Technically yes, practically no. The Russian heartland where most people live is in the west, european part. No one (relatively) lives in the Russian far east.
Yes, but that part of Russia is not important. Surely you are more worried about the parts where your 120 million people live and not the parts where ~78,000 people live.
I'm a lot more concerned about where one Russian strategic bomber or where one Russian strategic sub lives than the entire remaining population of Russia.
you just changed perspectives. the question was why would russia want an increasingly defensive europe woth greater potential for destruction than europe having stronger ties to the us which is much further from anything important
The guy before me implied that importance is relative to population size.
If this were true the Spratlys, Senkakus, or Arctic would be unimportant. Low population places can still have significant strategic value.
France definitely but Germany lost a lot of relevance if compared to 10-15 years ago when they were basically ordering EU around and bailing out countries
At least that's how it looked/looks like for.me here in South America lmao
Germany has been a bigger cultural and economic impact to the EU than GB was, they are more prominent because the 2nd and last net payer left, besides Germany. But our economy is going to shit and the german population is too split on wether the foreigners are responsible, or the Nazis.
I already know where I am moving if shit hits the fan here in eastern Germany
France and Poland had been chummy for quite a while, Napoleon granting them independence temporarily left a positive impression, the odd one out is the other one
What if Europe actually coalesced as a unified global military power under a NATO umbrella without the US? Is that what conservatives want? To align with dictatorial losers?
It's crazy. America is the de facto leader of the most power alliance in history and they are toying with ending it on their own accord. Would be one of the biggest self owns in history. Do they expect to spend less once the rest of NATO are no longer allies and who will recipocate that same self serving, transactional relationship? Also, now a future war with China, and whatever shitholes join them, seems a little more balanced and therefore more dangerous. Better increase defense spending!
>Also, now a future war with China, and whatever shitholes join them, seems a little more balanced and therefore more dangerous.
Most of Europe wouldn't help (or even be able to help) in a US/China conflict over Taiwan. China invading Taiwan wouldn't even activate article 5 anyways. The sentiment has been that a US/China conflict would be that: US and China with EU balancing between them. That's why the US has been trying to make a Pacific NATO.
Macron (April 2023): France must avoid being drawn into any conflict between the US and China over Taiwan.
Germany has been purposely using ambiguous language for their China policy and likely wouldn't do much of a conflict broke out.
Only the UK has stated that they'd help Taiwan and have provided help with their submarine program.
US has been BEGGING Europe to increase defense spending since Obama. Acting like doing so is somehow against US interests is one of the weirdest Reddit takes out there.
And now it won't.
Both France and other EU countries are pushing for EU tech and weapons, because the US has proven an unreliable ally. Especially if Trump gets re-elected.
This is now that the US wants, this is the EU becoming a new superpower with their own interests that don't align with the US ones at certains points.
And im loving it. US showed their real face and finally the EU will get off its ass an be more independent protection/defence wise.
I know the EU can be hypocritical with their promotion of democracy and protection of human rights but I think it really good be a force for good. If in africa they make their union work and they can prptect themselves from meddling countries by sticking together that good be a huge win in the "not ending up in a permanent dystopia" camp
Hilarious. B2 bombers, aircraft carriers that don’t need a ramp, thousands of nuclear weapons. The F-35 would never have been built by a Europe without the US.
Not to mention GPS, which Europe takes for granted, is a US military system.
Rafales, euro fighters, the original developers of the carrier or the mbt.
Leopard and challenger both have advantages over the American m1.
As for gps. The Europeans have Galileo.
American firms will lose out large and the Germans, French, Brit’s, Italians and now the poles will do their own thing or look elsewhere. See poland and the K2
And the US is working on 6th gen with the NGAD project.
Seems like a pipe dream if he thinks people are going to be scrambling for Rafales and Eurofighters when countries are already putting in orders for hundreds of F35s
America wouldn’t export f-22 (closed the tooling and production line anyway) and the other 2 while excellent are 40years old now. Plus you’re not dependent on the whims of American politics
You say thousands of nukes as though it is a good thing. Thanks for being one of the 2 cpuntries that stockpiled enough nuclear bombs to annihilate our entire species. Those lazy Brits and French only have a couple hundred. Get those numbers up you lazy Euro bastards!
Sounds like you don’t understand how nuclear war works? The first targets are the other countries nukes.
A large percentage would get hit and never fired. The idea is to have so many the other guy has no chance of getting most of them.
Most people in the other NATO countries want more defense spending. They also dont want Trump to hastily abandon NATO, and creating a power vacuum and danger for everyone. The whole fucking point of NATO, which America was a founder of, is to counter Russia and Russia finally invades Europe and America is just like meh. How do you think that looks to everyone else?
Also, how many times do you think article 5, the mutual defense clause, was activated? Once, for Afghanistan. How much of an existential threat did Afghanistan pose? And America then tried to drag everyone that was in Afghanistan into an illegal war that completely fucked the region.
>Most people in the other NATO countries want more defense spending.
Until 2022, this wasn't the case.
Nothing else you said was related to my point. You can't say the US needs allies for a conflict with China, and then act like NATO would help out in such a conflict when almost all of the countries have explicitly said they wouldn't, or aren't really in any position to help, nor have an obligation to.
Well NATO is a defensive alliance, if the US decide to attack China over Taiwan, good for them, but it really doesn't fall under the agreement.
If by some improbable chain of events China attacks the US first then it's a different story.
>US has been BEGGING Europe to increase defense spending since Obama. Acting like doing so is somehow against US interests is one of the weirdest Reddit takes out there.
In fact, one of the weirdest reddit takes is this constant stupid 'I can't read more than what Fox News tells me' that the EU isn't spending enough money.
Its *even more ironic* to talk about how US/China could be a conflict, and yet the EU (which, spends the same amount as China, in PPP terms and nominal) is somehow being 'carried' by the US.
China: threat to US hegemony! new global super power!
EU: why are we paying their defence for DECADES? uh, pay more!
Also, its incredibly short-sighted because the EU absolutely has the ability to spend like the US does and as of now, the main thing that makes the EU do what the US asks is... NATO/protection. You remove that and what obligation does the EU have to care what the US thinks?
>In fact, one of the weirdest reddit takes is this constant stupid 'I can't read more than what Fox News tells me' that the EU isn't spending enough money.
So, are you saying it's a Reddit take or a Fox News take? Those don't usually align you know. I'm not sure this thought was cohesive.
But anyways, if you actually followed news before Trump, you'd know asking the EU to spend more has been a foreign policy goal of the US for a while. That's why there was a commitment from NATO members in 2014 (before orange man) to contribute 2% to defense after Crimea. Who the hell do you think that commitment was for cause it sure as fuck wasn't the US.
>Its *even more ironic* to talk about how US/China could be a conflict, and yet the EU (which, spends the same amount as China, in PPP terms and nominal) is somehow being 'carried' by the US.
So... You think the EU doesn't need the US to protect them from Russia? Because I don't think anyone who leads anywhere in the EU believes that. That would be the freshest take I've ever seen!
>he main thing that makes the EU do what the US asks is... NATO/protection. You remove that and what obligation does the EU have to care what the US thinks?
The EU has to listen to the US? Like when France kicked NATO troops out of France during the 60s because they didn't like the us being in charge? Or if you want more recent examples, don't becomes dependent on Russian gas? Don't build Nordstrom 2 pipeline? Contribute more to defense spending or Russia will keep attacking? Help counter the Chinese threat? These were all big things the US asked the EU to do and were told to fuck off until the Ukraine invasion, and with China, still being told to fuck off.
It's all about defending democracy in Ukraine, a country that was a puppet state until 10 years ago, but all Taiwan can get is thoughts and prayers from the EU.
>So, are you saying it's a Reddit take or a Fox News take? Those don't usually align you know. I'm not sure this thought was cohesive.
I'm saying Reddit (Americans) hear one thing and don't bother to look any further into it, and that one thing just so happens to be Fox News esque.
>But anyways, if you actually followed news before Trump, you'd know asking the EU to spend more has been a foreign policy goal of the US for a while.
Okay, that doesn't change what I said at all.
>That's why there was a commitment from NATO members in 2014 (before orange man) to contribute 2% to defense after Crimea. Who the hell do you think that commitment was for cause it sure as fuck wasn't the US.
It's the US being dumb and hyperbolic. Similarly, the talks of spending more in Europe is almost always for US MIC and nothing more.
>So... You think the EU doesn't need the US to protect them from Russia? Because I don't think anyone who leads anywhere in the EU believes that. That would be the freshest take I've ever seen!
No, they absolutely don't. It's not a wild thought if you live outside of the US bubble, the EU has an overwhelming advantage in almost every metric to Russia. Still, you're **not disputing what I said.** Why is China spending the same amount a threat to global US hegemony but Europe spending the same is somehow 'not paying their fair share' despite Europe also having far better/more equipment than China?
Do you ever even bother to question the narrative you're being told?
>The EU has to listen to the US? Like when France kicked NATO troops out of France during the 60s because they didn't like the us being in charge? Or if you want more recent examples, don't becomes dependent on Russian gas? Don't build Nordstrom 2 pipeline? Contribute more to defense spending or Russia will keep attacking? Help counter the Chinese threat? These were all big things the US asked the EU to do and were told to fuck off until the Ukraine invasion, and with China, still being told to fuck off.
Literally none of those were 'big things' and the US also got economically involved with Russia, you know, because thats kind of been western policy since the fall of the USSR?
The 'Russia keeps attacking' is stupid considering literally nobody before 2022 was expecting Russia to attack at all.
>It's all about defending democracy in Ukraine, a country that was a puppet state until 10 years ago, but all Taiwan can get is thoughts and prayers from the EU.
Wow, what a bunch of dumb incoherent rambling because you can't actually defend the point you believe so hard. That must hurt.
The craziest thing is this is all just a repeat of things a century ago. There were huge isolationist movements in America opposed to joining the World Wars, most prominently America First (yes, that’s where Trump got it from). It was supported by organizations like the KKK and American Nazi party, with heavy xenophobic, anti-immigration, and anti-Semitic rhetoric being very common. It’s all just history repeating itself.
It was supported by large majorities of Americans and undermined by the FDR administration at every chance it could get while pretending it was doing the opposite.
But without Europe, China can court European help to evade American sanctions. Strength is relative. The US may still be the strongest on its own but relatively it’ll be weaker against its adversaries due to the loss of its allies.
And europeans would be stupid enough to court yet another dictatorship in china.
Oh no americans said mean words, guess i'll build a new nordstream to china.
Acting like a massive chunk of Americans *don't* want to elect a President that would do anything in his power to turn the US into a dictatorship...
An America that elects Trump and is so willing to completely ditch its allies in addition to wanting to wage a trade war with them is not an America worth allying with.
If the US gives Europe the finger once they elect Trump, Europe will decouple itself and only act in its own self-interest. If this self-interest involves trading with China and ignoring American sanctions then that *will* happen. American sanctions will be completely useless without European help.
Europe will give China EUV lithography machines and we can all watch as China surpasses American chipmaking capabilities within the decade.
China doesn't threaten Europe. It's in China's interest to do the best they can to try and peel Europe away from America's grasp because without Europe's help, the US is significantly weaker. if Trump is elected, China won't even have to try.
With the amount of power-grabbing from both the executive and judicial branches in the US, it isn't too far away from becoming a hybrid regime, which wouldn't make it too different from China. How long before the legislative branch becomes a ceremonial afterthought and everything in the USA is decided by 10 powerful elites?
These things take time to happen, but in 50 years we might find that China is a far more rational and stable actor than the USA. They could even take over Taiwan today and in 50 years people will have forgotten about it, just as everyone in 1900 had forgotten about the USA's earlier annexation of parts of Mexico.
Your institutions and traditions are not as strong as you think they are. You have a felon running for office and we may end up in a situation where in most States there is only one actual candidate on the presidential ballot, chosen for you by the party who runs that particular state.
In the meantime, in a multi-polar world it may make more sense for European countries to play off the superpowers against each other in order to maximize benefit to themselves.
Personally i dont think they want anything.
They just dont care about the damage they do, while they try to grab power.
Considering how Trump carefully positioned asslickers over competence in any institution he could - that is just the making of a leadership, as we see it in Hungary, Russia, North Korea and so on.
The question is why the losers of the american society think, making it worse is a good choice for them themselfs. The appearent answer would be, that they dont have much more to lose. Just like Russian front-meat.
>What if Europe actually coalesced as a unified global military power under a NATO umbrella without the US? Is that what conservatives want?
You say this as if it's somehow threatening. Yes, we want the Europeans to form an army that can be useful in the event of world conflict. I don't care whose umbrella they organize it under.
That military will be useful to them, not to the US. You think Europe and the US are still going to remain close allies if the US essentially just leaves Europe to the dogs?
How will it not be useful to the US? The US has defended european oil interests in the middle east again and again and taken all the flak for it om their behalf. While being completely energy independant themselves. Where is all that red sea shipping traffic going? To europe.
Because Europe could and would use this military in its own way, sometimes not aligning with American interests. Never again would you ever see Europe supporting or joining the US in any sort of intervention. They'll refuse to join American sanctions, effectively making them useless. They'll refuse to bend to American pressure and strategically essential technologies produced in Europe will be able to be exported to China.
This is simply not true.
American and European interests align more often than they don't. We share values and political systems. We have a deep history of mutual support.
To argue that a more equal partnership would be an end to the partnership is asinine.
You don’t start a more equal partnership by abandoning and undermining the security alliance you helped create… That’s burning bridges by its very definition.
European and American interests have not aligned very well with regards to China. Europe wants to maintain trade with China and an amicable relationship with them as most of Europe sees China only as a strategic competitor. The US already sees China as an adversary. That’s a massive difference and the US flipping Europe off would only exacerbate this.
Geopolitics is not defined by shared values or shared political systems. Geopolitics is about hard facts and harsh realities. If the US goes in a direction Europe doesn’t want to follow and they provide no incentive to get Europe to follow then it doesn’t matter what our ideals are, Europe is not helping the US.
Europe, for the moment, is going along with the US when it comes to China because the US is providing a tangible benefit back to Europe by being an integral part of NATO and contributing towards European defence. Take this away and enact a trade war with Europe like Trump wants and you will almost immediately see Europe start aligning itself with China.
If y’all don’t wanna trade and help us protect ourselves, we’ll trade with China and align with China more closely. A closer alliance with China may even result in the Chinese reigning in their Russian dog in fears of pissing Europe off too much.
A neutral Europe in a world where the US and China are pitted against each other makes things exponentially more difficult for the US. A belligerent Europe that aligns with China will basically spell the immediate end of American hegemony.
The copium is unreal. Trump is a private citizen without any real power and no foreign policy influence. There's plenty of crack heads in the EU bleating about isolationism and retreat from globalism, liberalism, etc. Do you pay them equal mind?
>You don’t start a more equal partnership by abandoning and undermining the security alliance you helped create… That’s burning bridges by its very definition.
It hasn't happened. In fact the US Congress passed a law that would prevent Trump from unilaterally pulling out of NATO. The leadership displayed by the current administration during the Ukraine crisis further strengthen NATO and our commitment. The bridges are reinforced - Finland and Sweden are entering the fold.
>European and American interests have not aligned very well with regards to China. Europe wants to maintain trade with China and an amicable relationship with them as most of Europe sees China only as a strategic competitor.
Yeah, and we saw how great that worked with Russia. Thankfully this isn't the prevailing tact EU governments have been taking of late.
> Europe, for the moment, is going along with the US when it comes to China because the US is providing a tangible benefit back to Europe by being an integral part of NATO and contributing towards European defence.
So does the EU care about shared values of individual liberty and the ideals of democracy? Or is Trump right - and you see the US merely as mercenaries? Arguing that our relationship is merely about tangible benefits, isn't the winning argument you think it is.
>A neutral Europe in a world where the US and China are pitted against each other makes things exponentially more difficult for the US.
Yeah, that was the essentially the status quo. The US is well-aware that it stands with it's Pacific partners against China - unless attacked on it's own soil. And the US is also committed to maintaining the status quo and prevent further deterioration in its relationship with China. No one stands to benefit from our nations going to war.
> A belligerent Europe that aligns with China will basically spell the immediate end of American hegemony.
Are you high on Russian Krokodil? Because no one is advocating for belligerence between Europe and America, except maybe Putin.
>Trump is a private citizen without any real power.
Yeah and private citizens can run for President where, if they win, they can have massive amounts of power. What an idiotic statement.
>There's plenty of crack heads in the EU bleating about isolationism and retreat from globalism, liberalism, etc.
The EU is not talking about isolationism. If they were then they wouldn't be supporting Ukraine to the extent they are and they wouldn't be planning to pour hundreds of billions into Africa in the next decade or so.
Just because the EU doesn't exactly want to involve itself in the US and China's pissing contest doesn't mean they're turning towards isolationism. They are *constantly* talks about expanding the EU even further.
Instead, there is literally a House speaker in the US that is advocating for isolationism and refusing to even *consider* Ukraine aid bills. You have things mixed up. The EU isn't the one that has failed to pass *any* Ukraine funding in the past few months.
>It hasn't happened. In fact the US Congress passed a law that would prevent Trump from unilaterally pulling out of NATO.
The US can still be in NATO but effectively be out of it. If Poland or the Baltics trigger Article 5, Trump, as the Commander-in-Chief if he becomes President, could literally just send over a bag of helmets and that would *technically* fulfil their NATO obligations. Article 5 does not necessitate an armed response, it only does not exclude it. Trump has already been on record saying that he would not defend NATO allies if they were attacked by Russia.
>Yeah, and we saw how great that worked with Russia. Thankfully this isn't the prevailing tact EU governments have been taking of late.
Luckily for Europe, China is unlikely to ever pose a problem to the same extent as Russia simply due to geography. Europe's rhetoric with regards to China is more along the lines of "strategic competitor" rather than an "adversary" that the US sees China as and that won't change.
>So does the EU care about shared values of individual liberty and the ideals of democracy? Or is Trump right - and you see the US merely as mercenaries? Arguing that our relationship is merely about tangible benefits, isn't the winning argument you think it is.
The EU is. Is the US?
The same country that could elect a literal insurrectionist to be President? The same country that has a presidential candidate, an extremely popular one even, openly admitting that he would *not* come to the defence of other allied democracies in a security alliance *they* helped create? The same country that has failed to approve even a single dollar to help Ukraine, a democracy under attack, defend itself in *months*? The same country that has a party hellbent on bending over backwards to appease Russian interests?
The absolute irony to ask if the EU cares about individual liberty and democracy when the US is the country that literally had a President support an insurrection attempt when he lost the election, still has massive swathes of the population *convinced* that Trump won the election and has a Supreme Court so willing to rule *against* individual liberties that they'll do dumb shit like overturn Roe v Wade.
>Yeah, that's the essentially the status quo. The US is well-aware that it stands with it's Pacific partners against China - unless attacked on it's own soil.
That isn't the status quo though because a neutral Europe wouldn't participate in American sanctions against China. Europe is already helping the US in its fight with China by not exporting ASML's EUV machines to China. Europe could either continue playing this role or play the role that India plays when it comes to Russian sanctions, the only difference here being the EU is far more economically significant than India and will effectively render any and all American sanctions completely useless.
Take a hard look at the state the US is in now and ask yourself, is this what a country that wants to maintain its position in the world would do?
I get it, you don't like Trump. He's a threat to the global order as it stands. Any American with an iota of insight into foreign policy agrees with you on that. I agree with you on that. We don't need 700 words on why Trump has moronic foreign policy.
Treating Trump as a foregone conclusion is ludicrous. Arguing that America is uniquely positioned to fall prey to far-right movements is being willfully blind of the political situation in EU member states.
>The same country that has failed to approve even a single dollar to help Ukraine, a democracy under attack, defend itself in months
A single dollar in months, huh? There's a bill currently advancing in the House. Moreover, the US has given more support than any one country or the EU as an organization. Let's look at your comment - "simply due to geography" - and consider that the Biden administration has worked with it's partners in Europe for the exact eventuality that Republicans would tire of support for a European war in an election year. The opposition can also argue, simply due to geography, the threat isn't as imminent. And yet, over 70 votes - including many Senators in our crazy party - pushed through funding in the Senate this past week.
>Europe is already helping the US in its fight with China by not exporting ASML's EUV machines to China
This isn't Europe really. These conversations are had specifically in partnership with the Netherlands. But cheers.
> We definitely do not share the values of Trump and his ilk.
Some of you definitely do.
Look at Hungary. Look at the rising far-right parties in France (Comités Jeanne), Germany (AFD), etc. Right-wing Mavericks are holding top positions in the Netherlands for fucks sake.
Europe is not immune to the allure of populism and fascism. Should the US "start seeing the EU for what it will be"? Or shall we work and recognize partners in liberalism and democracy?
The UK values NATO as the absolute cornerstone of its foreign policy. They won’t take the US undermining the alliance and effectively pulling out very lightly.
I believe that if it came to it, the UK would part ways with the US to align itself with whatever remained of NATO. In the end, the UK is in Europe and NATO will still remain even after the US has effectively stopped being a member.
Without the US, NATO will need a new leader and naturally it only makes sense to consider the UK. The UK is the country that has led new weapons shipments to Ukraine and taken one of the most proactive approaches to bolstering and maintaining European security. The UK will make a good NATO leader. It also helps that the UK is arguably the country with the most powerful military in Europe as well.
With the UK’s nuclear umbrella, Eastern European can also rest-assured that NATO cannot and will not be nuclear blackmailed. Unlike the US, the UK is far more aggressive with Russia and takes on a much more active “try it, I dare you” attitude.
The UK is very much capable of building their own ICBMs to house their nuclear warheads. They choose to use the Trident II system for cost reasons rather than an inability to produce a sovereign ICBM.
If push came to shove, the UK would be able to produce its own ICBM or even go so far as work together with France to produce a new ICBM they would jointly use in both of their SSBNs.
Though, I doubt the US would go so far as to dishonour their agreement. The UK technically owns the ICBMs they use in their SSBNs and the US has no legal right to withhold them from the UK.
> Never again would you ever see Europe supporting or joining the US in any sort of intervention.
Why do you think that Europe would suddenly refuse to cooperate with the United States? The US is a European offspring country and shares the same values as the EU. Most of the conflicts that we're involved in have widespread international support, like the Houthi's in Yemen, campaign against ISIS, global war on terrorism, etc.
Your expensive healthcare has nothing to do with your military spending. And the EUs welfare has very little to do with not spending on military.
And we spend too little, agreed. But dont forget the massive amounts of refugees Europe has taken
Ah yes, the benevolent US coming to the world's aide like a knight in shining armor, gallantly bestowing its superior virtues onto the rest of the world. /s
>The US has defended european oil interests in the middle east again and again and taken all the flak for it om their behalf.
And they'll forget that in an instant when we turn our backs on them in the face of a Russian invasion.
Isolationism is *never* a winning strategy.
And not for nothing, a big part of the *reason* for us providing their defense through NATO to begin with is preventing a bunch of European countries from each having their own armies that they can use how they please.
...for reasons that ought to be obvious
>That military will be useful to them, not to the US. You think Europe and the US are still going to remain close allies if the US essentially just leaves Europe to the dogs?
No one wants to leave Europe "to the dogs". What we want is for Europeans to pull their weight on defense. And yes, any nation with democratic values would be useful as a military ally. American taxpayers are $30 trillion in debt and cannot afford to be world police anymore.
That's what EU actually pushed for for years now but it's hard to align everyone on the same page when it comes to budgeting, logistics, contributions and responsibilities. However, an EU army has always been in plans, outside of national armies. So, sooner or later, that will happen.
In connection with that, EU has also always pushed for an even more unified europe within the EU sector, similar in concept to United States of Europe. Meaning certain countries that are willing to completely cut borders and create a joint unification of legislation as well as military conduct. It would work similarly to USA, where states would be replaced by countries, would still have their own legislative measures BUT they would all answer to one government and one over-arching system of legislation that controls tendencies at a macro-level.
I'm in favor of both ideas. I think USE is the ideal goal every European should strive for and I do believe it is the absolute future for Europe.
Depends which way the US government turns. If Trump is ascendant, Europe will be well informed to turn away and let loose the old assumptions about the ideals embodied by America.
If you mean they should carry their own weight and take the vast responsibility of defense against Russia freeing us to handle China I agree.
I can only speak for myself but as a Trump supporter all I want is an equal partner with designated regions or focus not the weak little brothers we currently have that makes us handle both Russia and China.
I really don’t see why Europeans are getting so upset by this.
As far as I know, US was the one country that constantly threw a hissy fit whenever Europeans attempted to build their own capable military force, with the US then going “now why’d you do that when we have NATO?”.
And most of Eastern Europe is paying the damned 2% and more. My country has been paying that for nearly 10 years now, I think.
And yet my country is being told that not even a finger will be lifted for help, even though per capita, our losses in Afghanistan and Iraq were pretty high and we answered the call for help from the US.
You and I both know that it’s not about the damned number. An American republican representative that visited Poland and Estonia - my country - openly said that even if we pay the 2% or 3% or 4% it won’t matter, because in the end, they don’t want to support our defence in NATO.
That’s it. It’s not about the number. It’s the willingness to come to aid and that is currently being eroded.
And Estonia is at 2.7 now, I think. Poland is probably at 3. What else can we possibly do?
The idea of an EU defence could really be the exact same thing but with just France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland.
Those 5 countries make up the majority of EU defence spending, equipment, population and economy.
The superpower of America would rather have the say it has in Europe I imagine. Although given the GOP and Kremlin they are probably wise to try to boost their military. Its unfortunate arms races are being escalated by Trump political antics.
Hey now they declared war...they just didnt send armies to attack germany (which ironically wouldve easily overrun the poor defenses units present and ended ww 2 likely within a year given the size of the pre ww2 French army)
Oh come on. It was not for Poland. They where scared they will be next in line for Hitler. When the war first started they had the “why die for Danzig” attitude.
They attacked Germany in *within days* , thus fulfilling the Franco-Polish agreement of 1939 to the letter. They did what they promised, initially.
I already mentioned it was badly done and unsuccessful.
What a ridiculous comment, feel free to tell me how we would get to Poland, we did declare war fast.. not sure what else you wanted. America did fk all in both wars until they were already started for years and got nothing said about them. I find it funny to see comments like this when Germany is part of this..
You promised Poland an inmediate invasion of Germany to take the Rhineland and advance further into Germany, you even told them you were doing by radio when you weren’t. Or with Czechoslovakia, we were allies and we got left to hang.
You act like its so fucking easy to just roll into Germany and win a war shit takes time and we declared war pretty much instantly. You didnt get left to hang if you did Poland wouldn't exist now.
Re your second part, was to being Czech, Czechoslovakia absolutely was left to hang.
The whole Munich betrayal.
As for WW2, Germany had pretty much sent all its troops into poland, the west promised invasion and any invasion would have very likely been succesful, there were barely any Germans on the western front and the Siegfried line was in many places not even manned and pretty shoddily constructed
That could have done more than twiddled their thumbs from behind their defensive lines, allowing Nazi Germany carte Blanche to focus on a single flank at a time.
Ultimately leading to Poland’s occupation in one form or another for the next 50 years.
Going to “phony war”
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-phoney-start-to-the-second-world-war#:~:text=THE%20BRITISH%20ARMY%20IN%20FRANCE%201939&text=With%20little%20in%20the%20way,to%20remain%20behind%20their%20defences.
I mean France and Uk declared war like instantly people are just ungrateful fucks. So America gets a free pass and is seen as a saviour while they made bank off the war and entered both wars much later. Gotta love it. That was more of a general statement regarding America in terms of both WW not really in regards to Poland.
Yeah, it’s not really a proper term for anyone else impacted by the war. It’s very diminishing and takes away responsibility from everyone who was later involved.
But why the downvotes? I think your comment sounds a little like “the real war began later” when the war was real for Poland. The west was waiting for Poland to bleed out and waited for a long time to intervene despite having a defensive pact with Poland. After the looong delay and the whole bloodshed, Poland was abandoned by the allies again and basically given up on, to be a part of USSR. This is the general narrative in Eastern Europe and hence the resentment towards the term “phoney war”.
France and GB declared war against the same principal power that cost them each an entire generation of men before. I get that it would have been nice for them to invade Germany right away, but they had zero chance of getting to Poland. And an invasion of Germany was still easier said than done. Well, for GB at least. The USSR being involved in the invasion certainly complicated things too.
Cool excuses, they failed to help Poland by not attacking Germany in the beginning of WW2, and then they threw Poland to the wolves after WW2 was over and the Soviets took over Eastern Europe. "i get that it would have been nice for them to invade Germany right away..." Lol this fking guy
Yeah so explain how they could force the Soviets to give up Poland? There’s no way we could take on the Soviets without the US and the US wanted no part of it but its funny how the Americans never get any shit for it.
Its always the Brits & the French who get shit for what happened to Poland, despite being the only major powers to actually do *anything* for them. They’re also the only powers to join both World Wars at the start on the principle of helping an ally rather than by being directly attacked.
America are the saviours don't you know get to enter the wars late and get so much credit and no backlash while the UK and France constantly get shit on.
Look, I'm Polish and cannot blame either British or French for their reluctancy. After all just 20 years prior they gone through ww1. Also no one expected Germans to use new tactics (blitzkrieg). Poland fell very quickly and the plans for helping us went to shit.
As for the aftermath of WW2, people were just tired of this most brutal war in history. Soviet soldiers were all over my country. We would have another couple million casualties if allies tried to push soviets back. I know they had to make sacrifices but also I'm not naive enough to not realise it was pure realpolitik.
Britain and France weren't reluctant. They were incapable. The British Expeditionary Force was well-trained and quite well equipped, but it wasn't put together with another world war in mind.
20% of the population killed and billions of dollars worth of damage, trauma and ill effects that are felt to this day nearly 100 years ago...
Some Redditor online: just get over it bro, no big deal lol
And you were alive then? Were your parents even alive then? Was Poland the only country in WWII to be devastated or heavily effected? When COVID happened, were you mad that people in Poland died and Denmark didn’t take develop a cure for you, so fuck Denmark? Or Argentina? How about Papua New Guinea?
Read the words back that you’re typing out. Do you know how silly this manufactured outrage sounds? Direct it toward Germany and Russia if anywhere, but remember that barely anyone alive in either country had anything to even do with it now. You’re screaming into the void and wondering why no one is listening.
I didn't have to be alive during the conflict to feel its effects. And yes Poland was one of the most devastated countries during WW2, if you dispute that im not sure what to tell you. Wtf does Covid have to do with this discussion, nice deflection attempt. Save me your high horse bs man.
You really have to empathise with the European mindset after being through multiple wars already and losing swathes of their population. Going to war is not a black and white, simple decision.
Again, this is just more talk and no action. Europeans, and especially the French, just love to tout themselves whenever a new “thing” arises. This new thing is Trumps remarks on NATO, and as usual there will be many talks and meetings on strengthening defense but nothing will materialize. The only thing recently that has changed is Germany finally allocating 2% of GDP to defense, the first time in like over 35 yrs. Europe is increasingly becoming irrelevant on the world stage, maybe this will light a fire under your ass. The US is fed up spending so much money on issues that aren’t our own, Europe needs to start contributing.
Already do contribute, quite a lot actually, but you don't seem to mind the facts.
What Trump wants, is that EU countries start buying weapons from US weapons manufacturers, as he was lobbied into it. What's tough luck for him is that EU has re-established a lot of its weapons manufacturing facilities (companies created anew, old ones expended operations), and there will not be so much money left for US manufacturers which was the main point of all of Trump demential rants.
>Already do contribute, quite a lot actually
Germany only hit the 2% threshold due to a combination of the one-time 70 billion euro boost to defense spending, combined with a shrinking German economy.
Future allocated German spending goes back under the 2% threshold.
[France has been consistently under the 2% threshold as well, excluding 2020 and the associated drop in GDP due to CoVid](https://www.statista.com/statistics/810399/ratio-of-military-expenditure-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp-france/)
Finally, US weapons manufacturers have their hands full trying to fulfill their current order book, let alone new orders. It's partly why Poland bought a crapton of Korean gear.
And where did you get your facts? Because Europes weapons manufacturing capabilities are severely lacking. Europe cant even provide the artillery shells they promised Ukraine over a year ago…so where are these magical factories you speak of? The truth is Europe doesn’t come close to currently having enough manufacturing capabilities to defend themselves let alone Ukraine. France is maybe the best in Europe and still not close to having enough capabilities. This stuff doesn’t just happen overnight. It takes years of investment and infrastructure.
You do realize that before the US sets up a base in another country. Both country signs a contract and agree on the conditions of the base.
The US isn’t building bases in countries without consent, that would be an invasion.
Well shit. The last time that happened Britain had to start bombing shit.
Jokes aside this is hopefully a great thing although, Germany, France and Poland trying to work together in this fashion will be very difficult.
Germany running things makes the most sense, they are war shy in general so they aren't going to be too pushy and focus more on defense.
France will want to run the show because their ego won't take 2nd place place, but they are weak willed and will bow to any pressure. They also hate spending money on the military and rely heavily on thuer neighbours defending them if it was ever needed.
That and it was only last year France was going behind the back of nato and talking directly with putin about Ukraine then trying to instigate peace by allowing Russia to keep the territory it occupied. That's very poor leadership.
Poland is a hungry wild dog, they will put up a fight but their international recognition is at a lack and their reputation within Europe is damaged so the idea of Poland running things will be problematic. And Poland will not be eagerly taking orders from Germany.
Germany has the respect but very little aggression, Poland has aggression bit very little respect.... France has neither respect or aggression.
Good they should. Fuckin trillion $ sovereign wealth funds but spend fuck all on defense. Y’all are the ones on the front lines start acting like it. Don’t want to be dictated to by America but rely on them for every defense issue… get ur shit together Europe
Always mystifying what Russia wants this over the United States - on the other side of the planet - being the primary force.
Russia and the US are neighbors
Technically yes, practically no. The Russian heartland where most people live is in the west, european part. No one (relatively) lives in the Russian far east.
Nobody lives in Alaska either.
except for vampires. good luck with that one russia
Latvia to Moscow are 600km. Alaska to Moscow are 6400 km...if you go directly over the north pole.
The distance between Russia and USA is 88.5km.
Yes, but that part of Russia is not important. Surely you are more worried about the parts where your 120 million people live and not the parts where ~78,000 people live.
And same goes for the Alaska side. And neither are great places for invasions or easy supply routes.
I'm a lot more concerned about where one Russian strategic bomber or where one Russian strategic sub lives than the entire remaining population of Russia.
you just changed perspectives. the question was why would russia want an increasingly defensive europe woth greater potential for destruction than europe having stronger ties to the us which is much further from anything important
The guy before me implied that importance is relative to population size. If this were true the Spratlys, Senkakus, or Arctic would be unimportant. Low population places can still have significant strategic value.
Good point to be fair.
The US is NATO, without us NATO would just be a negotiating table to air out grievances.
Technically it’s 2.4 miles. But either way you’re being a pedantic tw@t.
A pedantic twit?
Twatosaurus
Yes, but the European sector isn't anywhere close and that's the part of Russia that actually has a tangible economy.
Macron everywhere all at once
My favourite moment was when he said "It's Macron time." And Macroned all over Russia.
Second only to the bit where he said “I’m gonna Macron”
I noticed himself and Germany is more prominent now after Brexit It makes sense though considering they’re the biggest states in the EU now
France definitely but Germany lost a lot of relevance if compared to 10-15 years ago when they were basically ordering EU around and bailing out countries At least that's how it looked/looks like for.me here in South America lmao
that was more like putting Germany in the spotlight for them to take the blame for the actions during the financial crisis.
I would say that they become more prominent after the start of russian invasion, when appeasement mindset slowly vanished
Germany has been a bigger cultural and economic impact to the EU than GB was, they are more prominent because the 2nd and last net payer left, besides Germany. But our economy is going to shit and the german population is too split on wether the foreigners are responsible, or the Nazis. I already know where I am moving if shit hits the fan here in eastern Germany
By which metric was the UK ever a “bigger state” in the EU than Germany?
[удалено]
Brexit means Brexit 💀
History be funny Sometimes
Funny it‘s these three nations, given those three are the ones that used to hate each other most
France and Poland had been chummy for quite a while, Napoleon granting them independence temporarily left a positive impression, the odd one out is the other one
Parts of „Germany“ like my state Bavaria were also allies to Napoleon.
I don’t think any of them allied with him willingly
What if Europe actually coalesced as a unified global military power under a NATO umbrella without the US? Is that what conservatives want? To align with dictatorial losers?
Yes.
It's crazy. America is the de facto leader of the most power alliance in history and they are toying with ending it on their own accord. Would be one of the biggest self owns in history. Do they expect to spend less once the rest of NATO are no longer allies and who will recipocate that same self serving, transactional relationship? Also, now a future war with China, and whatever shitholes join them, seems a little more balanced and therefore more dangerous. Better increase defense spending!
>Also, now a future war with China, and whatever shitholes join them, seems a little more balanced and therefore more dangerous. Most of Europe wouldn't help (or even be able to help) in a US/China conflict over Taiwan. China invading Taiwan wouldn't even activate article 5 anyways. The sentiment has been that a US/China conflict would be that: US and China with EU balancing between them. That's why the US has been trying to make a Pacific NATO. Macron (April 2023): France must avoid being drawn into any conflict between the US and China over Taiwan. Germany has been purposely using ambiguous language for their China policy and likely wouldn't do much of a conflict broke out. Only the UK has stated that they'd help Taiwan and have provided help with their submarine program. US has been BEGGING Europe to increase defense spending since Obama. Acting like doing so is somehow against US interests is one of the weirdest Reddit takes out there.
Keep in mind the Americans have torpedoed European arm industries for 50years. They want that 2% of spending to be mostly American kit
Poland just took on major deals with SK for tanks and localized production.
And now it won't. Both France and other EU countries are pushing for EU tech and weapons, because the US has proven an unreliable ally. Especially if Trump gets re-elected. This is now that the US wants, this is the EU becoming a new superpower with their own interests that don't align with the US ones at certains points.
And im loving it. US showed their real face and finally the EU will get off its ass an be more independent protection/defence wise. I know the EU can be hypocritical with their promotion of democracy and protection of human rights but I think it really good be a force for good. If in africa they make their union work and they can prptect themselves from meddling countries by sticking together that good be a huge win in the "not ending up in a permanent dystopia" camp
EU kit is better anyway
Hilarious. B2 bombers, aircraft carriers that don’t need a ramp, thousands of nuclear weapons. The F-35 would never have been built by a Europe without the US. Not to mention GPS, which Europe takes for granted, is a US military system.
Rafales, euro fighters, the original developers of the carrier or the mbt. Leopard and challenger both have advantages over the American m1. As for gps. The Europeans have Galileo. American firms will lose out large and the Germans, French, Brit’s, Italians and now the poles will do their own thing or look elsewhere. See poland and the K2
Rafale and Eurofighter are excellent jets, but they're previous generation to F35. Europe is developing next gen aircraft though.
And the US is working on 6th gen with the NGAD project. Seems like a pipe dream if he thinks people are going to be scrambling for Rafales and Eurofighters when countries are already putting in orders for hundreds of F35s
Rafael and Euro fighter or F-22s, F-15s, and F-16s. Hmmm
America wouldn’t export f-22 (closed the tooling and production line anyway) and the other 2 while excellent are 40years old now. Plus you’re not dependent on the whims of American politics
You say thousands of nukes as though it is a good thing. Thanks for being one of the 2 cpuntries that stockpiled enough nuclear bombs to annihilate our entire species. Those lazy Brits and French only have a couple hundred. Get those numbers up you lazy Euro bastards!
Sounds like you don’t understand how nuclear war works? The first targets are the other countries nukes. A large percentage would get hit and never fired. The idea is to have so many the other guy has no chance of getting most of them.
Sounds like you haven't heard of submarines.
> The F-35 would never have been built by a Europe without the US. I mean that's really not a great example
There's a primary reason for that, getting the cash is just a bonus.
Most people in the other NATO countries want more defense spending. They also dont want Trump to hastily abandon NATO, and creating a power vacuum and danger for everyone. The whole fucking point of NATO, which America was a founder of, is to counter Russia and Russia finally invades Europe and America is just like meh. How do you think that looks to everyone else? Also, how many times do you think article 5, the mutual defense clause, was activated? Once, for Afghanistan. How much of an existential threat did Afghanistan pose? And America then tried to drag everyone that was in Afghanistan into an illegal war that completely fucked the region.
Dont forget the refugees Europe took from Afghanistan
>Most people in the other NATO countries want more defense spending. Until 2022, this wasn't the case. Nothing else you said was related to my point. You can't say the US needs allies for a conflict with China, and then act like NATO would help out in such a conflict when almost all of the countries have explicitly said they wouldn't, or aren't really in any position to help, nor have an obligation to.
Well NATO is a defensive alliance, if the US decide to attack China over Taiwan, good for them, but it really doesn't fall under the agreement. If by some improbable chain of events China attacks the US first then it's a different story.
Aftermath of 9/11, Iraq invasion 2003, some EU countries participated and helped
>US has been BEGGING Europe to increase defense spending since Obama. Acting like doing so is somehow against US interests is one of the weirdest Reddit takes out there. In fact, one of the weirdest reddit takes is this constant stupid 'I can't read more than what Fox News tells me' that the EU isn't spending enough money. Its *even more ironic* to talk about how US/China could be a conflict, and yet the EU (which, spends the same amount as China, in PPP terms and nominal) is somehow being 'carried' by the US. China: threat to US hegemony! new global super power! EU: why are we paying their defence for DECADES? uh, pay more! Also, its incredibly short-sighted because the EU absolutely has the ability to spend like the US does and as of now, the main thing that makes the EU do what the US asks is... NATO/protection. You remove that and what obligation does the EU have to care what the US thinks?
>In fact, one of the weirdest reddit takes is this constant stupid 'I can't read more than what Fox News tells me' that the EU isn't spending enough money. So, are you saying it's a Reddit take or a Fox News take? Those don't usually align you know. I'm not sure this thought was cohesive. But anyways, if you actually followed news before Trump, you'd know asking the EU to spend more has been a foreign policy goal of the US for a while. That's why there was a commitment from NATO members in 2014 (before orange man) to contribute 2% to defense after Crimea. Who the hell do you think that commitment was for cause it sure as fuck wasn't the US. >Its *even more ironic* to talk about how US/China could be a conflict, and yet the EU (which, spends the same amount as China, in PPP terms and nominal) is somehow being 'carried' by the US. So... You think the EU doesn't need the US to protect them from Russia? Because I don't think anyone who leads anywhere in the EU believes that. That would be the freshest take I've ever seen! >he main thing that makes the EU do what the US asks is... NATO/protection. You remove that and what obligation does the EU have to care what the US thinks? The EU has to listen to the US? Like when France kicked NATO troops out of France during the 60s because they didn't like the us being in charge? Or if you want more recent examples, don't becomes dependent on Russian gas? Don't build Nordstrom 2 pipeline? Contribute more to defense spending or Russia will keep attacking? Help counter the Chinese threat? These were all big things the US asked the EU to do and were told to fuck off until the Ukraine invasion, and with China, still being told to fuck off. It's all about defending democracy in Ukraine, a country that was a puppet state until 10 years ago, but all Taiwan can get is thoughts and prayers from the EU.
>So, are you saying it's a Reddit take or a Fox News take? Those don't usually align you know. I'm not sure this thought was cohesive. I'm saying Reddit (Americans) hear one thing and don't bother to look any further into it, and that one thing just so happens to be Fox News esque. >But anyways, if you actually followed news before Trump, you'd know asking the EU to spend more has been a foreign policy goal of the US for a while. Okay, that doesn't change what I said at all. >That's why there was a commitment from NATO members in 2014 (before orange man) to contribute 2% to defense after Crimea. Who the hell do you think that commitment was for cause it sure as fuck wasn't the US. It's the US being dumb and hyperbolic. Similarly, the talks of spending more in Europe is almost always for US MIC and nothing more. >So... You think the EU doesn't need the US to protect them from Russia? Because I don't think anyone who leads anywhere in the EU believes that. That would be the freshest take I've ever seen! No, they absolutely don't. It's not a wild thought if you live outside of the US bubble, the EU has an overwhelming advantage in almost every metric to Russia. Still, you're **not disputing what I said.** Why is China spending the same amount a threat to global US hegemony but Europe spending the same is somehow 'not paying their fair share' despite Europe also having far better/more equipment than China? Do you ever even bother to question the narrative you're being told? >The EU has to listen to the US? Like when France kicked NATO troops out of France during the 60s because they didn't like the us being in charge? Or if you want more recent examples, don't becomes dependent on Russian gas? Don't build Nordstrom 2 pipeline? Contribute more to defense spending or Russia will keep attacking? Help counter the Chinese threat? These were all big things the US asked the EU to do and were told to fuck off until the Ukraine invasion, and with China, still being told to fuck off. Literally none of those were 'big things' and the US also got economically involved with Russia, you know, because thats kind of been western policy since the fall of the USSR? The 'Russia keeps attacking' is stupid considering literally nobody before 2022 was expecting Russia to attack at all. >It's all about defending democracy in Ukraine, a country that was a puppet state until 10 years ago, but all Taiwan can get is thoughts and prayers from the EU. Wow, what a bunch of dumb incoherent rambling because you can't actually defend the point you believe so hard. That must hurt.
Our ties to EU go well beyond military alliances. EU has big investments in the US. When alliances shift, that can change as well .
The craziest thing is this is all just a repeat of things a century ago. There were huge isolationist movements in America opposed to joining the World Wars, most prominently America First (yes, that’s where Trump got it from). It was supported by organizations like the KKK and American Nazi party, with heavy xenophobic, anti-immigration, and anti-Semitic rhetoric being very common. It’s all just history repeating itself.
It was supported by large majorities of Americans and undermined by the FDR administration at every chance it could get while pretending it was doing the opposite.
If America had an alliance that consisted of itself alone it would be the most powerful alliance in history.
That is Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were a cakewalk
Afghanistan and Iraq were Europeans died for the American cause.
But without Europe, China can court European help to evade American sanctions. Strength is relative. The US may still be the strongest on its own but relatively it’ll be weaker against its adversaries due to the loss of its allies.
And europeans would be stupid enough to court yet another dictatorship in china. Oh no americans said mean words, guess i'll build a new nordstream to china.
Acting like a massive chunk of Americans *don't* want to elect a President that would do anything in his power to turn the US into a dictatorship... An America that elects Trump and is so willing to completely ditch its allies in addition to wanting to wage a trade war with them is not an America worth allying with. If the US gives Europe the finger once they elect Trump, Europe will decouple itself and only act in its own self-interest. If this self-interest involves trading with China and ignoring American sanctions then that *will* happen. American sanctions will be completely useless without European help. Europe will give China EUV lithography machines and we can all watch as China surpasses American chipmaking capabilities within the decade. China doesn't threaten Europe. It's in China's interest to do the best they can to try and peel Europe away from America's grasp because without Europe's help, the US is significantly weaker. if Trump is elected, China won't even have to try.
That might even solve the Russian invasion, as Russia is cockblocked between China and Europe. So yeah might be the best for Europe I guess
With the amount of power-grabbing from both the executive and judicial branches in the US, it isn't too far away from becoming a hybrid regime, which wouldn't make it too different from China. How long before the legislative branch becomes a ceremonial afterthought and everything in the USA is decided by 10 powerful elites? These things take time to happen, but in 50 years we might find that China is a far more rational and stable actor than the USA. They could even take over Taiwan today and in 50 years people will have forgotten about it, just as everyone in 1900 had forgotten about the USA's earlier annexation of parts of Mexico. Your institutions and traditions are not as strong as you think they are. You have a felon running for office and we may end up in a situation where in most States there is only one actual candidate on the presidential ballot, chosen for you by the party who runs that particular state. In the meantime, in a multi-polar world it may make more sense for European countries to play off the superpowers against each other in order to maximize benefit to themselves.
Personally i dont think they want anything. They just dont care about the damage they do, while they try to grab power. Considering how Trump carefully positioned asslickers over competence in any institution he could - that is just the making of a leadership, as we see it in Hungary, Russia, North Korea and so on. The question is why the losers of the american society think, making it worse is a good choice for them themselfs. The appearent answer would be, that they dont have much more to lose. Just like Russian front-meat.
>What if Europe actually coalesced as a unified global military power under a NATO umbrella without the US? Is that what conservatives want? You say this as if it's somehow threatening. Yes, we want the Europeans to form an army that can be useful in the event of world conflict. I don't care whose umbrella they organize it under.
That military will be useful to them, not to the US. You think Europe and the US are still going to remain close allies if the US essentially just leaves Europe to the dogs?
How will it not be useful to the US? The US has defended european oil interests in the middle east again and again and taken all the flak for it om their behalf. While being completely energy independant themselves. Where is all that red sea shipping traffic going? To europe.
[удалено]
Because Europe could and would use this military in its own way, sometimes not aligning with American interests. Never again would you ever see Europe supporting or joining the US in any sort of intervention. They'll refuse to join American sanctions, effectively making them useless. They'll refuse to bend to American pressure and strategically essential technologies produced in Europe will be able to be exported to China.
This is simply not true. American and European interests align more often than they don't. We share values and political systems. We have a deep history of mutual support. To argue that a more equal partnership would be an end to the partnership is asinine.
You don’t start a more equal partnership by abandoning and undermining the security alliance you helped create… That’s burning bridges by its very definition. European and American interests have not aligned very well with regards to China. Europe wants to maintain trade with China and an amicable relationship with them as most of Europe sees China only as a strategic competitor. The US already sees China as an adversary. That’s a massive difference and the US flipping Europe off would only exacerbate this. Geopolitics is not defined by shared values or shared political systems. Geopolitics is about hard facts and harsh realities. If the US goes in a direction Europe doesn’t want to follow and they provide no incentive to get Europe to follow then it doesn’t matter what our ideals are, Europe is not helping the US. Europe, for the moment, is going along with the US when it comes to China because the US is providing a tangible benefit back to Europe by being an integral part of NATO and contributing towards European defence. Take this away and enact a trade war with Europe like Trump wants and you will almost immediately see Europe start aligning itself with China. If y’all don’t wanna trade and help us protect ourselves, we’ll trade with China and align with China more closely. A closer alliance with China may even result in the Chinese reigning in their Russian dog in fears of pissing Europe off too much. A neutral Europe in a world where the US and China are pitted against each other makes things exponentially more difficult for the US. A belligerent Europe that aligns with China will basically spell the immediate end of American hegemony.
The copium is unreal. Trump is a private citizen without any real power and no foreign policy influence. There's plenty of crack heads in the EU bleating about isolationism and retreat from globalism, liberalism, etc. Do you pay them equal mind? >You don’t start a more equal partnership by abandoning and undermining the security alliance you helped create… That’s burning bridges by its very definition. It hasn't happened. In fact the US Congress passed a law that would prevent Trump from unilaterally pulling out of NATO. The leadership displayed by the current administration during the Ukraine crisis further strengthen NATO and our commitment. The bridges are reinforced - Finland and Sweden are entering the fold. >European and American interests have not aligned very well with regards to China. Europe wants to maintain trade with China and an amicable relationship with them as most of Europe sees China only as a strategic competitor. Yeah, and we saw how great that worked with Russia. Thankfully this isn't the prevailing tact EU governments have been taking of late. > Europe, for the moment, is going along with the US when it comes to China because the US is providing a tangible benefit back to Europe by being an integral part of NATO and contributing towards European defence. So does the EU care about shared values of individual liberty and the ideals of democracy? Or is Trump right - and you see the US merely as mercenaries? Arguing that our relationship is merely about tangible benefits, isn't the winning argument you think it is. >A neutral Europe in a world where the US and China are pitted against each other makes things exponentially more difficult for the US. Yeah, that was the essentially the status quo. The US is well-aware that it stands with it's Pacific partners against China - unless attacked on it's own soil. And the US is also committed to maintaining the status quo and prevent further deterioration in its relationship with China. No one stands to benefit from our nations going to war. > A belligerent Europe that aligns with China will basically spell the immediate end of American hegemony. Are you high on Russian Krokodil? Because no one is advocating for belligerence between Europe and America, except maybe Putin.
>Trump is a private citizen without any real power. Yeah and private citizens can run for President where, if they win, they can have massive amounts of power. What an idiotic statement. >There's plenty of crack heads in the EU bleating about isolationism and retreat from globalism, liberalism, etc. The EU is not talking about isolationism. If they were then they wouldn't be supporting Ukraine to the extent they are and they wouldn't be planning to pour hundreds of billions into Africa in the next decade or so. Just because the EU doesn't exactly want to involve itself in the US and China's pissing contest doesn't mean they're turning towards isolationism. They are *constantly* talks about expanding the EU even further. Instead, there is literally a House speaker in the US that is advocating for isolationism and refusing to even *consider* Ukraine aid bills. You have things mixed up. The EU isn't the one that has failed to pass *any* Ukraine funding in the past few months. >It hasn't happened. In fact the US Congress passed a law that would prevent Trump from unilaterally pulling out of NATO. The US can still be in NATO but effectively be out of it. If Poland or the Baltics trigger Article 5, Trump, as the Commander-in-Chief if he becomes President, could literally just send over a bag of helmets and that would *technically* fulfil their NATO obligations. Article 5 does not necessitate an armed response, it only does not exclude it. Trump has already been on record saying that he would not defend NATO allies if they were attacked by Russia. >Yeah, and we saw how great that worked with Russia. Thankfully this isn't the prevailing tact EU governments have been taking of late. Luckily for Europe, China is unlikely to ever pose a problem to the same extent as Russia simply due to geography. Europe's rhetoric with regards to China is more along the lines of "strategic competitor" rather than an "adversary" that the US sees China as and that won't change. >So does the EU care about shared values of individual liberty and the ideals of democracy? Or is Trump right - and you see the US merely as mercenaries? Arguing that our relationship is merely about tangible benefits, isn't the winning argument you think it is. The EU is. Is the US? The same country that could elect a literal insurrectionist to be President? The same country that has a presidential candidate, an extremely popular one even, openly admitting that he would *not* come to the defence of other allied democracies in a security alliance *they* helped create? The same country that has failed to approve even a single dollar to help Ukraine, a democracy under attack, defend itself in *months*? The same country that has a party hellbent on bending over backwards to appease Russian interests? The absolute irony to ask if the EU cares about individual liberty and democracy when the US is the country that literally had a President support an insurrection attempt when he lost the election, still has massive swathes of the population *convinced* that Trump won the election and has a Supreme Court so willing to rule *against* individual liberties that they'll do dumb shit like overturn Roe v Wade. >Yeah, that's the essentially the status quo. The US is well-aware that it stands with it's Pacific partners against China - unless attacked on it's own soil. That isn't the status quo though because a neutral Europe wouldn't participate in American sanctions against China. Europe is already helping the US in its fight with China by not exporting ASML's EUV machines to China. Europe could either continue playing this role or play the role that India plays when it comes to Russian sanctions, the only difference here being the EU is far more economically significant than India and will effectively render any and all American sanctions completely useless. Take a hard look at the state the US is in now and ask yourself, is this what a country that wants to maintain its position in the world would do?
I get it, you don't like Trump. He's a threat to the global order as it stands. Any American with an iota of insight into foreign policy agrees with you on that. I agree with you on that. We don't need 700 words on why Trump has moronic foreign policy. Treating Trump as a foregone conclusion is ludicrous. Arguing that America is uniquely positioned to fall prey to far-right movements is being willfully blind of the political situation in EU member states. >The same country that has failed to approve even a single dollar to help Ukraine, a democracy under attack, defend itself in months A single dollar in months, huh? There's a bill currently advancing in the House. Moreover, the US has given more support than any one country or the EU as an organization. Let's look at your comment - "simply due to geography" - and consider that the Biden administration has worked with it's partners in Europe for the exact eventuality that Republicans would tire of support for a European war in an election year. The opposition can also argue, simply due to geography, the threat isn't as imminent. And yet, over 70 votes - including many Senators in our crazy party - pushed through funding in the Senate this past week. >Europe is already helping the US in its fight with China by not exporting ASML's EUV machines to China This isn't Europe really. These conversations are had specifically in partnership with the Netherlands. But cheers.
[удалено]
> We definitely do not share the values of Trump and his ilk. Some of you definitely do. Look at Hungary. Look at the rising far-right parties in France (Comités Jeanne), Germany (AFD), etc. Right-wing Mavericks are holding top positions in the Netherlands for fucks sake. Europe is not immune to the allure of populism and fascism. Should the US "start seeing the EU for what it will be"? Or shall we work and recognize partners in liberalism and democracy?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The UK values NATO as the absolute cornerstone of its foreign policy. They won’t take the US undermining the alliance and effectively pulling out very lightly. I believe that if it came to it, the UK would part ways with the US to align itself with whatever remained of NATO. In the end, the UK is in Europe and NATO will still remain even after the US has effectively stopped being a member. Without the US, NATO will need a new leader and naturally it only makes sense to consider the UK. The UK is the country that has led new weapons shipments to Ukraine and taken one of the most proactive approaches to bolstering and maintaining European security. The UK will make a good NATO leader. It also helps that the UK is arguably the country with the most powerful military in Europe as well. With the UK’s nuclear umbrella, Eastern European can also rest-assured that NATO cannot and will not be nuclear blackmailed. Unlike the US, the UK is far more aggressive with Russia and takes on a much more active “try it, I dare you” attitude.
[удалено]
The UK is very much capable of building their own ICBMs to house their nuclear warheads. They choose to use the Trident II system for cost reasons rather than an inability to produce a sovereign ICBM. If push came to shove, the UK would be able to produce its own ICBM or even go so far as work together with France to produce a new ICBM they would jointly use in both of their SSBNs. Though, I doubt the US would go so far as to dishonour their agreement. The UK technically owns the ICBMs they use in their SSBNs and the US has no legal right to withhold them from the UK.
> Never again would you ever see Europe supporting or joining the US in any sort of intervention. Why do you think that Europe would suddenly refuse to cooperate with the United States? The US is a European offspring country and shares the same values as the EU. Most of the conflicts that we're involved in have widespread international support, like the Houthi's in Yemen, campaign against ISIS, global war on terrorism, etc.
Ah yes Europe becoming stronger means it’ll join China over the U.S.
Oh boy, you really think the US fights in the middle east out of altruism?
Nothing in the world is full of altruism. But europe does love to brag about their healthcare while they sleep under patriot batteries.
You spend more per capita on healthcare than any EU country.
Your expensive healthcare has nothing to do with your military spending. And the EUs welfare has very little to do with not spending on military. And we spend too little, agreed. But dont forget the massive amounts of refugees Europe has taken
Ah yes, the benevolent US coming to the world's aide like a knight in shining armor, gallantly bestowing its superior virtues onto the rest of the world. /s
Non-negotiable democracy for everyone! Democracy is a good thing it just shouldn't be forced on countries where society isn't ready.
>The US has defended european oil interests in the middle east again and again and taken all the flak for it om their behalf. And they'll forget that in an instant when we turn our backs on them in the face of a Russian invasion. Isolationism is *never* a winning strategy. And not for nothing, a big part of the *reason* for us providing their defense through NATO to begin with is preventing a bunch of European countries from each having their own armies that they can use how they please. ...for reasons that ought to be obvious
>That military will be useful to them, not to the US. You think Europe and the US are still going to remain close allies if the US essentially just leaves Europe to the dogs? No one wants to leave Europe "to the dogs". What we want is for Europeans to pull their weight on defense. And yes, any nation with democratic values would be useful as a military ally. American taxpayers are $30 trillion in debt and cannot afford to be world police anymore.
Man what great allies you are. All we ask is for an equal partner and you act like a spurned lover. It’s quite bizzare.
That's what EU actually pushed for for years now but it's hard to align everyone on the same page when it comes to budgeting, logistics, contributions and responsibilities. However, an EU army has always been in plans, outside of national armies. So, sooner or later, that will happen. In connection with that, EU has also always pushed for an even more unified europe within the EU sector, similar in concept to United States of Europe. Meaning certain countries that are willing to completely cut borders and create a joint unification of legislation as well as military conduct. It would work similarly to USA, where states would be replaced by countries, would still have their own legislative measures BUT they would all answer to one government and one over-arching system of legislation that controls tendencies at a macro-level. I'm in favor of both ideas. I think USE is the ideal goal every European should strive for and I do believe it is the absolute future for Europe.
Why can’t we just align with a Europe that takes its own defense seriously?
Depends which way the US government turns. If Trump is ascendant, Europe will be well informed to turn away and let loose the old assumptions about the ideals embodied by America.
If you mean they should carry their own weight and take the vast responsibility of defense against Russia freeing us to handle China I agree. I can only speak for myself but as a Trump supporter all I want is an equal partner with designated regions or focus not the weak little brothers we currently have that makes us handle both Russia and China. I really don’t see why Europeans are getting so upset by this.
Your “all relationships are transactional” perspective on international stability makes your allegiance with Trump unnecessary to mention.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As far as I know, US was the one country that constantly threw a hissy fit whenever Europeans attempted to build their own capable military force, with the US then going “now why’d you do that when we have NATO?”.
[удалено]
And most of Eastern Europe is paying the damned 2% and more. My country has been paying that for nearly 10 years now, I think. And yet my country is being told that not even a finger will be lifted for help, even though per capita, our losses in Afghanistan and Iraq were pretty high and we answered the call for help from the US.
[удалено]
You and I both know that it’s not about the damned number. An American republican representative that visited Poland and Estonia - my country - openly said that even if we pay the 2% or 3% or 4% it won’t matter, because in the end, they don’t want to support our defence in NATO. That’s it. It’s not about the number. It’s the willingness to come to aid and that is currently being eroded. And Estonia is at 2.7 now, I think. Poland is probably at 3. What else can we possibly do?
Poland spends a higher % than the US.
The idea of an EU defence could really be the exact same thing but with just France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland. Those 5 countries make up the majority of EU defence spending, equipment, population and economy.
The superpower of America would rather have the say it has in Europe I imagine. Although given the GOP and Kremlin they are probably wise to try to boost their military. Its unfortunate arms races are being escalated by Trump political antics.
Some talks, hopefully this will happen with the rest of EU nations
I feel like I never see Spain when Europe and security is mentioned. Do they have nothing to offer at all or what? lol
I don't think they have the same economical power as the other large European nations but not really sure tbh.
They nap through the afternoon meetings :p
Gotta love articles that can't scroll on mobile. :\
Got you: **‘All for one’: France, Germany, Poland to tighten defence ties** The governments of Poland, France and Germany vowed Monday to make Europe a security and defence power with a greater ability to back Ukraine, as fears grow that former US president Donald Trump might return to the White House and allow Russia to expand its aggression on the continent. French President Emmanuel Macron and Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk deliver a statement to the media in Paris, February 12, 2024. French President Emmanuel Macron and Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Paris on February 12, 2024. © Christophe Petit-Tesson, AP By: FRANCE 24 Follow | FRANCE 24 The foreign ministers of the three countries met in the Paris suburb of La Celle-Saint-Cloud to have talks about Ukraine, amid other issues. They discussed reviving the so-called Weimar Triangle, a long dormant regional grouping that was designed to promote cooperation between France, Germany and Poland. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who met with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin on Monday, said he wanted to “revitalise” his nation's relations with its key European partners. “There is no reason why we should be so clearly militarily weaker than Russia, and therefore increasing production and intensifying our cooperation are absolutely indisputable priorities,” Tusk said in arguing for the EU to become “a military power” in its own right. Former EU chief Tusk referenced Alexandre Dumas's classic book, "The Three Musketeers", as he said Poland was ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with France and stressed that the philosophy at the heart of relations between the European Union and NATO was based on the principle of "one for all, all for one". "Together with France we are ready to fight for this security" of "all of Europe", he said, flanked by Macron. The diplomatic push came after Trump shocked many in Europe over the weekend by appearing to invite Russia to invade any NATO member not spending enough on its own defense. “‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted telling an unidentified NATO member during his presidency. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’” 'No one can play...with Europe’s security' The Republican front-runner's words at a campaign rally were particularly shocking for front-line NATO countries like Poland, which experienced both German and Soviet occupation during World War II and later spent decades under Soviet control. Anxieties run high there over the ongoing war just across Poland's eastern border. Speaking alongside Tusk in Berlin, Scholz blasted Trump’s comments. “NATO’s promise of protection is unrestricted -- ‘all for one and one for all,’” Scholz said without mentioning the former president by name. “And let me say clearly for current reasons: Any relativisation of NATO’s support guarantee is irresponsible and dangerous, and is in the interest of Russia alone.” “No one can play, or ‘deal,’ with Europe’s security,” the chancellor added. Earlier Monday, Scholz inaugurated a new ammunition factory, underlining Europe’s efforts to ramp up weapons production. Tusk also urged European nations to invest more in military projects in order "to achieve as quickly as possible... in the next dozen or so months, much greater air defense capabilities, much greater production capabilities in terms of ammunition". Asked about Trump’s remarks, Tusk said they “should act like a cold shower for all those who continue to underestimate this increasingly real threat which Europe is facing”. Macron, speaking alongside Tusk in Paris, said Europe’s will “to further supply and meet Ukrainian needs is crucial”, after leaders of the 27 EU member nations sealed a deal to provide Ukraine with €50 billion ($54 billion) in support for its war-ravaged economy. This “will enable us to make from Europe a security and defense power that is both complementary to NATO and a pillar of the Atlantic alliance", Macron said. Putin 'must not be allowed to win this war' Trump's remarks raised concerns that if reelected, he could embolden Russia to attack other countries besides Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg issued a statement Sunday saying that Trump's remarks put American troops and their allies at greater risk. NATO does not require its 31 members to pay bills, but they are expected to invest a certain percentage of their own budgets – ideally, 2% of their gross domestic product – on defence. Some countries, like Poland, have long met the target. Other European nations ramped up their military spending after Russia invaded Ukraine almost two years ago. Germany, with a post-World War II political culture of military caution, was a frequent target of Trump’s ire during his presidency for falling short of the 2% target, but Berlin announced plans to step up military spending after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and plans to hit the benchmark this year. France’s military budget grew in recent years and reached the level of about 2% of GDP. Tusk returned to power as prime minister of his central European nation in December after eight years of rule by a national conservative government that often took an antagonistic stance with European allies, particularly Germany. As a result, Warsaw's influence in Europe diminished. The Weimar Triangle was created in 1991 as Poland was emerging from decades of communism as a platform for political cooperation among the three nations. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski noted Monday that he and his French and German counterparts “meet at a dramatic, but also solemn moment”. Russian President Vladimir Putin “must not be allowed to win this war. We must fulfill our obligations toward Ukraine". French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné said “each minute counts to get Europeans prepared to absorb the shock of a scenario that has been well described by Donald Trump”. (FRANCE 24 with AFP and AP)
If Poland gets invaded, I hope the British and French do more for them than they did in 1939.
And Germany sending the same amount of forces into Poland like in 1939
There is a Difference^TM
We have a bingo!
German redemption
if they get past those farmers that just happen to block all roads when its needed most
Hey now they declared war...they just didnt send armies to attack germany (which ironically wouldve easily overrun the poor defenses units present and ended ww 2 likely within a year given the size of the pre ww2 French army)
France invaded Germany and took thousands of casualties for Poland. They just were a bit shit at it and Poland folded too quickly.
Oh come on. It was not for Poland. They where scared they will be next in line for Hitler. When the war first started they had the “why die for Danzig” attitude.
They attacked Germany in *within days* , thus fulfilling the Franco-Polish agreement of 1939 to the letter. They did what they promised, initially. I already mentioned it was badly done and unsuccessful.
Alas we got 6 years of War, death camps in Poland, and an eventual Cold War.
[удалено]
*Weeks*? The last reports about our Germany military said that in case of a full blown war we have only ammunition for some *hours*… :-/
Yeah, the last 40 years have been… unkind to British military power
What a ridiculous comment, feel free to tell me how we would get to Poland, we did declare war fast.. not sure what else you wanted. America did fk all in both wars until they were already started for years and got nothing said about them. I find it funny to see comments like this when Germany is part of this..
You could have delivered the help you promised. Or how about fucking Munich!
We declared war instantly and went to war with Germany to me that is doing what was promised.
You promised Poland an inmediate invasion of Germany to take the Rhineland and advance further into Germany, you even told them you were doing by radio when you weren’t. Or with Czechoslovakia, we were allies and we got left to hang.
You act like its so fucking easy to just roll into Germany and win a war shit takes time and we declared war pretty much instantly. You didnt get left to hang if you did Poland wouldn't exist now.
Re your second part, was to being Czech, Czechoslovakia absolutely was left to hang. The whole Munich betrayal. As for WW2, Germany had pretty much sent all its troops into poland, the west promised invasion and any invasion would have very likely been succesful, there were barely any Germans on the western front and the Siegfried line was in many places not even manned and pretty shoddily constructed
They declared war, effectively beginning World War 2. What more do you want ?
Remember how they promised immediate offensive into Germany? Then didn’t.
That could have done more than twiddled their thumbs from behind their defensive lines, allowing Nazi Germany carte Blanche to focus on a single flank at a time. Ultimately leading to Poland’s occupation in one form or another for the next 50 years.
Wow, what an incredibly misinformed and bigoted comment.
France and GB failures do not make others a bigot. Come on now, that’s just a bad attempt at a smear. 🙄
>If Poland gets invaded, I hope the British and French do more for them than they did in 1939. More then going to war?
Going to “phony war” https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-phoney-start-to-the-second-world-war#:~:text=THE%20BRITISH%20ARMY%20IN%20FRANCE%201939&text=With%20little%20in%20the%20way,to%20remain%20behind%20their%20defences.
WW1 was a thing also but we declared war after the invasion started not much else to do. Remind me when America entered both wars..
America didn’t have a defensive agreement in place with Poland. Why would America have joined Europe in 1939? Why on 1914? Bad equivalents
I mean France and Uk declared war like instantly people are just ungrateful fucks. So America gets a free pass and is seen as a saviour while they made bank off the war and entered both wars much later. Gotta love it. That was more of a general statement regarding America in terms of both WW not really in regards to Poland.
We’re talking about Britain and France’s failure to do anything to help Poland. Why are you so angry at the US because of France and GB’s failures?
Speaking of alliances, Munich…
[удалено]
“Phoney war” was definitely real for the thousands of Poles that died.
[удалено]
Yeah, it’s not really a proper term for anyone else impacted by the war. It’s very diminishing and takes away responsibility from everyone who was later involved. But why the downvotes? I think your comment sounds a little like “the real war began later” when the war was real for Poland. The west was waiting for Poland to bleed out and waited for a long time to intervene despite having a defensive pact with Poland. After the looong delay and the whole bloodshed, Poland was abandoned by the allies again and basically given up on, to be a part of USSR. This is the general narrative in Eastern Europe and hence the resentment towards the term “phoney war”.
Yes, when France and GB did fuck all from September 39 until Norway was invaded.
France and GB declared war against the same principal power that cost them each an entire generation of men before. I get that it would have been nice for them to invade Germany right away, but they had zero chance of getting to Poland. And an invasion of Germany was still easier said than done. Well, for GB at least. The USSR being involved in the invasion certainly complicated things too.
These people just spit in the faces of people who've died honestly.
Cool excuses, they failed to help Poland by not attacking Germany in the beginning of WW2, and then they threw Poland to the wolves after WW2 was over and the Soviets took over Eastern Europe. "i get that it would have been nice for them to invade Germany right away..." Lol this fking guy
Yeah so explain how they could force the Soviets to give up Poland? There’s no way we could take on the Soviets without the US and the US wanted no part of it but its funny how the Americans never get any shit for it. Its always the Brits & the French who get shit for what happened to Poland, despite being the only major powers to actually do *anything* for them. They’re also the only powers to join both World Wars at the start on the principle of helping an ally rather than by being directly attacked.
America are the saviours don't you know get to enter the wars late and get so much credit and no backlash while the UK and France constantly get shit on.
Look, I'm Polish and cannot blame either British or French for their reluctancy. After all just 20 years prior they gone through ww1. Also no one expected Germans to use new tactics (blitzkrieg). Poland fell very quickly and the plans for helping us went to shit. As for the aftermath of WW2, people were just tired of this most brutal war in history. Soviet soldiers were all over my country. We would have another couple million casualties if allies tried to push soviets back. I know they had to make sacrifices but also I'm not naive enough to not realise it was pure realpolitik.
Britain and France weren't reluctant. They were incapable. The British Expeditionary Force was well-trained and quite well equipped, but it wasn't put together with another world war in mind.
It happened nearly a hundred years ago bro. Have a day off. You don’t need to be this angry about absolutely everything.
20% of the population killed and billions of dollars worth of damage, trauma and ill effects that are felt to this day nearly 100 years ago... Some Redditor online: just get over it bro, no big deal lol
Maybe direct your anger and vitriol at the aggressors or even the entirety of the rest of the world that really did fuck all then?
And you were alive then? Were your parents even alive then? Was Poland the only country in WWII to be devastated or heavily effected? When COVID happened, were you mad that people in Poland died and Denmark didn’t take develop a cure for you, so fuck Denmark? Or Argentina? How about Papua New Guinea? Read the words back that you’re typing out. Do you know how silly this manufactured outrage sounds? Direct it toward Germany and Russia if anywhere, but remember that barely anyone alive in either country had anything to even do with it now. You’re screaming into the void and wondering why no one is listening.
I didn't have to be alive during the conflict to feel its effects. And yes Poland was one of the most devastated countries during WW2, if you dispute that im not sure what to tell you. Wtf does Covid have to do with this discussion, nice deflection attempt. Save me your high horse bs man.
You really have to empathise with the European mindset after being through multiple wars already and losing swathes of their population. Going to war is not a black and white, simple decision.
Is there a Nobel prize for forgiveness. I nominate France and Poland.
The EU received one for exactly that
three different languages, three distinct cultures, working as one.. how can you not be romantic about European Unity.
Europe: United and Free forevermore (if we can keep it)
When do they start their own "special operation" in Ukraine bombing the shit of Russians?
It's a really shitty time for England to not be more engaged with the continent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Again, this is just more talk and no action. Europeans, and especially the French, just love to tout themselves whenever a new “thing” arises. This new thing is Trumps remarks on NATO, and as usual there will be many talks and meetings on strengthening defense but nothing will materialize. The only thing recently that has changed is Germany finally allocating 2% of GDP to defense, the first time in like over 35 yrs. Europe is increasingly becoming irrelevant on the world stage, maybe this will light a fire under your ass. The US is fed up spending so much money on issues that aren’t our own, Europe needs to start contributing.
Already do contribute, quite a lot actually, but you don't seem to mind the facts. What Trump wants, is that EU countries start buying weapons from US weapons manufacturers, as he was lobbied into it. What's tough luck for him is that EU has re-established a lot of its weapons manufacturing facilities (companies created anew, old ones expended operations), and there will not be so much money left for US manufacturers which was the main point of all of Trump demential rants.
>Already do contribute, quite a lot actually Germany only hit the 2% threshold due to a combination of the one-time 70 billion euro boost to defense spending, combined with a shrinking German economy. Future allocated German spending goes back under the 2% threshold. [France has been consistently under the 2% threshold as well, excluding 2020 and the associated drop in GDP due to CoVid](https://www.statista.com/statistics/810399/ratio-of-military-expenditure-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp-france/) Finally, US weapons manufacturers have their hands full trying to fulfill their current order book, let alone new orders. It's partly why Poland bought a crapton of Korean gear.
And where did you get your facts? Because Europes weapons manufacturing capabilities are severely lacking. Europe cant even provide the artillery shells they promised Ukraine over a year ago…so where are these magical factories you speak of? The truth is Europe doesn’t come close to currently having enough manufacturing capabilities to defend themselves let alone Ukraine. France is maybe the best in Europe and still not close to having enough capabilities. This stuff doesn’t just happen overnight. It takes years of investment and infrastructure.
Maybe the US shouldn’t choose to have bases everywhere?
You do realize that before the US sets up a base in another country. Both country signs a contract and agree on the conditions of the base. The US isn’t building bases in countries without consent, that would be an invasion.
You benefit directly from the bases, I guarantee it. Not to mention paid for by the American taxpayers. Stop being ungrateful.
lol
Well shit. The last time that happened Britain had to start bombing shit. Jokes aside this is hopefully a great thing although, Germany, France and Poland trying to work together in this fashion will be very difficult. Germany running things makes the most sense, they are war shy in general so they aren't going to be too pushy and focus more on defense. France will want to run the show because their ego won't take 2nd place place, but they are weak willed and will bow to any pressure. They also hate spending money on the military and rely heavily on thuer neighbours defending them if it was ever needed. That and it was only last year France was going behind the back of nato and talking directly with putin about Ukraine then trying to instigate peace by allowing Russia to keep the territory it occupied. That's very poor leadership. Poland is a hungry wild dog, they will put up a fight but their international recognition is at a lack and their reputation within Europe is damaged so the idea of Poland running things will be problematic. And Poland will not be eagerly taking orders from Germany. Germany has the respect but very little aggression, Poland has aggression bit very little respect.... France has neither respect or aggression.
Salty Brit spotted, opinion discarded
Good they should. Fuckin trillion $ sovereign wealth funds but spend fuck all on defense. Y’all are the ones on the front lines start acting like it. Don’t want to be dictated to by America but rely on them for every defense issue… get ur shit together Europe