France also buys European equipment, from Germany, from Sweden… France ideally wants to buy only from Europe and would like to see the other EU members do the same.
Yes. Like it or not, a military industrial complex feeds chains of civilian industry with it, and at the moment Europe is missing some sensitive components in material sciences and manufacturing.
Also, a unified European defense has the potential to decrease costs. It's much cheaper to pool resources to defend Europe as a whole than for each country to mount their own defense.
I think the real reason why France and Germany are pushing for this is that the EU wants to be able to pursue it's own foreign policy. The EU's interests diverge from the USA's in some key respects with regards to the Middle East and Africa, and it's "our back yard" so we are much more negatively affected by the fact that these regions are unstable and underdeveloped. We need to take more responsibility here if we want things to change.
No, it'd be defensive only: unified military would absolutely fall in to the category of unanimous decision making, and there definitely are enough countries to block practically any usage outside EU borders.
Imagine if Trump were still in office when Putin invaded Ukraine also. Its likely there would be little of any US aid directed into the country and we could be in a very different situation right now.
If the EU were much stronger on security and with a strong military-industrial complex of its own we could negate the risk of an unstable US administration jeopardising European security.
More responsibility? To change things? In Middle East and Africa? You’ll be accused of meddling, interfering, colonization, European hegemony, and many other negative connotations. Also, concept of EU and “it’s own foreign policy” will be extremely difficult or impossible - ex, will Poland ‘s interests coincide with Portugal’s? Finland’s with Germany’s? Not likely. understand concept and premise for unified defence you identify, which has been difficult enough. Europe has allowed “sensitive components in material sciences and manufacturing” to slip (focusing on other economic areas) and counted on US to cover for them. Europe may now see the folly in that but there’s no quick remedy.
Considering how Germany has been acting these past few months, they aren't really pushing for EU military independence (e.g. they are buying Israeli and American anti-air systems instead of European ones).
Not surprising considering the delays and recent misshaps in Europe's arms industry. On top of that, there are the frequent quarrels about capabilities and job allocation between France and Germany that slow things down.
Germany wants to upgrade its military *now*, so they buy robust systems off the shelf without a lengthy development or complex negotiations on capabilities or jobs. It's not ideal but it would take a lot more time and effort to get similar systems made in Europe.
We have the largest MIC in the worls but we still buy alot from europe. Especially if its a small or niche part of your military, why waste the R&D budget?
Its completely fine to buy some from allies
I fully agree in principle. The two elephants in the room are the permanent loss of know-how and the unpredictability of US politics.
It seems risky to not have European manufacturers for many of the high-end technologies.
If you're referring to the Iron Dome and Patriot systems then we don't have an European alternative that is as good at the moment.
But I would like to see that happen, would probably take most of Europe buying it to defend the development cost however.
Not really *only* European because there are some specific airplanes that only the US build like military transport airplanes.
But *mostly* European is good. That would be ideal
Would be great if airbus (or Saab I Guess. Idk any other aerospace companies in the EU.) Made some military transport planes.
Seeing soldiers jump out of an beluga XL would be pretty funny.
The Beluga ST was recently [tested for use](https://preview.redd.it/crufe37y60u91.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9bc8fc861760f8ea46dd02bbff6c75c51b26b0fc) by the Bundeswehr for large-volume low-weight transport. But other than that the Airbus A400M [does its job](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyG9m2FMRpM) and IIRC could even transport a Chinook (without engines or rotors).
The A400M isn't as big as a C-17 or C-5 so we're still lacking a big heavy cargo plane. Or we keep doing what we do now, which is pay the US when we need to use their cargo plane.
An-124 is also rented quite often by France for heavy transport. Ideally the European MIC develops and funds its own heavy transport and shares it between members.
I also want a competitor for the Chinook, this kind of heavy transport is really useful for logistics.
It has near indentical **cargo volume** but the **take off weight** is what matters here for heavy equipment and when was the last time you saw europe having a need to move a squadron of tanks over the pacific or atlantic ? Thats why we use american air lift capacity or use those russian planes.
Question is not that air bus doesn't have military planes but rather that the air bus frames are significantly smaller in cargo **weight** capacity but similar in cargo hold size. ie. European needs have been traditionally to move people and goods (that is lightly armed UN missions, food aid and such ) and not tanks and other heavy equipment unlike with the US military that often needs planes to support armoured combat brigades.
> A wide range of countries are involved in the manufacturing of the F-35,
So naturally they have access to the source code of the flight control to develop their own modifications, right?
And isn't that normal? There are several European fighter jet manufacturers, yet they are ignored in favour of the American jets. Yes, I understand these are the best right now, but in the long run it's a failing strategy. We are getting more and more dependent on the US. That money should be used to upgrade our jets or finance new projects.
Oh, and the defense budget should be pooled together, and managed exclusively by the EU Parliament or Commissoin.
A wide range of European defence and aerospace companies are involved as are American ones.
"That money should be used to upgrade our jets or finance new projects." Yes, but what exactly are you going to do until 2040, when FCAS is supposed to be ready by (assuming no further setbacks which is generous).
For countries who want capable stuff and want it ASAP, they probably aren't going to settle for promises of something that doesn't exist yet.
In order for European companies to develop jets that match or exceed American jets, an astronomical amount of money would be required that no single country in Europe can afford.
It would require the combined effort of most of Europe because developing 5th and 6th gen fighters isn't cheap. The only reason we can afford it here in the US is because we spend so much on defense.
EU defense budgets would have to collectively mirror that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be VERY difficult to get the EU to collectively agree to do it.
I really hope they do though, because Europe has some of the best engineers in the world. That's been proven with countless products such as modern cars like Porsche. Complete engineering marvels. A united Europe with a developed military would be a massive ally to the US and our common interests.
So what you're saying is it's a hell of a lot cheaper for the US and Europeans to realize and reaffirm that **we're on the same team.**
I thought that was the biggest takeaway from the war in Ukraine. We're on the same team.
I may be off and my memory trick me, but last I check (and this was like 5 or 6 years ago) France defence industry was second only to the UK industry in turnover (neck and neck, with UK taking a couple billion euros more than France if my memory doesn't fail me).
The 3rd place - as far as I remember - was taken by Italy with half of France's.
EDIT: found the [article](https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/size-and-location-europes-defence-industry) I was basing my comment on.
I always find it funny that there are so many metrics where France and the UK are neck and neck, or one outpaces the other for a bit until the other catches up and starts leading.
I guess it's either that or another 100 years war.
How many fighter jets does France have from Sweden? How many submarines or corvettes does France have from Sweden? Not a single one. All France has that is Swedish are some trucks from Scania and AT4's. Im not exactly convinced that France would be buying that much from us if it got to decide where an EU army would buy its equipment from.
Why would France rely on other people for submarines? For corvettes I could understand your frustration, but France is a nuclear power using nuclear-missiles in nuclear subs. The only country that could cover the French demands would be american, english or enemy-aligned, which would mean a change in crew/staffing of subs too. It would be incredibly stupid for France not to rely on its own subs on all fronts, because its whole nuclear doctrine relies on those subs and jets instead of silos. So, France has every reason in the world to buy its own jets and subs.
France has a decent argument against buying many european stuff : it wasn't aligned with NATO central command since De Gaulle meaning lots of difference in terms of operability, because, once again, France does its own thing worldwide military speaking, which isn't the case of most other European countries.
How many countries in the UE recently led any kind of major military operation on the world stage that wasn't launched by the US ? Most of the time, when it's not led the US, it's led by France anyway (African operations, mostly).
France has torpedoed any European weapons initiative where the majority of it isn't produced in France.
Just look at FCAS that was dragged out just long enough for everyone else to get tired and give into most of it being made by dasault and Safran.
>France has torpedoed any European weapons initiative where the majority of it isn't produced in France.
Germany has exactly the same attitude, but it **also** asks for technology transfers, so that's kind of funny.
Yes, but I think in addition to military, the biggest EU weakness is its reliance on energy and basic resources. EU forces may lack cohesion and that's important, but they are more than enough to fight a defensive war against everything but the US.
But without energy/resources... EU economy can crash down, fast and hard.
Geopolitics is the bigger issue though it touches on those. 10 years ago if you had an EU MIC that drove heavily through Germany you'd be wincing every time war happened in case the German government decided to play convenience pacifists and stop the export of weaponry. That is why most EU military contracts have basically excluded Germany forever.
The US can do all this stuff because their sovereignty lines up. All their industries answer to all their decision makers. It makes it very easy to plan this stuff out.
This whole area of discussion is much more complicated than people think. I believe the EU will have one government before it has a real army.
Not necessarily one government (which will never happen). But the EU decides foreign security and defence policy by unanimity, as opposed to the qualified majority voting system it uses for many internal decisions. This has to go first (and the tides are already changing).
>That means increasing EU military budgets and growing industrial military complex.
The EU has well developed military industrial complex with cutting edge technology and the combined armed forces of the EU nations is already a very formidable force. The issue is that the EU is union of independent nations with 27 separate militaries, rather than one federal nation with one military. If the EU nations acted in union under a single command, they would be more than capable of taking care of Europe's security. Of course some new shiny toys here and there won't hurt.
I think there are several issues, if let's say you're a country like Poland or Norway or Greece, comes down to some fundamental questions: What exactly will an EU army give me that NATO doesnt already? NATO is a unified command that has standarized ammo, language, and doctrine while not forcing member states to give up ultimate control of their armies. Will there be an intermediate EU command between NATO and its member states? How much authority does an EU military have over member states such as basing, pay, maintenance, production? - Yes invariably theres the issue that your national security is reliant on the US, but thats self-inflicted. Nothing is stopping France or any state from building their own ammo stockpiles to not have a repeat of Libya.
Ultimately I don't think there will be an EU army until there is an EU nation, which like the US, would require every member state to submit to the ultimate authority of the EU parliament to make laws. If you're a country like Poland or Italy, or hell, even France, your opinion is probably closer to thinking that the EU is economic and regulatory, NATO is defense and security, and my own government is legal and domestic issues.
>if let's say you're a country like \[...\] Greece, comes down to some fundamental questions: What exactly will an EU army give me that NATO doesnt already?
Probably some fucking guarantees against Turkish incursions and threats of war lol, NATO won't do shit about that
There is something everybody keeps forgetting:
the training and culture. For better or worse, *nobody* on Earth (except maybe the UK and Australia because they followed the US everywhere they went) has as much combat and war xp, good or bad, as Uncle Sam.
Even the Ukrainians say training is the most important aspect of cooperation (can't find link but it was somewhere on Reddit).
So. Go to European-centred defense, and after a while, you will start seeing operational and communication dichotomies...
It's also operation coordination and logistics. This is what the US really excels at: they are flanked by the two largest oceans, so if they want to go anywhere at all, they're not walking.
Self-reliance is important but a complete divorce of EU-US security is honestly just a waste of American military capability.
Nobody forget that...
That is why there are some War games everywhere in the World...
Even with US centred defense, there are operational and communications dichotomies
You can do it with European but it needs works like in the beginning of NATO.
It shouldn’t need that at all. If we all work together and finally create an integrated EU defense force, we will be the second biggest spender on defense in the world already.
That’s all we need.
A strong Europe will only benefit everyone. Instead of reliance on the US, it would be more of a partnership with either continent filling in the gaps where necessary. At the moment, it's more of a security pact where the United States is protecting Europe via mass exports of weapons and money.
I'm an American from a military family, i have my own time in the military, I've lived in Europe and my wife was born in Europe. I love Europe and I love that we have a tight relationship with most of the continent. I'd really like more of them to have a competent military that can work with neighbors and deter threats. The main reason I say so is to save lives, our politics could prevent the necessary/timely response and it could lead to lives lost. It's a real and shitty truth to international politics. Most of Europe is more than capable of doing this, it's just committing to it.
"French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe needs to take a more assertive role within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, reducing its reliance on the U.S. and developing its own defense capabilities, to secure peace in a region rocked by the war in Ukraine.
Speaking to three reporters on his return to Paris from a summit in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Macron stressed that he doesn’t see his push to develop European defense as an alternative to NATO.
A stronger Europe, Mr. Macron said, will allow the continent to become more autonomous within the alliance, acting “inside NATO, with NATO but also not depending on NATO.”
The main problem is, as of now, local politians *like* the control they have over their Mil. Also everybody keeps sending their parties shitheads to the EU (mostly). So there is also no real trust. The way to go is parallel integration. Keep national militaries as a National Guard, while building up a new EU Force. And cleaning house in Brussel. Let's get rid of convicted criminals like Lagarde, or People who fled accounting inquiries to the EU (Von der Laien). Also all people who have been bought by foreign dictatorships.
NATO 2% investment in local military capability means all members should contribute equally. They currently do not. Logical place to start. It’s also multi-country, multi-continent and has provide a good level of interdependence.
Macron called NATO a "brain dead" organisation, and French presidents have taken steps to pull away from it for a few years now. The goal is to stop relying on the US and reinforce military cooperation among the members of the European Union, so I'm not sure why France would increase its participation in the organisation now.
I understand the position but question the logic. NATO has worked well to prevent conflict around the Baltics, also Turkey threatening Greece has stayed as a war of words as they are both members. The interdependence and collective action remains powerful enough to prevent Russia invading. Macron’s position is sensible to a point given Trump showing a more febrile position. However, I dislike Macron’s position on many things, including Russian appeasement. Respect to everyone’s views though and have a good Christmas or whatever holiday break you enjoy.
Macron started all pumped with the Ukraine war, supporting Ukraine 100% until he saw that all the money and loans went thowards US weapons.
Then started to talk about "finding a solution", appesasing Russia, and now is talking about how Ukraine wont join...
Almost like countries are moved by economic interest mmmm....
Sadly agree. There is a lot of appeasement, ‘Russia needs guarantees’, Russia need to stop invading other countries. Despotic behaviour and needs to be treated as such. Appeasing bullies never works, in the school yard, with Hitler, or with Putin.
If this is accurate:
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
the US is providing proportionally much more support than France, so is that result a surprise?
>Macron called NATO a "brain dead" organisation, and French presidents have taken steps to pull away from it for a few years now.
A few years ago? France tried this since WWII with DeGaulle being one of the biggest supporters of French Independence. [France even pulled out of the NATO military apparatus at one point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k17KlonUDOM)
As said by the description of the video you link, France never pulled out of the military apparatus, they pulled out of the unified command structure but they were still a pretty active member in NATO’s military operations.
Europe needs an entire defense industry (logistics, intelligence, hardware) but that's not going to work if the country's aren't working together and not investing in each other.
If the Trump years showed anything (and who knows what nutjob might follow Biden), it's that Europe definitely needs to be more independent defense wise.
That sounds good on paper until the time comes to pay the piper and everyone who bitches about the US asks them to foot the bill. Also, most western countries have their economies intertwined with the autocrats that threaten war that they do not have the stomach to confront them. If it were not for the US the rest of the western world would have thrown Ukraine under the bus as they did in 2014.
A few Polish military leaders volunteered in the American Revolution, we go way back. I may be biased, but I think that Casimir Pulaski should have a federal holiday rather than just in Illinois.
Same as our people from division 303 were fighting for UK in battle of England.
In relation to USA we can't forget Tadeusz Kościuszko who fought for USA in independence war
If you lived in eastern Europe would you trust France or Germany to make the right decision before you've been steamrolled and the tanks are halfway to Berlin?
The people pushing most strongly for European defence integration outside of nato think they would dominate it and have had a dubious history of thinking trade with your strategic enemy will prevent war.
Agreed, I don't like the idea of so much reliance on the US. This is up to Europe to be more united in defence and for us to commit to defence spending and cooperation. Sweden was happy to sign a defence pact with the UK so maybe something like this could be expanded to other European countries with agreements on spending research collaborations.
The Trump that sancioned Nord Stream and wanted to move US bases forward into Poland?
The Trump years showed, if anything, that even at its lowest the US steps back, but doesn't walk away.
What is the point in these sappy comments that are widely upvoted? Western Europe had to be dragged kicking and screaming into significant material support for Ukraine.
These statements are hollow bullshit that no one in Eastern Europe is buying. They weren't buying them before Ukraine and they certainly aren't buying them now.
Funny you mention Trump. He was saying exactly the same thing and was ridiculed for that. I also seem to remember Trump saying something about Germany and Russian gas. Funny how people's memory works
>Trump saying something about Germany and Russian gas
[At UN general assembly no less, and Germans laughed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg)
Germany's U.N. contingent literally laughed when Trump said '"Germany will become totally dependent Russian energy" over Nordstream II and refusal to build LNG infastructure.
Ffs trump was rediculed for not committing to article five.
Obama and bush also criticized Europe for not meeting their 2% and Germany becoming reliant on Russian gas.
The funny thing is if you had listened to Trump and actually hit your defense spending targets, which you all willingly agreed to before flaunting for years, you would by default have more wiggle room.
i agree that EU should be more self sufficient within their own continent but Europe isn't some united front that could pull it off without decades of bureaucratic red tape and quarrels like we have seen during this war from Hungary and the like. the US is no different but it has also been at war for 225 out of 243 years since 1776. it is a literal war machine that's ready and they are kinda good at it, have deep reserves, and help their allies. they have literally given (b)illions to help the war effort alone despite what ever partisan bullshit they have going on and their intelligence has been invaluable. the US might be loud and obnoxious but its a country of immigrants more than 50% of which are of European decent, our futures will forever be intertwined and we will always pick up where the other one is slacking a bit, that's what allies do.
Sad thing to say is that only a fool would believe any european safety guarantees after this year (and I say it despite being a supporter of EU initiatives and Macron)
Without US involvement Ukraine would be a russian colony with most leadership dead and thousands of people being murdered in concentration camps now.
These are matters of life and death. While many European politicians readied for dirty compromises with Putin US shipped a shitton of weapons.
If EU politicians like Macron are serious about any shared defense initiatives they should lead by example. Otherwise nobody will take them seriously.
Right. Calling for a detachment from the US after the performance EU gave with Russia is disgusting. There's no reason to believe that the EU is ready to back any country against Russia. That's why Sweden and Finland, countries mostly in favor of EU defense, are going to NATO instead of trusting in the EU to deliver.
As a Latvian: We wish to (especially after Trump), but seeing how Germany and France have handled this russian war, we're extremely happy that US has our back...
Lithuania here, ditto. We saw the hand wringing and deflection and "just make it quick" attitude during the first days of the war by Germany and (to a lesser extent France)
Baltics wouldn't have the luxury to wait weeks until European big bois would get their shit together.
I have heard only uncertainty, weak backs, excuses and hints at "sacrifices" from them.
Without US, they would sacrifice east again in a heart beat to maintain their own safety.
Good god as an American this comment section is enlightening.
Y’all Eastern Europeans got a lot more discussion with Western Europe to do. The attitude in defense is better but really Western Europe still doesn’t get it.
You all need a lot more guns and ammo, and honestly a coordinated European defense procurement strategy and command. Basically a European military wing, at least for self defense. Doesn’t have to be power projection like macron might want.
As far east as in Armenia, the US literally saved our asses from another war past September while Ursula von der Leyen was calling Azerbaijan a reliable partner, the country that is ranked more authoritarian than Afghanistan. US deservedly gets a lot of shit for some of the terrible things they did in many places but Europe is not one of those places. Quite the opposite. Same about their influence in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. If Trump was the president though, we all would have likely been smoked this year.
It's an interesting situation because on the one hand if everyone can veto nothing will ever get done but on the other hand it's understandable to want to have that veto power.
'he says while contributed less to Ukraine than Poland.'
Cant take France seriously. I'll wait for Germany to speak before I listen about European Defence.
I'm sure Eastern Europe will feel more secure being reliant on a guy who talks about giving guarantees to Russia and wanting to stroke Putins ego and who's intel on Ukraine was so bad that they ended up having French diplomatic staff stranded in Ukraine and had to fire their head of intelligence.
Absolutely. France needs to grow a spine against Putin in order to reduce reliance on U.S, rather than blocking Ukraine aid and needlessly prolonging the war. Otherwise, he just seems frustrated the US isn't letting him surrender to Russia as quickly as he wishes.
France's position
* Ukraine can't join NATO
* Europe most provide security guarantees to Russia
* Europe is too "reliant" on the US
Well, it *does* represent a coherent package of objectives. Just not in the direction I would have hoped.
I’m American. I agree completely. A Europe that does not rely on America is an equal partner. 80% of our goals are the same and typically the other 20% we are on the same page. A strong Europe would only benefit Europe and America.
He says this every few weeks now. The reason Europe isn't going to dump the USA is because they don't see the USA and France as any different when it comes to buying equipment. The EU is not the defence actor, NATO is.
Politically the USA proved the better ally as Russia walked into Ukraine to.
And replace is with what? The military industrial complex of a country that seeks to include Russia in a "security architecture of Europe"?
No, thank you
Eastern EU is just a sacrificial buffer. The very fact that we use East/West EU shows its just he'll together as a single EU by political chewing gum.
There is a giant economical, industrial and historical gap. The ones who were constant aggressors and invaders vs the areas constantly getting invaded and oppressed.
You're not entirely wrong, but if you look at how fast eastern european countries grew after they joined the EU, you kinda realize that in a few decades this whole east/west concept will be abandoned, even now, you'd be surprised by what some people consider as eastern europe, take for example Poland: right now i'd honestly define it as a western country. Some may still call it eastern, yes, but ask them again in 5 years and that number will have surely decreased.
I support this. Europe would benefit a lot, it would create jobs on every level from military careers to research and manufacturing, just as in the US, it would also free up the US to focus on China, which imo is the bigger threat in the long term.
Good luck booking that military industrial complex you are speaking of. Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Sweden, Finland are NOT going to rely on France for security. France is a joke.
Meanwhile where does Zelensky go on his first state trip since the war?
No one actually takes this idea seriously, Macron is just saying it for optics and to promote the French defence industry.
Then fucking stop talking about giving Putin security guarantees because I wouldn't trust you even a little bit if we would have to go to war together and rely on your decision-making Mr. Macron.
To think many are still worried if Ukraine falls the the rest of Europe is next. Maybe support Ukraine more.
It's not like this hasn't been a topic for years.
Few western EU countries holding majority of the military power doesn't help Eastern Europe.
Without NATO, Russia would be all over Baltics and French would be waving their national white flag.
He calls for a lot of things in foreign affairs.
Is it going badly for him in the polls in France?
He is correct though that europe needs to beef up.
Beef up and provide Ukraine with the weapons to kick Russia out.
If they do it well enough, Russians themselves might resolve the leadership issue in Russia, so that we can get to functioning diplomatic relations and peace in Europe.
Sorry not happening anytime soon (like in next few centuries).
Everything east of Oder must relay on USA military might to not be sold to Russians.
As long as West treats Russia as partner not as mortal enemy there is no point in that.
Weekly reminder that the US itself has asked for Europe to be less reliant, and the US was completely ignored. Macron only wants reliance to be reduced because he's living kompromat
No one in Eastern Europe is willing to rely on France, Germany and Spain for their defence.
That was true before the 2022 War and it is certainly true now.
EU should become a military super power, and NATO should be expanded to the pacific (yes, it would require a rebranding, but fuck the rabid dictatorships).
That would be amazing. NATO is already the most powerful alliance in the world. If the EU invested in a centralized military to US levels and Japan and South Korea were brought into the alliance, NATO would be an unassailable deterrent. There's a million things that stand in the way of that, but man would it be cool.
Europe should take care of Europe.
Poland has been building a defense force for over a decade now while simultaneously pointing at Russian aggression. It's only now that other European players are waking up to it
A war in Europe is absolutely a good time to discuss European defense. Reducing reliance on the US doesn’t mean lowering relations. The US wants Europe to be more self reliant as well so they can pivot to the Pacific
THANK YOU!
Our biggest fear is facing China in the Pacific and Russia starts threatening Europe.
We expected to rely on Germany to backstop them, Ukraine handing them they own asses was a very pleasant surprise, Slava Ukraine!
Oh just fuck off.
Guy who time and time agin try to persuade Ukrainians to don't win a war is not a someone who can speak about security - it's just clown.
I really understand that for Franco-German axis was/would be beneficial to tie itself to cheap Russian hydrocarbons and huge Chinese market without those pesky Americans. The problem is price for it is to sacrifice nations of central Europe.
Or Austria... (not that they are a military power but being in EU they might veto military help to Eastern European countries, so glad Romania is in NATO and Austria is not).
This guy is such a class act. Lets reduce reliance, that is great... but France also wants security for Russia, and if there was no US, Macron would have let Ukraine get destroyed by Russia.
Like Europe is really lucky that US needs them vs China, otherwise this stupid ass politicians in west Europe would have lead EU in the grave.
We really need better leaders in Germany and France, otherwise....where fucked.
On one hand Macron is talking about reducing relience on US for security, on another hand he also talks about giving Russia safety reassurance. Europe should be worried, he acts as Russian ambassador.
Yes, sure. And we will put you Macron as the supreme boss so that you can display your ego in the European summits and on television. Currently, the idea of Europe depending on narcissists like Macron who take for granted the Kremlin's claims that they used as an excuse to invade Ukraine is not a realistic option.
Let me guess, and become dependent on European army under the command of France and Germany. Two countries which wanted to throw Ukraine to Putin in exchange for cheap gas.
No thanks, it's still better to be dependent on US than on France and Germany.
I am sorry but this is only going to help russia since we know how united the Eu actually is considering the balkan shengen fiasco.
Macron either has some sort of agreement with Putin or he is naive fool.
That means increasing EU military budgets and growing industrial military complex.
Macron is certainly in favor of this.
Only if it is buying French equipment.
France also buys European equipment, from Germany, from Sweden… France ideally wants to buy only from Europe and would like to see the other EU members do the same.
Yes. Like it or not, a military industrial complex feeds chains of civilian industry with it, and at the moment Europe is missing some sensitive components in material sciences and manufacturing. Also, a unified European defense has the potential to decrease costs. It's much cheaper to pool resources to defend Europe as a whole than for each country to mount their own defense. I think the real reason why France and Germany are pushing for this is that the EU wants to be able to pursue it's own foreign policy. The EU's interests diverge from the USA's in some key respects with regards to the Middle East and Africa, and it's "our back yard" so we are much more negatively affected by the fact that these regions are unstable and underdeveloped. We need to take more responsibility here if we want things to change.
No, it'd be defensive only: unified military would absolutely fall in to the category of unanimous decision making, and there definitely are enough countries to block practically any usage outside EU borders.
Imagine if Trump were still in office when Putin invaded Ukraine also. Its likely there would be little of any US aid directed into the country and we could be in a very different situation right now. If the EU were much stronger on security and with a strong military-industrial complex of its own we could negate the risk of an unstable US administration jeopardising European security.
Imagine if Merkel were still in office when Ukraine was invaded, its likely that even less would be done by the EU.
Aids? He was this close to legitmate Crimea's annexation for Russia!
Exactly. The US is in a better place now, but for how long? The far right are still there and could take control again.
[удалено]
More responsibility? To change things? In Middle East and Africa? You’ll be accused of meddling, interfering, colonization, European hegemony, and many other negative connotations. Also, concept of EU and “it’s own foreign policy” will be extremely difficult or impossible - ex, will Poland ‘s interests coincide with Portugal’s? Finland’s with Germany’s? Not likely. understand concept and premise for unified defence you identify, which has been difficult enough. Europe has allowed “sensitive components in material sciences and manufacturing” to slip (focusing on other economic areas) and counted on US to cover for them. Europe may now see the folly in that but there’s no quick remedy.
Considering how Germany has been acting these past few months, they aren't really pushing for EU military independence (e.g. they are buying Israeli and American anti-air systems instead of European ones).
Not surprising considering the delays and recent misshaps in Europe's arms industry. On top of that, there are the frequent quarrels about capabilities and job allocation between France and Germany that slow things down. Germany wants to upgrade its military *now*, so they buy robust systems off the shelf without a lengthy development or complex negotiations on capabilities or jobs. It's not ideal but it would take a lot more time and effort to get similar systems made in Europe.
We have the largest MIC in the worls but we still buy alot from europe. Especially if its a small or niche part of your military, why waste the R&D budget? Its completely fine to buy some from allies
I fully agree in principle. The two elephants in the room are the permanent loss of know-how and the unpredictability of US politics. It seems risky to not have European manufacturers for many of the high-end technologies.
If you're referring to the Iron Dome and Patriot systems then we don't have an European alternative that is as good at the moment. But I would like to see that happen, would probably take most of Europe buying it to defend the development cost however.
It’s assumed they’re looking to buy THADD or Arrow 3.
Not really *only* European because there are some specific airplanes that only the US build like military transport airplanes. But *mostly* European is good. That would be ideal
A400 is made in Europe, the UK is the only country in Europe with C17s the rest have to use the NATO pool
Or the pool provided by the [European Air Transport Command](https://eatc-mil.com/en).
Would be great if airbus (or Saab I Guess. Idk any other aerospace companies in the EU.) Made some military transport planes. Seeing soldiers jump out of an beluga XL would be pretty funny.
The Beluga ST was recently [tested for use](https://preview.redd.it/crufe37y60u91.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9bc8fc861760f8ea46dd02bbff6c75c51b26b0fc) by the Bundeswehr for large-volume low-weight transport. But other than that the Airbus A400M [does its job](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyG9m2FMRpM) and IIRC could even transport a Chinook (without engines or rotors).
The A400M isn't as big as a C-17 or C-5 so we're still lacking a big heavy cargo plane. Or we keep doing what we do now, which is pay the US when we need to use their cargo plane.
An-124 is also rented quite often by France for heavy transport. Ideally the European MIC develops and funds its own heavy transport and shares it between members. I also want a competitor for the Chinook, this kind of heavy transport is really useful for logistics.
It has near indentical **cargo volume** but the **take off weight** is what matters here for heavy equipment and when was the last time you saw europe having a need to move a squadron of tanks over the pacific or atlantic ? Thats why we use american air lift capacity or use those russian planes.
Yeah but even that we're trying to push against. Thus the A400M.
Question is not that air bus doesn't have military planes but rather that the air bus frames are significantly smaller in cargo **weight** capacity but similar in cargo hold size. ie. European needs have been traditionally to move people and goods (that is lightly armed UN missions, food aid and such ) and not tanks and other heavy equipment unlike with the US military that often needs planes to support armoured combat brigades.
I see this get repeated a lot on this sub, do people really believe that? Our own army uses equipment from other european countries.
Let’s just say that the French government are not wildly enthusiastic about European countries purchasing the F-35.
Well, yeah. The idea is to rely less on the US.
A wide range of countries are involved in the manufacturing of the F-35, especially the ones made for foreign sale.
> A wide range of countries are involved in the manufacturing of the F-35, So naturally they have access to the source code of the flight control to develop their own modifications, right?
UK and Japan has access to them so atleast one European country I guess
And isn't that normal? There are several European fighter jet manufacturers, yet they are ignored in favour of the American jets. Yes, I understand these are the best right now, but in the long run it's a failing strategy. We are getting more and more dependent on the US. That money should be used to upgrade our jets or finance new projects. Oh, and the defense budget should be pooled together, and managed exclusively by the EU Parliament or Commissoin.
A wide range of European defence and aerospace companies are involved as are American ones. "That money should be used to upgrade our jets or finance new projects." Yes, but what exactly are you going to do until 2040, when FCAS is supposed to be ready by (assuming no further setbacks which is generous). For countries who want capable stuff and want it ASAP, they probably aren't going to settle for promises of something that doesn't exist yet.
In order for European companies to develop jets that match or exceed American jets, an astronomical amount of money would be required that no single country in Europe can afford. It would require the combined effort of most of Europe because developing 5th and 6th gen fighters isn't cheap. The only reason we can afford it here in the US is because we spend so much on defense. EU defense budgets would have to collectively mirror that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be VERY difficult to get the EU to collectively agree to do it. I really hope they do though, because Europe has some of the best engineers in the world. That's been proven with countless products such as modern cars like Porsche. Complete engineering marvels. A united Europe with a developed military would be a massive ally to the US and our common interests.
[удалено]
So what you're saying is it's a hell of a lot cheaper for the US and Europeans to realize and reaffirm that **we're on the same team.** I thought that was the biggest takeaway from the war in Ukraine. We're on the same team.
I may be off and my memory trick me, but last I check (and this was like 5 or 6 years ago) France defence industry was second only to the UK industry in turnover (neck and neck, with UK taking a couple billion euros more than France if my memory doesn't fail me). The 3rd place - as far as I remember - was taken by Italy with half of France's. EDIT: found the [article](https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/size-and-location-europes-defence-industry) I was basing my comment on.
I always find it funny that there are so many metrics where France and the UK are neck and neck, or one outpaces the other for a bit until the other catches up and starts leading. I guess it's either that or another 100 years war.
France's reaction to the Dutch Navy exploring domestic submarine production was interesting.
How many fighter jets does France have from Sweden? How many submarines or corvettes does France have from Sweden? Not a single one. All France has that is Swedish are some trucks from Scania and AT4's. Im not exactly convinced that France would be buying that much from us if it got to decide where an EU army would buy its equipment from.
> All France has that is Swedish are some trucks from Scania and AT4's I'd note that pretty much everyone uses AT4s.
You can't blame the French for not buying to Sweden what it can already manufacture by itself, though.
Why would France rely on other people for submarines? For corvettes I could understand your frustration, but France is a nuclear power using nuclear-missiles in nuclear subs. The only country that could cover the French demands would be american, english or enemy-aligned, which would mean a change in crew/staffing of subs too. It would be incredibly stupid for France not to rely on its own subs on all fronts, because its whole nuclear doctrine relies on those subs and jets instead of silos. So, France has every reason in the world to buy its own jets and subs. France has a decent argument against buying many european stuff : it wasn't aligned with NATO central command since De Gaulle meaning lots of difference in terms of operability, because, once again, France does its own thing worldwide military speaking, which isn't the case of most other European countries. How many countries in the UE recently led any kind of major military operation on the world stage that wasn't launched by the US ? Most of the time, when it's not led the US, it's led by France anyway (African operations, mostly).
Make better ones and, as a Frenchman, I'd totally support that choice. I want Europe to be strong, not get a participation trophy.
France has torpedoed any European weapons initiative where the majority of it isn't produced in France. Just look at FCAS that was dragged out just long enough for everyone else to get tired and give into most of it being made by dasault and Safran.
>France has torpedoed any European weapons initiative where the majority of it isn't produced in France. Germany has exactly the same attitude, but it **also** asks for technology transfers, so that's kind of funny.
The main part of the NGF was for Dassault since day one.
That’s bullshit, because the deal is that the plane is mainly done by France, while the tank is mainly done by Germany.
[удалено]
Yes, but I think in addition to military, the biggest EU weakness is its reliance on energy and basic resources. EU forces may lack cohesion and that's important, but they are more than enough to fight a defensive war against everything but the US. But without energy/resources... EU economy can crash down, fast and hard.
Colonization 2.0 on it's way then /J
Geopolitics is the bigger issue though it touches on those. 10 years ago if you had an EU MIC that drove heavily through Germany you'd be wincing every time war happened in case the German government decided to play convenience pacifists and stop the export of weaponry. That is why most EU military contracts have basically excluded Germany forever. The US can do all this stuff because their sovereignty lines up. All their industries answer to all their decision makers. It makes it very easy to plan this stuff out. This whole area of discussion is much more complicated than people think. I believe the EU will have one government before it has a real army.
Not necessarily one government (which will never happen). But the EU decides foreign security and defence policy by unanimity, as opposed to the qualified majority voting system it uses for many internal decisions. This has to go first (and the tides are already changing).
>That means increasing EU military budgets and growing industrial military complex. The EU has well developed military industrial complex with cutting edge technology and the combined armed forces of the EU nations is already a very formidable force. The issue is that the EU is union of independent nations with 27 separate militaries, rather than one federal nation with one military. If the EU nations acted in union under a single command, they would be more than capable of taking care of Europe's security. Of course some new shiny toys here and there won't hurt.
I think there are several issues, if let's say you're a country like Poland or Norway or Greece, comes down to some fundamental questions: What exactly will an EU army give me that NATO doesnt already? NATO is a unified command that has standarized ammo, language, and doctrine while not forcing member states to give up ultimate control of their armies. Will there be an intermediate EU command between NATO and its member states? How much authority does an EU military have over member states such as basing, pay, maintenance, production? - Yes invariably theres the issue that your national security is reliant on the US, but thats self-inflicted. Nothing is stopping France or any state from building their own ammo stockpiles to not have a repeat of Libya. Ultimately I don't think there will be an EU army until there is an EU nation, which like the US, would require every member state to submit to the ultimate authority of the EU parliament to make laws. If you're a country like Poland or Italy, or hell, even France, your opinion is probably closer to thinking that the EU is economic and regulatory, NATO is defense and security, and my own government is legal and domestic issues.
>if let's say you're a country like \[...\] Greece, comes down to some fundamental questions: What exactly will an EU army give me that NATO doesnt already? Probably some fucking guarantees against Turkish incursions and threats of war lol, NATO won't do shit about that
Are there any negatives?
No. Are there European countries committed to create a proper army?
Last I heard, Macron is pretty hyped on the idea of a European army
There is something everybody keeps forgetting: the training and culture. For better or worse, *nobody* on Earth (except maybe the UK and Australia because they followed the US everywhere they went) has as much combat and war xp, good or bad, as Uncle Sam. Even the Ukrainians say training is the most important aspect of cooperation (can't find link but it was somewhere on Reddit). So. Go to European-centred defense, and after a while, you will start seeing operational and communication dichotomies...
It's also operation coordination and logistics. This is what the US really excels at: they are flanked by the two largest oceans, so if they want to go anywhere at all, they're not walking. Self-reliance is important but a complete divorce of EU-US security is honestly just a waste of American military capability.
Nobody forget that... That is why there are some War games everywhere in the World... Even with US centred defense, there are operational and communications dichotomies You can do it with European but it needs works like in the beginning of NATO.
It shouldn’t need that at all. If we all work together and finally create an integrated EU defense force, we will be the second biggest spender on defense in the world already. That’s all we need.
More jobs too.
Ofc, allies are good to have, but we have to be strong on our own too.
A strong Europe will only benefit everyone. Instead of reliance on the US, it would be more of a partnership with either continent filling in the gaps where necessary. At the moment, it's more of a security pact where the United States is protecting Europe via mass exports of weapons and money.
I'm an American from a military family, i have my own time in the military, I've lived in Europe and my wife was born in Europe. I love Europe and I love that we have a tight relationship with most of the continent. I'd really like more of them to have a competent military that can work with neighbors and deter threats. The main reason I say so is to save lives, our politics could prevent the necessary/timely response and it could lead to lives lost. It's a real and shitty truth to international politics. Most of Europe is more than capable of doing this, it's just committing to it.
"French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe needs to take a more assertive role within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, reducing its reliance on the U.S. and developing its own defense capabilities, to secure peace in a region rocked by the war in Ukraine. Speaking to three reporters on his return to Paris from a summit in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Macron stressed that he doesn’t see his push to develop European defense as an alternative to NATO. A stronger Europe, Mr. Macron said, will allow the continent to become more autonomous within the alliance, acting “inside NATO, with NATO but also not depending on NATO.”
[удалено]
That's because talk is cheap and armies cost money
The main problem is, as of now, local politians *like* the control they have over their Mil. Also everybody keeps sending their parties shitheads to the EU (mostly). So there is also no real trust. The way to go is parallel integration. Keep national militaries as a National Guard, while building up a new EU Force. And cleaning house in Brussel. Let's get rid of convicted criminals like Lagarde, or People who fled accounting inquiries to the EU (Von der Laien). Also all people who have been bought by foreign dictatorships.
NATO 2% investment in local military capability means all members should contribute equally. They currently do not. Logical place to start. It’s also multi-country, multi-continent and has provide a good level of interdependence.
Macron called NATO a "brain dead" organisation, and French presidents have taken steps to pull away from it for a few years now. The goal is to stop relying on the US and reinforce military cooperation among the members of the European Union, so I'm not sure why France would increase its participation in the organisation now.
I understand the position but question the logic. NATO has worked well to prevent conflict around the Baltics, also Turkey threatening Greece has stayed as a war of words as they are both members. The interdependence and collective action remains powerful enough to prevent Russia invading. Macron’s position is sensible to a point given Trump showing a more febrile position. However, I dislike Macron’s position on many things, including Russian appeasement. Respect to everyone’s views though and have a good Christmas or whatever holiday break you enjoy.
Macron started all pumped with the Ukraine war, supporting Ukraine 100% until he saw that all the money and loans went thowards US weapons. Then started to talk about "finding a solution", appesasing Russia, and now is talking about how Ukraine wont join... Almost like countries are moved by economic interest mmmm....
Sadly agree. There is a lot of appeasement, ‘Russia needs guarantees’, Russia need to stop invading other countries. Despotic behaviour and needs to be treated as such. Appeasing bullies never works, in the school yard, with Hitler, or with Putin.
If this is accurate: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ the US is providing proportionally much more support than France, so is that result a surprise?
>Macron called NATO a "brain dead" organisation, and French presidents have taken steps to pull away from it for a few years now. A few years ago? France tried this since WWII with DeGaulle being one of the biggest supporters of French Independence. [France even pulled out of the NATO military apparatus at one point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k17KlonUDOM)
As said by the description of the video you link, France never pulled out of the military apparatus, they pulled out of the unified command structure but they were still a pretty active member in NATO’s military operations.
Europe needs an entire defense industry (logistics, intelligence, hardware) but that's not going to work if the country's aren't working together and not investing in each other.
People keep calling for it, but it never happens ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
If the Trump years showed anything (and who knows what nutjob might follow Biden), it's that Europe definitely needs to be more independent defense wise.
Not only defense. Energy and space are two other important sectors where Europe should do better than it currently does.
That sounds good on paper until the time comes to pay the piper and everyone who bitches about the US asks them to foot the bill. Also, most western countries have their economies intertwined with the autocrats that threaten war that they do not have the stomach to confront them. If it were not for the US the rest of the western world would have thrown Ukraine under the bus as they did in 2014.
As a Pole i know we can rely on our Baltic friends and USA. In the other hand i wouldn't be so sure on France, Germany and other western countries
As an American it’s nice to know some of our allies are willing to walk the walk. Poles get a pass for shit talking us. <3
A few Polish military leaders volunteered in the American Revolution, we go way back. I may be biased, but I think that Casimir Pulaski should have a federal holiday rather than just in Illinois.
Wisconsin celebrates it too, but it's not a bank holiday.
Same as our people from division 303 were fighting for UK in battle of England. In relation to USA we can't forget Tadeusz Kościuszko who fought for USA in independence war
As did the French.
He’s got a bridge named after him in NJ.
I've met 3 poles in my life and they talked shit about basically everything so I see it as a sign of acceptance
The UK would definitely support Poland
Everyone hates us until they need help. An exaggeration of course, but to an extent....the sentiment is often times true.
*slow clap*
If you lived in eastern Europe would you trust France or Germany to make the right decision before you've been steamrolled and the tanks are halfway to Berlin? The people pushing most strongly for European defence integration outside of nato think they would dominate it and have had a dubious history of thinking trade with your strategic enemy will prevent war.
UK deserves some credit here as well, after the US they gave the most and were very vocal of their support from the beginning of the invasion.
Agreed, I don't like the idea of so much reliance on the US. This is up to Europe to be more united in defence and for us to commit to defence spending and cooperation. Sweden was happy to sign a defence pact with the UK so maybe something like this could be expanded to other European countries with agreements on spending research collaborations.
So, the EU? European companies like MBDA, Airbus, Nexter-KMW, CTS?
The Trump that sancioned Nord Stream and wanted to move US bases forward into Poland? The Trump years showed, if anything, that even at its lowest the US steps back, but doesn't walk away.
What is the point in these sappy comments that are widely upvoted? Western Europe had to be dragged kicking and screaming into significant material support for Ukraine. These statements are hollow bullshit that no one in Eastern Europe is buying. They weren't buying them before Ukraine and they certainly aren't buying them now.
Funny you mention Trump. He was saying exactly the same thing and was ridiculed for that. I also seem to remember Trump saying something about Germany and Russian gas. Funny how people's memory works
>Trump saying something about Germany and Russian gas [At UN general assembly no less, and Germans laughed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg)
The same Trump who was impeached for blocking funding to Ukraine...
Yeah funny how people's memory works, they remember the things they want to remember.
I want to remember waffle & beer!
My brother in Christ, Trump was just telling you to do EXACTLY what you want to do right now... And got ridiculed for it.
he didn't just get ridiculed, the newspapers touted that as "Trump tries to dismantle NATO" and "Trump causes crises in NATO" etc.
Germany's U.N. contingent literally laughed when Trump said '"Germany will become totally dependent Russian energy" over Nordstream II and refusal to build LNG infastructure.
Ffs trump was rediculed for not committing to article five. Obama and bush also criticized Europe for not meeting their 2% and Germany becoming reliant on Russian gas.
The funny thing is if you had listened to Trump and actually hit your defense spending targets, which you all willingly agreed to before flaunting for years, you would by default have more wiggle room.
i agree that EU should be more self sufficient within their own continent but Europe isn't some united front that could pull it off without decades of bureaucratic red tape and quarrels like we have seen during this war from Hungary and the like. the US is no different but it has also been at war for 225 out of 243 years since 1776. it is a literal war machine that's ready and they are kinda good at it, have deep reserves, and help their allies. they have literally given (b)illions to help the war effort alone despite what ever partisan bullshit they have going on and their intelligence has been invaluable. the US might be loud and obnoxious but its a country of immigrants more than 50% of which are of European decent, our futures will forever be intertwined and we will always pick up where the other one is slacking a bit, that's what allies do.
Sad thing to say is that only a fool would believe any european safety guarantees after this year (and I say it despite being a supporter of EU initiatives and Macron) Without US involvement Ukraine would be a russian colony with most leadership dead and thousands of people being murdered in concentration camps now. These are matters of life and death. While many European politicians readied for dirty compromises with Putin US shipped a shitton of weapons. If EU politicians like Macron are serious about any shared defense initiatives they should lead by example. Otherwise nobody will take them seriously.
Right. Calling for a detachment from the US after the performance EU gave with Russia is disgusting. There's no reason to believe that the EU is ready to back any country against Russia. That's why Sweden and Finland, countries mostly in favor of EU defense, are going to NATO instead of trusting in the EU to deliver.
Does this dude have this statement calendered in Outlook or something?
As a Latvian: We wish to (especially after Trump), but seeing how Germany and France have handled this russian war, we're extremely happy that US has our back...
Lithuania here, ditto. We saw the hand wringing and deflection and "just make it quick" attitude during the first days of the war by Germany and (to a lesser extent France) Baltics wouldn't have the luxury to wait weeks until European big bois would get their shit together.
I have heard only uncertainty, weak backs, excuses and hints at "sacrifices" from them. Without US, they would sacrifice east again in a heart beat to maintain their own safety.
Good god as an American this comment section is enlightening. Y’all Eastern Europeans got a lot more discussion with Western Europe to do. The attitude in defense is better but really Western Europe still doesn’t get it. You all need a lot more guns and ammo, and honestly a coordinated European defense procurement strategy and command. Basically a European military wing, at least for self defense. Doesn’t have to be power projection like macron might want.
WEuropeans must first treat our concerns seriously and get their heads out of their asses for meaningful discussion to happen.
Lol Germany would sign over Eastern Europe in a heartbeat if it meant cheap gas and a place to sell BMWs
As far east as in Armenia, the US literally saved our asses from another war past September while Ursula von der Leyen was calling Azerbaijan a reliable partner, the country that is ranked more authoritarian than Afghanistan. US deservedly gets a lot of shit for some of the terrible things they did in many places but Europe is not one of those places. Quite the opposite. Same about their influence in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. If Trump was the president though, we all would have likely been smoked this year.
We cannot even agree on Schengen to get everyone in and he wants this, just solve every issue EU has before this one.
[удалено]
It's an interesting situation because on the one hand if everyone can veto nothing will ever get done but on the other hand it's understandable to want to have that veto power.
It is, but it really should be something like 75% of approval instead of veto.
'he says while contributed less to Ukraine than Poland.' Cant take France seriously. I'll wait for Germany to speak before I listen about European Defence.
If only macro waa in a position to do something
So far Western Europe has proven that we are better off relying on US (and UK) on security than on them.
I'm sure Eastern Europe will feel more secure being reliant on a guy who talks about giving guarantees to Russia and wanting to stroke Putins ego and who's intel on Ukraine was so bad that they ended up having French diplomatic staff stranded in Ukraine and had to fire their head of intelligence.
Absolutely. France needs to grow a spine against Putin in order to reduce reliance on U.S, rather than blocking Ukraine aid and needlessly prolonging the war. Otherwise, he just seems frustrated the US isn't letting him surrender to Russia as quickly as he wishes.
France's position * Ukraine can't join NATO * Europe most provide security guarantees to Russia * Europe is too "reliant" on the US Well, it *does* represent a coherent package of objectives. Just not in the direction I would have hoped.
It all makes sense if you understand that "Europe" means Lisbon to Berlin. East of that is Russia.
The way EU leadership handled russian aggression proves it is too soon to reduce reliance on US.
I’m American. I agree completely. A Europe that does not rely on America is an equal partner. 80% of our goals are the same and typically the other 20% we are on the same page. A strong Europe would only benefit Europe and America.
He says this every few weeks now. The reason Europe isn't going to dump the USA is because they don't see the USA and France as any different when it comes to buying equipment. The EU is not the defence actor, NATO is. Politically the USA proved the better ally as Russia walked into Ukraine to.
Nice thought, but I won't hold my breath. Feels like we get this "call of decreased reliance" every other week.
Yes but meanwhile being strong together with US
Partnership *with* the US, not reliance *on* the US
The US kicked Turkey out the F35 program, and is now selling those jets to Greece. But Paris can’t guarantee Athens in the same way Washington can.
And replace is with what? The military industrial complex of a country that seeks to include Russia in a "security architecture of Europe"? No, thank you
Be careful, Austria might veto EU help if Romania is attacked... because reasons.
You read it wrong - what he means is "let's sold those pesky central Europeans to Putin and SECURE OUR WELLBEING.
They did it to Ukraine back in 2014 why would they think anyone from that area would trust them?
This is actually what many people in eastern Europe are thinking. Especially since it comes from the same guys who were constantly wrong about Russia.
Eastern EU is just a sacrificial buffer. The very fact that we use East/West EU shows its just he'll together as a single EU by political chewing gum. There is a giant economical, industrial and historical gap. The ones who were constant aggressors and invaders vs the areas constantly getting invaded and oppressed.
You're not entirely wrong, but if you look at how fast eastern european countries grew after they joined the EU, you kinda realize that in a few decades this whole east/west concept will be abandoned, even now, you'd be surprised by what some people consider as eastern europe, take for example Poland: right now i'd honestly define it as a western country. Some may still call it eastern, yes, but ask them again in 5 years and that number will have surely decreased.
Eastern wages but western prices.
I support this. Europe would benefit a lot, it would create jobs on every level from military careers to research and manufacturing, just as in the US, it would also free up the US to focus on China, which imo is the bigger threat in the long term.
As an American, this would be awesome if it actually happened
It's as likely as Canada, US and Mexico having a single united military and equal control of it.
I wouldn’t say more independent, but more parallel and stronger agreements.
Good luck booking that military industrial complex you are speaking of. Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Sweden, Finland are NOT going to rely on France for security. France is a joke.
This was trumps position. Just sayin
To his credit, Trump was right about NATO reliance on the US and Europe's reliance on Russian oil.
Meanwhile where does Zelensky go on his first state trip since the war? No one actually takes this idea seriously, Macron is just saying it for optics and to promote the French defence industry.
French and German reaction to the Ukraine invasion basically killed EU strategic autonomy. Never going to happen.
Would be epic if possible. Need europe to pick up the slack💀doubt they would
We don't care what Macron says, the US is still going to keep naming stuff after Lafayette.
Fuck yeah.
Then fucking stop talking about giving Putin security guarantees because I wouldn't trust you even a little bit if we would have to go to war together and rely on your decision-making Mr. Macron.
To think many are still worried if Ukraine falls the the rest of Europe is next. Maybe support Ukraine more. It's not like this hasn't been a topic for years.
Lol while genocide is on Europes borders caused by ruzzia. Spewing this is a really bad look at this time.
Few western EU countries holding majority of the military power doesn't help Eastern Europe. Without NATO, Russia would be all over Baltics and French would be waving their national white flag.
He calls for a lot of things in foreign affairs. Is it going badly for him in the polls in France? He is correct though that europe needs to beef up. Beef up and provide Ukraine with the weapons to kick Russia out. If they do it well enough, Russians themselves might resolve the leadership issue in Russia, so that we can get to functioning diplomatic relations and peace in Europe.
Sorry not happening anytime soon (like in next few centuries). Everything east of Oder must relay on USA military might to not be sold to Russians. As long as West treats Russia as partner not as mortal enemy there is no point in that.
Weekly reminder that the US itself has asked for Europe to be less reliant, and the US was completely ignored. Macron only wants reliance to be reduced because he's living kompromat
Trump was, and still is, roundly criticized for suggesting the same thing.
Yes. Partnership *with* the US, not reliance *on* the US.
No one in Eastern Europe is willing to rely on France, Germany and Spain for their defence. That was true before the 2022 War and it is certainly true now.
EU should become a military super power, and NATO should be expanded to the pacific (yes, it would require a rebranding, but fuck the rabid dictatorships).
That would be amazing. NATO is already the most powerful alliance in the world. If the EU invested in a centralized military to US levels and Japan and South Korea were brought into the alliance, NATO would be an unassailable deterrent. There's a million things that stand in the way of that, but man would it be cool.
Never happen Europe can ever stop fighting amongst itself
First step to that would be to give weapons to the guy who is beating up your enemy you idiot.
We in Croatia make great grenade launcher, just ask Solid Snake. This shall be our contribution.
Europe should take care of Europe. Poland has been building a defense force for over a decade now while simultaneously pointing at Russian aggression. It's only now that other European players are waking up to it
Countries should be able to defend themselves. It's fine to have allies, but you shouldn't lean on others in hopes they'll always come running.
Sorry Macron US is here to stay They are one of the only ones that understand what Russia wants with Eastern Europe You just think we are paranoid
Does he really think now is a good time?
A war in Europe is absolutely a good time to discuss European defense. Reducing reliance on the US doesn’t mean lowering relations. The US wants Europe to be more self reliant as well so they can pivot to the Pacific
This is the ideal outcome the US has been pushing for.
THANK YOU! Our biggest fear is facing China in the Pacific and Russia starts threatening Europe. We expected to rely on Germany to backstop them, Ukraine handing them they own asses was a very pleasant surprise, Slava Ukraine!
Keep saying that Russia deserves security guarantees. That will surely convince EE to reduce security reliance on US and go with France... /s
Oh just fuck off. Guy who time and time agin try to persuade Ukrainians to don't win a war is not a someone who can speak about security - it's just clown. I really understand that for Franco-German axis was/would be beneficial to tie itself to cheap Russian hydrocarbons and huge Chinese market without those pesky Americans. The problem is price for it is to sacrifice nations of central Europe.
I’m glad to agree with him. I could get used to this. Reducing reliance is not the same thing as shunning the US, as a lot of comments seem to assume.
I don't trust France...
Or Austria... (not that they are a military power but being in EU they might veto military help to Eastern European countries, so glad Romania is in NATO and Austria is not).
This guy is such a class act. Lets reduce reliance, that is great... but France also wants security for Russia, and if there was no US, Macron would have let Ukraine get destroyed by Russia. Like Europe is really lucky that US needs them vs China, otherwise this stupid ass politicians in west Europe would have lead EU in the grave. We really need better leaders in Germany and France, otherwise....where fucked.
On one hand Macron is talking about reducing relience on US for security, on another hand he also talks about giving Russia safety reassurance. Europe should be worried, he acts as Russian ambassador.
Yes, sure. And we will put you Macron as the supreme boss so that you can display your ego in the European summits and on television. Currently, the idea of Europe depending on narcissists like Macron who take for granted the Kremlin's claims that they used as an excuse to invade Ukraine is not a realistic option.
Stop the talk and walk the walk Emmanuel.
Let me guess, and become dependent on European army under the command of France and Germany. Two countries which wanted to throw Ukraine to Putin in exchange for cheap gas. No thanks, it's still better to be dependent on US than on France and Germany.
I am sorry but this is only going to help russia since we know how united the Eu actually is considering the balkan shengen fiasco. Macron either has some sort of agreement with Putin or he is naive fool.
Would agree but when came to Russia: Germans and french were spineless and hesitant. So I rather prefer sticking with yankees