3 ms·
I don't disagree, I don't know what a sensible contribution system for NATO should be. Only how it's structure right now isn't working for US, and it's probably
by dirtyid 6y ago
I don't disagree, I don't know what a sensible contribution system for NATO should be. Only how it's structure right now isn't working for US, and it's probably not going achieve Macron's desire for an European Army fit for EU foreign policy... which remains a meme on the level of India Superpower 2020. EU has all individual components and industrial capability to forge something formidable. But the nature of the Union is an unending coordination problem.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoNATO is an instrument of US power. When Trump says European countries should pay in more he is wanting his cake and eating it, too. Yes, Europeans should invest more in Defence, but not in NATO, which should be let to fade into history.
- dirtyid 6y agoSure, hence jab about European Army. A coalition of countries that can make Airbus should be able to cobble together functional defense. Or semiconductors, or indigenous tech platforms to rival silicon valley. They just haven't. I personally think EU just hasn't been pressured hard enough to try sincerely, but I wouldn't rule out that maybe EU is just systematically incapable.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoA common defense is a big integration step. The military is the strong arm of the political power. Giving a military branch to the EU would seal the deal in terms of creating a federal state. This is why such initiatives are very limited and often more symbolic than anything else (e.g. Franco-German units) because sovereignty and control are very tricky matters to handle. Then some countries, notably Germany, have issues with military power for historical reasons.