5 ms·
Europe cannot rely on US protection, Pentagon chief tells NATO allies
- wdb 2y agoProbably better to stop buying US weaponry then
- coldtea 2y agoIt's not up to Europe, it's just a bunch of client states with dellusions of independence...
- zshrdlu 2y agoalso known as colonies
- orf 2y ago*delusions (Of an education system, maybe)
- coldtea 2y agoeducational system (also not my primary language, but sure...)
- orf 2y ago> educational system Wow. Why make my case for me?
- tacomagick 2y agoCome on people, this is no platform for flame wars.
- profsummergig 2y agoThey're not "making your case for you", they're pointing out a grammatical error in your post, just like you pointed out one in their post. Touché, I think. But you already knew that.
- orf 2y agoIt’s not a grammatical error though, hence making my case? And his was a spelling mistake.
- linotype 2y agoFeel free to buy it from Russia or the Chinese I guess.
- ojl 2y agoWe do have defence industry in Europe as well.
- ahartmetz 2y agoWe have in fact nearly every major technology except 5th generation jets (less observable, SOTA radar and communication technology) and the most advanced microelectronics.
- verzali 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Air_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Air_System
- fofoz 2y agoIt is clear that in Europe we need to increase the military budget and establish a common army. After that, it would also be fair to free ourselves from American bases on European soil.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thesaintlives 2y agoExactly. Also stop being a US patsy and cats paw. Maybe even develop friendly relations with our neighbour Russia and buy energy from them etc. How about that for a crazy idea?
- linotype 2y agoDidn’t Germany try that already?
- fofoz 2y agoThe coming years will be a long war for global dominance between you and China. Since you are letting us go, we have no choice but to find our own position of balance among the remaining power blocs. It seems to me that you are making a clear long-term choice with Trump. Am I wrong?
- raverbashing 2y agoCool you go there then Just don't come crying back when you're taken as prisoner
- mytailorisrich 2y agoThat would be the advent of the EU a actual state and the death of member countries as sovereign states. A country like France has its own nukes for a reason and that is to be sovereign and independent.
- casenmgreen 2y agoI may be wrong, but I think a cross-EU military alliance is a good, and an EU army at the current time is a bad idea, and the reason I think it is a bad idea is because the EU is an economic union, not yet a political union, and so it way well yet fail, and if it fails, an army based on the EU will necessarily renationalize (as happened in the Soviet Union - soldiers go back to the country they have a passport for). The other problem with an EU military is the ongoing and I think enormous Russian funding of political instability.
- aurareturn 2y agoThe US president has also tabled demands that would see Nato military spending targets more than doubled to 5 per cent of GDP in a bid to end Europe’s reliance on Washington. Isn't the whole goal of Trump's 2% demand to buy more American-made weapons? If the US does not back NATO countries, and demand 2-5% spending, what's the point of NATO countries even buying American weapons? Lastly, is it really fair for NATO countries to spend at least 2% on their military if much of that budget goes to American companies?
- linotype 2y agoIs it fair that the US has to keep subsidizing Europe, a collection of countries that constantly complain about the US? That tax and fine our companies while criticizing the US for its lack of a welfare state?
- mytailorisrich 2y agoThey don't subsidise Europe. They keep Europe on a leash. That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.
- ahartmetz 2y agoThe leash has been pretty long and the dog food was good (free defense through NATO!)... If any of that changes, the relationship will change.
- mytailorisrich 2y agoNothing is ever free...
- ahartmetz 2y agoOf course not, but the deal seemed pretty OK so far...
- reacharavindh 2y agoMay be it unifies Europe a little more.. European Defense org that has a mandate to build out capacity for defense equipment production in the EU member countries.. spend 5% GDP that employs EU citizens in turn. Just like the US does.. May be it grants the wish of the Americans to stop relaying on them(also stop/reduce buying American defense systems).
- jltsiren 2y agoNobody is expected to take the 5% goal seriously. Even the US has not reached that level since 1992, with the current defense spending at 3.4%. If the US decided to leave NATO completely, European military spending might stabilize somewhere around 3%, with lower spending in the west and higher in the east. At that level, the overall spending would be a bit below US figures in absolute terms and higher than the US in PPP terms.
- verzali 2y agoHow can you say that? People have consistently said not to take Trump seriously. But he does seem serious about imposing tariffs, abandoning allies, annexing random parts of the world, and about drastically cutting the government. Why shouldn't we take the 5% thing seriously? What can be more serious than this anyway?
- jltsiren 2y agoBecause 3% would already be enough to make the US irrelevant for European security. At that level of spending, the combined military power of European NATO member states would eventually be comparable to the US. If Trump kept insisting for more, European leaders would just call his bluff. And maybe even secretly hope that the unreliable partner would leave NATO.
- rnd0 2y agoTrump is a puppet. The people pulling his strings, however, should be taken very seriously. This video breaks down who those people are as well as what their motivations are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
- maxglute 2y agoNo US "peacekeeping" troops in UKR, sure. No US being primary security guarantor, sure. But what does actually mean. If Europe continues to coast and NATO country is attacked and triggers art5, US would stand back and do nothing?
- immibis 2y agoYes. See how the new regime is ignoring treaties left, right and center.
- funnybeam 2y agoNot just the ’new regime’ Check out the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Russia, USA and UK all agreed to preserve Ukraine’s borders in return for them giving their nukes to Russia. All parties seen to have forgotten about that one
- giacomoforte 2y agoWhat puzzles me the most about the current administration, is why are they dismantling US influence abroad? How do they profit from it?
- immibis 2y agoThey're going on vibes - a general feeling of "I'm not paying for that!" International aid is in the expenses category, and it's not a payment to me, so it must be cancelled! It helps that Putin makes big "donations". Never mind that just a few years ago we were talking about how China's belt and road initiative would help it take over the road and now we are cancelling the American belt and road initiative. Never mind that America is only rich because of its worldwide influence.
- meheleventyone 2y agoTo steelman it a bit they want two things: * Remove support they are ideologically opposed to irregardless of merit. USAID is the most obvious example where many of the things it does/did are opposed to the political and religious beliefs of those involved in scrapping it. * With the 'America First' agenda it reduces the scope of what 'national interest' is in terms of foreign policy so they want to force regional partners to take more of role. This is clearest at the moment in Europe but they'll be doing the same to everyone else (e.g. Korea with China/North Korea). Broadly the administration is continuing along the Project 2025 path. So the end goal is a more distant America waiving nukes at China.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoa handful of oligarchs get unfettered control to the US in exchange for a withdrawal from international agreements. simple overlap with some libertarian ideology. heavily funded by Russia, and to a lesser extent China. same playbook that pushed Brexit.
- zfg 2y ago> European leaders were already uncertain whether Mr Trump would honour the alliance’s Article 5 clause – which states that a military attack on one ally is considered an attack on all – and come to their aid. Article 5 has only ever been invoked once in NATO history. It was invoked by America. NATO allies came to America's aid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_...
- red-iron-pine 2y agointeresting that this isn't flagged. it's politics, but it's not criticizing tech bro oligarchs
- DrNosferatu 2y agoEuropean Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches) And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective Liberal Democracy. So, to be part, 1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel. 2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in. 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion. Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel. Hey, it would be actually great for their economy! Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan. US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member. Same applies for prospective new members. Not interested? Bye, your problem.