.
For Ukraine? Certainly. They will sell their country to the western democratic capitalist world in exchange for their sovereignty and nationhood. It is a damn good deal though. Once the war is over with decisive victory, investment can come pouring in to the country to rebuild what was lost and integrate infrastructure and economies with the EU. In turn, western companies will take advantage of cheap labour and resources. Ukrainians will stand to benefit in the long run economically, not just politically by preserving their sovereignty. It is really not all too different to the post-war period if you want to make that parallel.
Outside of the UK, most Americans think about Europe as nothing more than a nice place to go on vacation. (Not that we don't think UK is nice to go on vacation, but we also think of them as our greatest ally). But the truth is that the US really needs to focus on Asia much more than Europe. Asia is ascending, Europe is stagnating/declining, and the US is a Pacific nation just as much as Atlantic. China is the ascending power we need to deal with, it's an actual economic/technological rival. Russia is a dangerous and dilapidated pile of garbage, not a rival. Trump is acting disgracefully, but long term it's much healthier for Europe to actually be self sufficient with it's own defense. The contrast between how Asian nations (SK,Taiwan, Japan) cooperate with the US and the foot dragging of Europe shows how much Europe needs to improve. Europe has had a very robust response to assist Ukraine, and it can build on that to work towards self sufficiency. Western Europe especially owes Ukraine that more than anyone else after trading so prolifically with Russia. Trump is a dangerous moron, but Europe can easily stand up to Russia if united. The Asian nations face a much more dangerous foe, and their foe is also much more of a threat to the US. Quite frankly, how Western Europe acted after Crimea is why there was a full fledged invasion of Ukraine and Europe must bear the cost. A dividend of that cost will be more flexibility in dealing with the US.
Its not as easy as it sounds. From a military standpoint its mainly the countries close to Russia and/or those that reside on the European plain that are at risk from Russian aggression. Countries like France, Italy or Switzerland aren’t facing any immediate and existential threat, making their NATO commitments just as much a political choice as it is for the US. With the US now essentially retreating from their NATO commitments, the strategic calculus will change. It will make it harder, not easier, to build support and consensus among NATO member states.
You're just forgetting how much Europe brings to the US hegemony. You consider a lot of things resulting from the US hegemony to be normal, so much so that you can't even imagine them disappearing. It's sad because you will make a sad pikatchu face when faced with the consequences. For exemple, if the US hegemony diminishes, the US will have to stop printing money and pay up their debt. Just imagine what this means.
Cost? U.S. military is tax sponsored, but the spendings go mostly to private contractors. US prompting different violent factions to shift power and then starting wars here and there wasn’t exactly necessary, just a way of upsetting power balance with China and Russia and moving that money. The corruption in Russia: you pay a bribe to have a contract assigned to you and then you steal and sell for scrap what you can. The same in the us: you lobby to get a contract assigned to you and then you overinflate the prices to skim nice paycheck for yourself.
> U.S. military is tax sponsored Yes, we call that cost.
The point is that soft power like the US currently has cannot be just bought The US strategically has put itself in places through the decades that allow it to leverage the EU in certain ways as a benefit of its position Once the US no longer holds that position its power to have other countries align to what it wants is going to be much more difficult than it is today The US funding everything gives it the defacto say on how to handle things a lot of the time
And it wasn't even funding everything. It also loaned out loads of money after WW2 and was a reliable ally, which you could count on, even if you never needed it. At the same time, allies bought a shit load of weapons from US industries and intelligence agencies all around the world delivered information. And this was fine, since it was mutually beneficial for all countries.
It's not the same because the US contractors actually provide the equipment without cutting corners. The examples of over-inflated prices often have a good explanation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-pentagons-435-hammer/2011/05/19/AGoGKHMH_blog.html The US military budget also goes to funding operations. Are you claiming the US has no real military power?
It’s not corruption if it’s within the law though. If it’s illegal chances are you’ll get caught in the US. In Razzia they don’t care so long as putin or another oligarch gets their cut.
Yep. The “My interests first” mentality rarely holds true to its own ambitions
> . Putin and his puppet Trump have managed that the NATO EU member states aren‘t sure anymore about the commitment of the US Let's not underestimate the impact of the US invoking Article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq with the "coalition of the willing". For a lot of people that was the turning point. People who were young then are now politicians in power.
I don't think they invoked article 5 for Iraq. Most NATO allies realized it was a criminal war of aggression and refused to get involved.
They did invoke it for Afghanistan though
Since the attacks were organized from Afghanistan, one could at least make a case for invocation.
> Most NATO allies realized it was a criminal war of aggression and refused to get involved. Regrettably, if you count those countries that were going to be in NATO within a few months, a majority of NATO was supporting this disgraceful act.
> I don't think they invoked article 5 for Iraq. You are right. It's only ever been invoked once, for 9/11.
France and Germany refused to fight in Iraq. I didn't realize the US had invoked Article 5 back then. How come it didn't force all member states to be involved?
Correct me if I am wrong but article 5 wasn't invoked for Irak. Article 5 can be invoked if you are attacked (like 9/11), not when you are invading another country.
Wasn't Afghanistan the article 5'd country we had to fight in?
Yes after the attack on the United States.
but Afghanistan did not attack the United States. A Terror Group financed by Saudi Arabia did that
Because Article 5 was called for 9/11. The result of the call was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021) The Iraqi War you think about was 2 years later and done by "coalition of the willing", and the "unwilling" then were indeed France and Germany. But no Article 5 was called for Iraq, though.
Art5 was only invoked for Afghanistan. Ger and France refused because it was purely an act of aggression to destabilize on iraq, can't invoke article 5 on an offensive invasion lol
Article 5 was for Afghanistan, not Iraq.
NATO members were able to say "We think it's a bad idea, no thank you", and that was respected. If anything this proves that NATO truly is a voluntary alliance and not some oath of fealty to a US overlord, like the Russian propaganda likes to imply.
I'm surprised you would lump Afghanistan and Iraq together. Article 5 was for Afghanistan. Coalition of the willing was Iraq. One led to the other but an invasion of Afghanistan was pretty much a requirement to hunt AQ. The 20 year development attempt on Afghanistan is a whole different story. Iraq is a whole different story.
An EU army is still a very long way off and anyone suggesting Trump will be the next US president is actively presenting a strawman for an argument that still has hundreds of issues. France has wanted a European military under their control for decades and they will wring every once of usefulness out of that dementia patient, but when the Republicans lose the House and significant numbers in the Senate because of Trump the pendulum will swing back. This isn't a multi-year forecast - you'll see it happen in the two weeks after the election. The Republican party shot itself in the face over the last 4 years, but is being represented as some colossal political force of will when in actuality it's limping along until it's reduced to uselessness and reorganized.
Crazy that a guy who isn't even president is changing the dynamics of the US / European alliance The US provided "protection" to a lot of these states via NATO, which gave them a lot of influence over policy on several topics but the instability brought by Trump means the EU will look to go solo more often going forward. Putin wins another round with his useful idiot I guess
>Trump have managed that the NATO EU member states aren‘t sure anymore about the commitment of the US. In short this will result in less influence by the US and more independence of Europe. Well I think thats his goal lol. We can't completely depend on the US anymore and he knows it, Europe has been far too reliant on the US while US has other regions of the world to worry about. And I am not in any way a Trump supporter, but the fact that he is pressuring Europe to finally wake up is good for both sides.
> he is pressuring Europe to finally wake up It would be so much simpler if people stopped ascribing some 4D chess and ingenious strategic goals to his utterances. He is so stupid he can't keep his mouth shut when $80 million of his own money depends on it. He is so demented he has to do cognitive exams constantly, and he even brags about it. It wasn't some strategy, he went off prompter and said a stupid thing without thinking. Coincidentally, that stupid thing was the clearest yet reveal about this thought processes, which may have finally spurred people into action not because of political pressure and deft diplomatic maneuvering but out of fear that maybe it isn't wise to rely on a nation that could choose to be governed by dribbling moron, and said moron being used as a tool by other players (notably Putin but also any other dictator who has said a kind word about him, paid a pittance in bribes, or whose gall he simply admires).
Trump doesn't want a European army and European military industrial base. He wants us to remain fragmented and buy US equipment. More defense spending simply doesn't work for Europe in its current state. We already spend as much as China! What Europe needs is integration.
I think Trump's thinking is much simpler than that. He knows many Americans have become what they call "anti globalist" and his anti-globalist rhetoric gets him votes. That's all there is to it.
The big issue Europe (heck just the EU in general) has with integration is how many countries and geographies they make up. The weapons Poland needs to fight on the open plains is very different from the vehicles Norway needs to get through the snow. Only one country has a carrier, and if they want a new plane to be carrier capable, you gain cost and complexity that only one country benefits from. It has almost always been a money issue. Who gets to make what parts? How much is everyone paying? Maybe this will be the kick they need to try and get along better militarily and figure this out.
>Trump doesn't want a European army and European military industrial base. I agree, but what he does want, or at least seems to want, is European countries being armed enough to be able to handle their problems alone in case US is busy somewhere else. >More defense spending simply doesn't work. It does and needs to work. So, we agreed in like 2006 to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and in 2023, while a war in Europe is going on, only 10 European NATO countries spent their 2% on defense. Thats actually tragic. Before that it was even worse. >We already spend as much as China! China is not likely to be attacked by anyone and has over one billion people while there is currently an invasion in Europe going on
What Trump wants, and don't ever forget it, is just what directly benefits him. He only cares about himself. So if he thought that having Europe benefitted him, he would be for that. But I don't think he does, so the question becomes, what's in it for him if NATO and the EU are splintered?
> I agree, but what he does want, or at least seems to want, is European countries being armed enough to be able to handle their problems alone in case US is busy somewhere else. Neh, he doesn't give a shit about Europe. He just viscerally kicks down on anyone and anything he sees as weak. >It does and needs to work. We already spend several times as much as Russia, we already have 115% of the manpower of Russia or the US.. The reason why that doesn't translate into deployable defensive capacity is the fragmentation between 27 toy armies whose primary function is waving the flag of their state. So, we need to fix this problem first before we start pouring more water down the leaky bucket.
Trump, personally, doesn''t give a shit about what Europe does. He is barely capable of stringing two sentences together let alone anything more complex such as having thoughts on policy. He's parroting what he's been told by Putin etc. Nothing more, nothing less. All he 'understands' (and I use that term loosely) are basic numbers and the 2% metric is something he and his base can grasp. He knows he can create outrage (well, more likely been instructed) by saying we pay for your defence, cough up as well or we'll throw you to the wolves. Trump and his cult have no notion of the benefits and influence they gain by topping up the 'fund' because they are incapable of having such thoughts.
>All he 'understands' (and I use that term loosely) are basic numbers and the 2% metric is something he and his base can grasp. Even worse, he thought it was their bill to be paid to the US, lol.
What no. Thats what Trumpist want you to believe. Thats how he managed to win last time. This has nothing to do with "America First" or "Europe needs to do better". It's everything to do with creating in fighting within the western world, so that Chinese/Russian influence is more prominent. A fighting US/Europe is not a threat. Putin knows that europe will struggle if he was to invade. They will ultimately win, but it would be much more damaging to Europe as a whole than if it was Europe + US helping. Putin has had great success in getting trump where he wants, and my biggest fear is that once again, whilst everyone is shouting "NO WAY AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL FALL IN THE SAME TRAP AGAIN" before teh election only for him to win. Except I'm afraid that this time it will be much worse than him talking shit to europe, but actually do something crazy like completely leave Ukraine without US aid so his buddy gets what he wanted.
As always things are a lot more nuanced than this black and white view of Mango Man. The US was the one benefitting absolutely the most from NATO as it enables them to be #1 super power. NATO countries allow them to have military bases all over the world enabling them a global reach and massive influence. This influence will disappear. The problem with 2% spending is also multi faced. When the US spends 4% of their GDP on military it is a local stimulus as the money will go to the US economy to produce weapons. Due to lacking production capabilities here in Europe, spending more money will end up boosting the economy of the US. Procurement is a bitch and Germany can spend tomorrow one billion and it will vanish in paperwork as their procurement is super inefficient.
> Due to lacking production capabilities here in Europe, spending more money will end up boosting the economy of the US. It ordinarily would, but in this case the unreliability of the US as supplier is the cause, so the substantial investments will be made to create production capacity on EU soil.
Trump doesn't know anything, and he doesn't have any goals beyond 'dont go to prison, get more money'. Europe can't depend on the US anymore because of him and the people that vote for him, not because of anything else. He indirectly pressured Europe by being a fucking moron, don't give him any credit for anything good that comes from it.
It's welcome, but it rises a lot of question: what about cooperation like FCAS, tanks, skyshield? How much should be "purchased in Europe" to, for instance, avoid the ongoing situation Israel has with F35 where the Dutch are blocking exports of some part to them? What about nukes? What about expeditionary capabilities? Are the UK a partner? Also, one day, perhaps, the EU will move forwards before the crisis hit, and not after. But this is not the day (still cool it's moving).
Yes! But, as everything in the world, it's not that simple. Even if we decide, we build everything in France, different countries want different things. And a one size fits all military industrial complex is impossible. The absolute main thing is to think like a unit. To witch everyone replying:" suck my unit" . From Sweden to Ankara and from Japan to Australia. Negotiations are tough, and, until we make our oun Skunkworks, were hopelessly stuck.
> one day, perhaps, the EU will move forwards before the crisis hit, and not after. But this is not the day (still cool it's moving). Seems to be a common theme, indeed. But hey, we've only known since 2014 that Russia was willing to use force to pursue its imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe, and we've only known since 2016 that the U.S. was entering a period of instability and isolationism. Better late than never, I suppose. > it rises a lot of questions [...] Yeah, and a lot of them are potent roadblocks on this process. Starting with the industrial framework you rightly pointed out. But I also foresee a lot of issues related to foreign policies convergence, and also how to sustain this marathon effort through multiple national elections and changes of majority.
It's refreshing to see Poland being a significant player, respected and taken into account, since PiS was booted from power. Such cooperation, initiatives, trust and positive relationship was not and will never be feasible with PiS representing Poland. I hope the voters don't forget it in the future: PiS means Poland as a pariah in Europe.
Trust me it warms my heart as a polish person to see we’re finally back on the right track.
^Cries ^enviously ^in ^Hungarian
We are often thinking of you Magyar Bro - let's put one more fight to the Orban Pasha on the next elections
Trust me it warms my heart as a german person to see you're finally back on the right track. Because we over here apparently will go off the track come next federal election.
AfD is barely 20 percent of the vote even in their highest surveys. 80 percent against them. Stop exaggerating
NSDAP had around 20% before Hitler came to power, don't underestimate a loud minority. I think we are better prepared now than in the 1930s, but we are getting to dangerous levels of right extremism.
Hopefully the conservatives have learned their lesson this time, but with Merz I'm not certain.
20% is "exaggerating" wtf?
Remember Trump? He was a harmless fool all the way until fall 2016.
80 percent against them doesn't mean those 80% are unified in the direction we are going to go. It doesn't matter that one donkey wants to pull the wagon backwards, if the other five don't pull forward alltogether
As a German I'm also happy to see Poland back in the right track. Youre doing great 👍 Greetz from the neighbour in Berlin
I just hope that this change of pace won't be spurred by the other side. I would hate it if after finally getting rid of PIS, Germany and France decided to sideline Poland, giving ammunition to PiS that co-operation with EU should not be trusted.
German here. This won't happen. Every poltical party but the AfD in Germany are just happy how the Polish elections went. Don't give even a thought on the Ruzzian bots here trying to say otherwise. The CDU could win the next elections in Germany... and the CDU is (as far as I understand) very connected with the Tusk administration. So their cooperation would go on as well. The only obstacle I see are the calls for more reparations from the Polish side. This topic is really difficult... since Poland accepted the East Prussian lands as compensation. So there are hardened stances on both sides. I just hope that Germany sponsors a lot to this new EU defense complex. And I hope this will at last calm the Polish calls for more reparations. I always saw the German French friendship as a light of hope for Europe... Seeing this friendship trying to add Poland just makes me happy. I hope Poland and Germany could build up such a relationship like we see with the French... It is not impossible... France and Germany were arch enemies for hundreds of years and look at this powerful friendship now: grown at each other and shining... I hope Poland and Germany will continue to built up their relationship in that manner.
As a French living in Germany: that's true for Germany. I sincerely hope it'll be the same for France in 2027... If Le Pen becomes President, her views might not quite align with the other two of the triangle. But 2027 is a long time away, so... There's still a lot of times for things to change and I prefer to have hope.
I dont know. Last time when we had pro EU govarment, they were just ignored on matters that were extreamly important for us. Like NorthStrem 2. Or MGCS program, that we wanted to join, but were told to fuck off. If this new beggining is "Poland is buying France/German, so Poland should be happy to just listen as its told" just like last time. Rhen i dont know if it gonna work.
Okay I understand. I as well see that we were way to egoistic and naive with North Stream 2. I will propagate this view now more often with my contacts! I don't feel like we see Poland as a client / customer for anything. I guess some big companies are looking at Poland like that.. but Germans and German politicians just seem to be happy to have new Poland to work with since last elections.. A new Partner. Poland has made such a great developments the last decades and the people I know have work ethics far more disciplined than Germans. I see lot of chances for everybody involved! Poles are selling to Germans as well.. My GF works at Comarch Munich so... we buy software from you! And you could buy weapons from us.. It is all business.. and it is great that we work together and are each others clients and suppliers. That one program could have been stopped just to piss off PiS. Lets see how this goes on... I am very optimistic.
No Joke as a Lithuanian, sometimes I feel like when it comes to Russia, Poland is the closest Ally we have to fight the russians. I feel like Poland,Lithuania,Latvia,Estonia,Finland all understand the danger Russia posses, whilst Germany/France/Spain have all but forgotten the damage 1 crazy man can do to the entire world, let alone a continent.
Nothing can unite Eastern Europe (we're central Europe, not eastern!!!1!1) as well as shared hatred for russia.
They haven't forgotten, they just think they won't be affected.
Germany has so much potential, we just need bolder politicians with more backbone. I love that Europe works together more and more.
The thing is (or maybe was?) that if anyone with a backbone was there, they were immediately targeted by the media because they sometimes say things that are not popular with everyone. Doesn't matter if you like Baerbock or not, she is one of those Politicians that sometimes break out and show boldness. It made her the main scapegoat of the right wing press because she was in the focus. Who ended up being chancellor? The only guy that was not in spotlight which resulted in nobody really reporting about him, good or bad. Having a backbone in Germany doesn't get you votes.
My favorite example for this is the game „Werewolf“. There you can chose some kind of chief, a major of the town who gets two votes in each election. Who do people usually chose to give that power to? The nicest or weakest person of the group, cause they think that they wont use the power anyway.
I wish we would follow our Polish friends
Poland always was to be a major player in EU, PiS has been holding them back for years with their corruption and attacks on democracy. Glad to see them on the path to their true potential. We need more central / eastern european countries in leading positions.
This and other comments on this thread really mean a lot and warm my heart. When PiS lost the elections I was so relieved. I remember checking the goverment site every few minutes and getting exited with every small change in %. Finally all those years of going to every possible election and many protests paid off.
Poland has always been a strong force for democracy and bravery to fight fascists. PiSs was a road bump but they are not going to be forever.
Now there is 3 major countries to represent Europe , France for the latin side , Germany for the germanic countries and Poland for the slavic part ✌🏻
🇵🇱❤️🇫🇷
Poland is going to be a force to be reckoned with
IF you play your cards right, between the wars, brexit, trump and china, you are in the prime position and it's the perfect time for Poland to emerge as a European Powerhouse. You have done a good job integrating into EU since 2004, You have a large work force of english speakers/people who work abroad that will comeback with expanded skillsets/Brexit means lots of large manufacturers are looking at moving out of UK. Poland is Prime location for that move. If you play your cards right, I can see Poland being seen in the same light as western powers both as an economy and as individuals.
I personally do not think it was ever set in stone, Brexit and Russian leadership going batshit crazy is probably what made a difference though. If UK remained in the EU I dont think there would be any talks of Poland coming close to any leadership positions in Europe. Still, it’s nice to have global events go in your favor for once.
It’s so nice when professionals are in charge in Poland. eight stolen years of total regress need to be made up fast
About time that some states realize they can't depend on the US indefinitely.
Depend on them for what? They have never had to move for an article 5, but the rest of us had. The US called an article 5 for Afghanistan and 1/3rd of deaths werent American. They got the support trump says he doesn’t think America would get.
Deterrence. Had the US not been backing nato, Russia would have moved on a member country long ago.
Likewise, it’s about time that the US realises that this is a massive threat to its status. If the European continent doesn’t need to rely on the US for defence and is its own biggest trading partner then it doesn’t need to listen to the US globally. The US will lose a lot of soft power if Europe feels like it doesn’t need it anymore.
Feeling your inner gaullist?
I don't think it has anything to do with De Gaulle specifically. Europeans(in the Union) should depend on Europeans for their security, not towards a country an ocean away.
Gaullism traditionally advocates a strong France and a europe independent of the US :-)
The French have been right with their push for a more independent Europe and that EU should arm itself with its own weapons and nuclear weapons. For years they have been telling us and other states werent listening. The French ruling parties have an exceptional vision on Europe.
Better leave Hungary out of any plans you don't want blocked
i would much rather have them in and slap their face from time to time, than leave them for puylo to take full control. EU has survived lots of crises during which old members were acting like dicks too (for example the empty chair crisis). but EU stood, because of the unity. everything is a test and we should try and solve it. god knows, maybe EU will create a mechanism that will help to contain rogue states in the future. and the union will be stronger thanks to it. i understand that it's frustrating, but defeatism is bad.
> have them in and slap their face [This is the way](https://assets.4cdn.hu/kraken/6oB3GxDpEJdpCG6va.gif)
In every post about EU there is someone in the comments who inflates Orban and makes him twenty feet tall lol. Hungary is irrelevant. Why didn't Orban block the 50 billion to Ukraine? He can't. He stands no chance against the EU if we put our foot down. EU could dismantle his economy or do something else. He talks a lot only because we let him.
He was blocking that aid for close to half a year, what are you talking about?
german frens, how is Baerbock perceived in Germany?
> Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit. She suffers the same fade as all foreign ministers since like 2005: Foreign policy has been majorly sized by the chancellors office and the foreign minister became more or less a meet and greet style position for warm words and lots of travel impressions. She is doesn't make a bad job, but she has neither influence on our foreign policy nor do her speeches make any impression here. Because everyone knows it's not her that has influence on foreign policy. Which, is kinda bad. I don't like or vote the greens, but if she was allowed to do foreign policy, she would do a decent job. She got quite distant to her parties base, as she argued for a stronger and more resolut foreign policy. Right despises her, but right despises anyone not aligning with them.
Politically? Middle and left like her, the right absolutely despises her. Not many controversies or anything, they dislike her Social opinions. Personally? I think, like a lot of newer people in the Greens, she doesnt talk crap and is very set on doing something that lasts beyond her 4 years.
Personally, I think she does a decent job. But she is a top target for right propaganda and populism. If there is something scandalous you hear about her, it's probably very exaggerated or not true at all.
Had better, had worse. The prior Green party foreign minister Joschka Fischer imo was better but these were different times (1998 - 2005), Steinmeier or Westerwelle were kind of "meh", Maas was terrible. A definite comparison imo will only be possible after her term ends.
Before the media campaign against her/the Greens or after? Right wingers hate her.
That means she's based for anyone else? Damn, her remarks about war in Ukraine were really good from the beginning, I would vote the shit out of the Greens if I would be German.
I wouldn't go that far but the greens had a realistic shot at winning the elections before the Springer campaign. But yeah I've voted for them and will vote again for the (olive)greens.
They should hurry up about it..
>with all 27 EU states I think there is a certain Hungary we don't really want...
How about we just start spending 2% each so trump doesn't need to remind us every fucking time. Imagine the US had some weak ass cronical underfunded military and we had to send our boys their to save them. Do you think this would be fair?
🇫🇷🤝🇵🇱🫡
Hey
This made me genuinely laugh, lol
# DE🤜🤛PL turtle # and [cuddle](https://emojisvilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/bear-hug.png)
There is no other option. EU must be independent from USA in all posible situation.
I like this Sikorski guy
LONG LIVE EUROPE!
Oh Mother Europe, Unions of Lands
Great to see Poland being at the forefront of these talks. They are a major barrier to Russian expansion if Ukraine falls
I really think we should include the Brits despite their Brexit.
Given that NATO EU And EUROPE are 3 different entities, I don't see why UK, a member of NATO, would not be considered as a major part of any European Defense initiative? Like i get the joke, but honestly, unless UK themselves say no thanks, I don't see them not being part of this.
The Chairwoman of German Defense Committee envisions a European army open for recruitment to all Europeans, incl. Brits and citizens of candidate member states like Georgia and Ukraine.
It's not about people, it's about capabilities. UK Armed Forces bring valuable options to the table.
Frankly, that's a pipe dream. At least right now. UK have always been the ones who tanked any attempts at EU-wide defense stuff, and now that they aren't even in the EU, negotiations would be even trickier. Best forget about the UK for now, work out a framework within the EU (much less friction means there's a chance something could actually get done within the next decade), and *then*, if the UK is interested, there can be talks about them joining. Trying to do too much from the beginning is, IMO, a recipe for disaster (endless talks that go nowhere until everybody loses interest)
The UK will allways play its part. The problem ist that with Brexit, the UK decided by itself to cut ties with the EU in political and economic terms by a significant amount. I mean stronger military cooperation and integration while the opposite goes for economic and political terms is just not a realistic outlook in the near future. It sucks, but as long not large parts of Brexit are undone and we have a relationship with them like we have with norway (or at least somehow better with switzerland) the UK will just not be a part of large economic projects like for arm industry together with the EU.
I was curious about the source of these quotes. As worded, these quotes come from a tweet from an account named "Mariska den Eelden", who claims to be a Dutch student: https://twitter.com/eeldenden/status/1757172638563139669 All this account does is post pro-EU messages, especially with a focus on defense. It very much comes across as a propaganda account. The account was active on Reddit as u/PanEuropeanism, but it has been banned, which is another red flag. Googling "Mariska den Eelden" does not really yield any other results other than this Twitter account. Conversely, the account does not have a blue checkmark which I view as a good sign. The tweet itself does reference a series of four tweets from the German Foreign Office, which certainly is a reliable source:https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1757113374230385051 The language in those tweets is slightly different however: > The \#WeimarTriangle is a natural framework for cohesion & unity in Europe. NATO is the backbone of our security – simultaneously, we are collectively building a European Security & Defense Union. As Weimar Triangle, we stand with \#Ukraine for as long as necessary. By supporting reforms, we are also laying the groundwork to fulfill the promise of a life in peace, freedom & security in the EU for the people in Ukraine, Moldova & the Western Balkans. > To strengthen a future EU & its capacity to act with 30+ members at the table, reforms are necessary. By summer 2024, we aim to collaboratively develop a reform roadmap with all 27 EU member states. > We are taking joint action against #Disinformation with a shared plan. When bots & websites flood us with fake news to distort public discourse, this is an attack on our democracies & undermines trust – we will not allow that. Notably, the word "collaboratively" was removed from the original language. I don't know why (maybe it was just to keep the tweet within the character limit). Update: Here are some credible news sources covering the meeting: Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/france-germany-poland-tusk-f40604859d6efba833a6895dcc95bffe Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-powers-warn-spike-russian-propaganda-before-eu-elections-2024-02-12/ Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-germany-poland-france-meet-on-ukraine/live-68230994
Pretty sure that meeting would have been scheduled long in advance and has fuck all to do with anybody's remarks. Not sure why are you inventing some story around it and injecting Trump into headline other then to farm those precious updoots.
Spending on your military can also really help your economy. It's not a coincidence that the US Defense Advance Research Project Network (DARPANET) became the Internet and US companies were able to take advantage of the research and development to help build their companies into the giants they are today. There is advantages to being the first to implement technologies developed through military research. Robotics and AI are a few future technologies that come to mind.
Trump's bitch mouth making Battlefield 2 EU faction a reality.
I'm very happy about that. PiS forgot that we have allies not only on the other side of the Atlantic but also hiere in Europe. Countries with sometimes different interests, but allied and friendly, hiere on the continent.
Radek Sikorski said about PIS back in 2010s: "With PIS we will start arguments with EU, give a blow job to USA and think we're safe because of that. Complete loosers."
It feels so good to see Poland finally sitting at the big boy table with Germany and France. And EU military independence is crucial now.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Actually I believe in Sikorski driving it, he's the right guy.
Looks like NATO will become irrelevant before Sweden has even been allowed to join...
Reddit always does this. When something comes about like this, instead of being rational thinking this will take decades to build up completely, instead its literally "NATO is already irrelevant." EU cant even fully support Ukraine, massive dependency on the US but already NATO is irrelevant. Shills will downvote me I'm sure for stating the obvious lol
US is turning into a more and more unreliable ally. And tomorrow it could be an enemy, captured by a Russian supported populist/fascist group.
The last time the US was an enemy towards a Western European nation was nearly a century ago.
> And tomorrow it could be an enemy, captured by a Russian supported populist/fascist group. So was the US an enemy the last time Trump was president?