6 ms·
Angela Merkel: Europe must take ‘our fate’ into own hands
- hammock 9y agoSelf-reliance? Fight for our own future and destiny? Europe First? Sounds vaguely familiar.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ragix 9y agoI feel for Germany. If they say they don't want immigrants they're nazi's. If they let them in they're push overs.
- ruleabidinguser 9y agoYou shouldn't. If people are being frivilous, let them know, and if they continue, leave them. If Germany can't do this, not only should you not feel sorry for them, you should not afford them any respect.
- majewsky 9y agoThat's missing the point. Grandparent referred to how German policy was criticized no matter which policy they chose.
- mnl 9y agoIs this kind of stuff really necessary here? The angry patronising and overbearingness coming from emerging ideologies ruling the Anglosphere is the reason why the EU is having to rethink its future. It's you guys the ones that have changed.
- cromwellian 9y agoSounds to me like she's just saying Europe can no longer rely on the US (e.g. NATO), and because of the unpredictable nature of US domestic politics at this point, they need to plan as if Europe may not have reliable US backing. Trump may very well get his wish to see some of the less rich NATO members spend more money on defense, but it may come at the cost of US leadership.
- dogma1138 9y agoWell if Europe have been keeping at least the minimum required commitments it agreed to as far as NATO goes this wouldn't be an issue. Trump's remarks are not new these are the same remarks that have been thrown around since Busb senior was in office. Heck Under Obama Sec Def Gates used much harsher words than Trump.
- cromwellian 9y agoI don't think that's what is bothering NATO, it's Trump's failure to verbally affirm Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. On the issue of defense spending, different members of NATO have different economic hardships. Do we really expect Greece to crank up defense spending while in a debt crisis and under heavy austerity already? These NATO guidelines have to be somewhat contextual based on reality of economics.
- dogma1138 9y agoGates said the same thing, in fact he said that the US basically cannot not afford another war unless it's attacked on its own soil and if NATO will not pick up the slack the US will be forced to reconsider its part in the partnership. This was said in Brussels in front of all of NATO. The EU have been skimping on its NATO commmitments since the end of the Cold War this isn't a recent development. Greece is actually meeting it's goals (likely because of its sick waving contest with Turkey) while Germany, France, Italy and even the U.K. do not. As for Article 5 there has been already blood in the water since Iraq. France basically said that if the US uses Article 5 for Iraq it will ignore it, Germany and Italy were also signaling the same sentiments.
- alacombe 9y agoThe real question is: why should it be otherwise, and why is this newsworthy at all ? European countries all claim to be sovereign countries, but surprisingly, not when it's time to pull the credit card out.
- y_u_no_rust 9y agoI take it to mean Article 5 is no longer a guarantee in the near future / possible reduction of us bases in Germany and Europe while a eu army builds up TBH it should have happened after the bush/iraq situation the united states is nuts no one wants to be in their sphere of influence anymore It's clear the age war is coming
- pikzen 9y agoBecause for years, the US enjoyed having NATO as a power projection tool, made mostly for them, is now complaining that the countries willingly letting them set up military bases inside their borders are not paying enough? (Even though it is a target for the future and not right now.) Because the US just decided that the most important environmental agreement of our generation isn't worth sacrificing _coal_ jobs? Indeed, it's not surprising. We could have collaboration. Turns out, as usual, the US is fucking up. It's okay, we'll live.
- alacombe 9y agoMentioning the Paris "agreement" in a thread about NATO is a red herring. Moreover, the "collaboration" you mention implies that everybody is contributing fairly, which is not what is happening with NATO (or even the UN) right now.
- jpfr 9y agoAssume European countries were all spending 2% of GDP for military capabilities within NATO. What exactly would that buy them? More military interventions with more refugees arriving at European borders? There is basically no real threat to European countries atm. Russia is heckling a bit in Ukraine. Supplying Kalashnikovs to separatists and such. But in general, Russia is retreating. With Montenegro joining NATO and things going bad in Syria, Russia is losing access to the Mediterranean sea. And they run out of money quickly! If things go wrong, special forces (a few hundred men) and French atomic missiles pose enough of a threat for rogue dictators. The large countries can't afford a war, because economic ties are too strong. Military spending in Europe is exactly where it needs to be. Low. Humanitarian help throughout the world and keeping the inner stability of society (social security, health-care, retirement, ...) gives a lot more bang for the buck. (pun intended)
- wuschel 9y agoFor context: Please take note that general elections (for the "Bundestag") will be held in the end of September 2017. Everything that will be published now and in the next months by the German media may very well be part of a campaign scheme.
- justusw 9y agoWhy is this article flagged?
- majewsky 9y agoI'm under the impression that people are that fed up with politics these days that every politics article gets flagged.