3 ms·

European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and without the notorious US-made military eq

European 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 and Freedom from Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International Rule of Law. 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, (and dispreference for other non-qualifying nations procurement). 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.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
Curious for any specific feedback!
- albroland 2y ago
  1. How do you intend to pay for it? 2. How do you intend to enforce it? 3. How do you intend to defend it? How many tanks can you deploy? IFVs? Artillery? How much ammunition can you supply? How many fighters are in service and mission ready? Bombers? Tanker aircraft? Transport? Helicopters? How many battalions (of any type) can be formed/deployed? Repeat the same exercise in the context of a navy. https://www.statista.com/statistics/584035/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/584035/defense-expenditu... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-strength-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-streng... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293688/nato-aircraft-strength-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293688/nato-aircraft-st...
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    1. Funding and Industrial Coordination: We would use something similar to the EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) to fund this initiative - like a EU Marshall Plan, and, cooperate across partners’ ample industrial capacity: If we can make cars, airliners and cruise ships, we can make military equipment. Swedish gear is actually a good template: license manufacturing of what’s needed criss-crossing the Alliance, and joint develop new generation equipment and technologies as necessary. After all, it’s being done since Concorde and goes on today - we just need to increase the scale.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    2. Enforcement follows naturally from the funding mechanism: Access to joint funding, industrial cooperation, and defense capabilities is tied directly to maintaining democratic standards. Very simple - fail the democratic checks (Rule of Law index, ICC membership, etc.), and your access to the system's resources and voting rights gets restricted - like originally mentioned. Continue backsliding on democracy? The restrictions escalate proportionally. This creates both carrots (access to shared capabilities) and sticks (potential exclusion) that make democratic standards self-enforcing through practical incentives rather than just moral arguments. The Orbán playbook stops working when undermining democratic institutions has immediate defense and industrial consequences. It's a more robust enforcement mechanism than the EU's current Article 7 process.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    3. Defense strategy shifts from NATO's "US-centric" model to a distributed European capability matrix: Start with French and U.K. nuclear deterrence as foundation. Layer in proven European systems (Rafale, Gripen, Leopard) while rapidly developing next-gen capabilities through joint programs. Think European DARPA meets industrial policy. Key force multipliers: integrated air defense spanning the continent, standardized logistics, shared intelligence platforms, and fully interoperable command systems. Defense partnerships with Canada/Australia/New Zeland/Japan/South Korea/Taiwan provide complementary capabilities and strategic depth. No US kill-switches means full sovereign control of systems. Distributed manufacturing ensures supply resilience. Distributed architecture rather than centralized hub-and-spoke. This model isn't about matching US or legacy NATO capabilities 1:1, but creating a robust, autonomous system that potential adversaries can't easily disrupt or defeat. European industrial and technological capacity makes this feasible - we just need the political will to execute.
- chasd00 2y ago
  Will the members truly be willing to goto war (even nuclear war) to enforce the agreement? Unless the entire planet believes that whole heartedly the pact is meaningless. I have my doubts, without the US NATO is largely toothless IMO.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    The credibility question cuts both ways - a Trump-compromised NATO isn't more reliable than a European alliance with clear democratic commitments and mutual interests. France and the UK already maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. European industrial capacity dwarfs Russia's. The EU's combined GDP exceeds China's. Scale isn't our problem - political will is. Sweden indeed shows how principled positions can be maintained while building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by Europe's combined industrial and technological base. The ICC point is crucial - when most nations accept international law, continuing to accommodate "exceptionalism" becomes a weakness, not a strength. An alliance of genuine democracies, bound by shared values and mutual accountability, may prove more reliable than one held together by mere convenience. Rather than asking if Europe can afford to build this capability, perhaps we should ask if we can afford not to.
DrNosferatu 2y ago
Genuinely confused: Why the downvotes? In 2025, Trump dumped Ukraine, sided with Putin and made a number of bully threats (including invasion) to its formal National Security partners. Security which - at least still today - is bound by literal treaty. Should Europe just roll over and wag its tail?
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  What kind of partnership is this that one side wants to boss around its only-good-if-wimp partner?
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Illiberal democracies start with suppression and control of speech. Which is core to the EU regime currently. > without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches Evidence?
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  It’s a secondary point, but sure, It’s a widely common practice: France had kill switches in its export Exocet missiles - why wouldn’t the US have also kill switches in its export equipment? It would actually be strange if they were absent. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/ui54r7/france_urged_to_come_clean_on_exocet_kill/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/ui54r7/france_urged...
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  > Illiberal democracies start with suppression and control of speech. Which is core to the EU regime currently. Really? The EU limits explicit calls to violence, genocide denial, and coordinated disinformation campaigns. Meanwhile, Russia imprisons people for holding blank signs, China censors Winnie the Pooh, and Hungary closed its last independent radio station. Don’t you think your standards for what free speech is could be slightly different, depending to whom they apply?
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Interesting how you demand evidence for technical claims while making sweeping political statements without any. Speaking of speech control - how many Russian journalists have mysteriously fallen out of windows recently? …or is evidence only required for Western claims?
rdm_blackhole 2y ago
> 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion. Ok, so the alliance is a non starter then. The invalidation of the result of the referendum in France related to the EU constitution in 2005 by the signing of the Lisbon treaty a year or so later was a clear demonstration that the will of the people was not respected. The fact that the EU is pushing for the Chat Control law in order to access all your data on your phone, emails, pictures of your loved ones at all times without any reasonable causes/warrants is clearly an attempt to muzzle the population. Then there is the invalidation of the Romanian election not long ago which was done under the guise of protecting democracy. Then we can talk about the different parties in power in France /Germany and elsewhere who refuse to work with right wing parties that have been elected fair and square in parliament once again under the guise of protecting democracy and therefore are sending a clear signal that no matter who you vote for, the mainstream parties will refuse to listen/compromise and prefer to brand everyone who do not agree with them as Nazi extremists. I thought that democracy was that the will of the people was to be respected but it turns out that ignoring 20 to 30% of your population because you don't agree with them is just easier. To think that the EU has the gall to give lessons of democracy to authoritarian regimes....
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Your examples actually demonstrate democracy working, not failing: 1. France used constitutional processes for the Lisbon Treaty - or should we never adapt treaties as circumstances change? 2. Chat Control (wich I don’t personally agree) is being debated, modified, opposed - that's democracy in action. Try publicly opposing surveillance laws in China. 3. Refusing to coalition with anti-democratic parties IS protecting democracy. Just like we don't let parties run on platforms of abolishing elections. Democracy isn't just counting votes - it's sustaining a system where we can keep voting freely. That's why we have guardrails. Or would you prefer we just have one final vote to end all voting?
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    > France used constitutional processes for the Lisbon Treaty - or should we never adapt treaties as circumstances change? The answer was no, and then it was overridden without consultation. The people had spoken and were ignored. > Chat Control is being debated, modified, opposed - that's democracy in action. Try publicly opposing surveillance laws in China. The fact that Chat Control is on the table at all is the problem. You can't claim you want to protect privacy and democracy and demand access without cause to all your citizens data. The fact that "liberal" countries are willing to debate if we should end all privacy for every citizen is not the greatest definition of democracy. Should we also have a debate about bringing back slavery as well or maybe talk about installing cameras in every home in the EU? Where does this stop? > Refusing to coalition with anti-democratic parties IS protecting democracy. Just like we don't let parties run on platforms of abolishing elections. The fact that you refer to right wing parties as anti-democratic parties when people have voted for them fair and square is very telling in terms of your biases. Anything we do not agree with is anti-democratic , anything we support is pro democracy. How convenient! > Democracy isn't just counting votes - it's sustaining a system where we can keep voting freely. That's why we have guardrails. Exactly and ignoring the votes of your constituents because you don't like how people vote is exactly what's killing democracy and why a lot of people are turning away from the mainstream parties. Instead of listening and trying to find solutions which means finding compromises, it's much simpler to label everyone you disagree with as anti democratic and label the voters as extremists. > Or would you prefer we just have one final vote to end all voting? I am not sure where this suggestion comes from.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

Curious for any specific feedback!

albroland 2y ago
1. How do you intend to pay for it? 2. How do you intend to enforce it? 3. How do you intend to defend it? How many tanks can you deploy? IFVs? Artillery? How much ammunition can you supply? How many fighters are in service and mission ready? Bombers? Tanker aircraft? Transport? Helicopters? How many battalions (of any type) can be formed/deployed? Repeat the same exercise in the context of a navy. https://www.statista.com/statistics/584035/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/584035/defense-expenditu... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-strength-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-streng... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293688/nato-aircraft-strength-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293688/nato-aircraft-st...
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  1. Funding and Industrial Coordination: We would use something similar to the EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) to fund this initiative - like a EU Marshall Plan, and, cooperate across partners’ ample industrial capacity: If we can make cars, airliners and cruise ships, we can make military equipment. Swedish gear is actually a good template: license manufacturing of what’s needed criss-crossing the Alliance, and joint develop new generation equipment and technologies as necessary. After all, it’s being done since Concorde and goes on today - we just need to increase the scale.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  2. Enforcement follows naturally from the funding mechanism: Access to joint funding, industrial cooperation, and defense capabilities is tied directly to maintaining democratic standards. Very simple - fail the democratic checks (Rule of Law index, ICC membership, etc.), and your access to the system's resources and voting rights gets restricted - like originally mentioned. Continue backsliding on democracy? The restrictions escalate proportionally. This creates both carrots (access to shared capabilities) and sticks (potential exclusion) that make democratic standards self-enforcing through practical incentives rather than just moral arguments. The Orbán playbook stops working when undermining democratic institutions has immediate defense and industrial consequences. It's a more robust enforcement mechanism than the EU's current Article 7 process.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  3. Defense strategy shifts from NATO's "US-centric" model to a distributed European capability matrix: Start with French and U.K. nuclear deterrence as foundation. Layer in proven European systems (Rafale, Gripen, Leopard) while rapidly developing next-gen capabilities through joint programs. Think European DARPA meets industrial policy. Key force multipliers: integrated air defense spanning the continent, standardized logistics, shared intelligence platforms, and fully interoperable command systems. Defense partnerships with Canada/Australia/New Zeland/Japan/South Korea/Taiwan provide complementary capabilities and strategic depth. No US kill-switches means full sovereign control of systems. Distributed manufacturing ensures supply resilience. Distributed architecture rather than centralized hub-and-spoke. This model isn't about matching US or legacy NATO capabilities 1:1, but creating a robust, autonomous system that potential adversaries can't easily disrupt or defeat. European industrial and technological capacity makes this feasible - we just need the political will to execute.
chasd00 2y ago
Will the members truly be willing to goto war (even nuclear war) to enforce the agreement? Unless the entire planet believes that whole heartedly the pact is meaningless. I have my doubts, without the US NATO is largely toothless IMO.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  The credibility question cuts both ways - a Trump-compromised NATO isn't more reliable than a European alliance with clear democratic commitments and mutual interests. France and the UK already maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. European industrial capacity dwarfs Russia's. The EU's combined GDP exceeds China's. Scale isn't our problem - political will is. Sweden indeed shows how principled positions can be maintained while building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by Europe's combined industrial and technological base. The ICC point is crucial - when most nations accept international law, continuing to accommodate "exceptionalism" becomes a weakness, not a strength. An alliance of genuine democracies, bound by shared values and mutual accountability, may prove more reliable than one held together by mere convenience. Rather than asking if Europe can afford to build this capability, perhaps we should ask if we can afford not to.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

Genuinely confused: Why the downvotes? In 2025, Trump dumped Ukraine, sided with Putin and made a number of bully threats (including invasion) to its formal National Security partners. Security which - at least still today - is bound by literal treaty. Should Europe just roll over and wag its tail?

DrNosferatu 2y ago
What kind of partnership is this that one side wants to boss around its only-good-if-wimp partner?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Illiberal democracies start with suppression and control of speech. Which is core to the EU regime currently. > without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches Evidence?

DrNosferatu 2y ago
It’s a secondary point, but sure, It’s a widely common practice: France had kill switches in its export Exocet missiles - why wouldn’t the US have also kill switches in its export equipment? It would actually be strange if they were absent. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/ui54r7/france_urged_to_come_clean_on_exocet_kill/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/ui54r7/france_urged...
DrNosferatu 2y ago
> Illiberal democracies start with suppression and control of speech. Which is core to the EU regime currently. Really? The EU limits explicit calls to violence, genocide denial, and coordinated disinformation campaigns. Meanwhile, Russia imprisons people for holding blank signs, China censors Winnie the Pooh, and Hungary closed its last independent radio station. Don’t you think your standards for what free speech is could be slightly different, depending to whom they apply?
DrNosferatu 2y ago
Interesting how you demand evidence for technical claims while making sweeping political statements without any. Speaking of speech control - how many Russian journalists have mysteriously fallen out of windows recently? …or is evidence only required for Western claims?

rdm_blackhole 2y ago

> 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion. Ok, so the alliance is a non starter then. The invalidation of the result of the referendum in France related to the EU constitution in 2005 by the signing of the Lisbon treaty a year or so later was a clear demonstration that the will of the people was not respected. The fact that the EU is pushing for the Chat Control law in order to access all your data on your phone, emails, pictures of your loved ones at all times without any reasonable causes/warrants is clearly an attempt to muzzle the population. Then there is the invalidation of the Romanian election not long ago which was done under the guise of protecting democracy. Then we can talk about the different parties in power in France /Germany and elsewhere who refuse to work with right wing parties that have been elected fair and square in parliament once again under the guise of protecting democracy and therefore are sending a clear signal that no matter who you vote for, the mainstream parties will refuse to listen/compromise and prefer to brand everyone who do not agree with them as Nazi extremists. I thought that democracy was that the will of the people was to be respected but it turns out that ignoring 20 to 30% of your population because you don't agree with them is just easier. To think that the EU has the gall to give lessons of democracy to authoritarian regimes....

DrNosferatu 2y ago
Your examples actually demonstrate democracy working, not failing: 1. France used constitutional processes for the Lisbon Treaty - or should we never adapt treaties as circumstances change? 2. Chat Control (wich I don’t personally agree) is being debated, modified, opposed - that's democracy in action. Try publicly opposing surveillance laws in China. 3. Refusing to coalition with anti-democratic parties IS protecting democracy. Just like we don't let parties run on platforms of abolishing elections. Democracy isn't just counting votes - it's sustaining a system where we can keep voting freely. That's why we have guardrails. Or would you prefer we just have one final vote to end all voting?
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  > France used constitutional processes for the Lisbon Treaty - or should we never adapt treaties as circumstances change? The answer was no, and then it was overridden without consultation. The people had spoken and were ignored. > Chat Control is being debated, modified, opposed - that's democracy in action. Try publicly opposing surveillance laws in China. The fact that Chat Control is on the table at all is the problem. You can't claim you want to protect privacy and democracy and demand access without cause to all your citizens data. The fact that "liberal" countries are willing to debate if we should end all privacy for every citizen is not the greatest definition of democracy. Should we also have a debate about bringing back slavery as well or maybe talk about installing cameras in every home in the EU? Where does this stop? > Refusing to coalition with anti-democratic parties IS protecting democracy. Just like we don't let parties run on platforms of abolishing elections. The fact that you refer to right wing parties as anti-democratic parties when people have voted for them fair and square is very telling in terms of your biases. Anything we do not agree with is anti-democratic , anything we support is pro democracy. How convenient! > Democracy isn't just counting votes - it's sustaining a system where we can keep voting freely. That's why we have guardrails. Exactly and ignoring the votes of your constituents because you don't like how people vote is exactly what's killing democracy and why a lot of people are turning away from the mainstream parties. Instead of listening and trying to find solutions which means finding compromises, it's much simpler to label everyone you disagree with as anti democratic and label the voters as extremists. > Or would you prefer we just have one final vote to end all voting? I am not sure where this suggestion comes from.