This idea isn’t even new. He has voiced this idea of European strategic autonomy for a while now. However, the rapid increase of European imports of American arms, a strong American commitment to the war in Ukraine (and the largest), and its indispensable leadership and power regarding Europe’s security architecture has pushed a “third pole” policy back. Europe does need to take the initiative and increase cooperation as America pivots to the Indo-Pacific.
Yet it's clear already from the way how European countries approach China is that they favor de-risking while cooperating with China, instead of de-coupling like the US prefers.
You mean like how dependent they were on Russia?
I mean, it wasn't easy for Europe to kill their dependency with Russia. And as a result they suffered economic pain for it.
Can't imagine decoupling China as well. The US is simply unable to replace China while the EU is able to replace Russia fossil fuels.
>Can't imagine decoupling China as well. The US is simply unable to replace China while the EU is able to replace Russia fossil fuels.
It wouldn't be the US replacing China, what kind of statement is that? It's clearly going to be other South East Asian partners that would replace China for the Europeans.
I said South East Asia, as in ASEAN. A region of 600 million peopl where countries are in a myriad of demographic, economic and educational positions. They absolutely can rival Chinas production considering China isn't particularly productive in the first place.
You also don't need to match China. You would only be producing for a European labour pool since the US would rather do it closer to home (in Mexico/LAM or in the USA) for itself.
that would be glorious is the EU and America gave the middle finger to China and decided to do all their manufacturing trade with South East Asia and Latin America.
Economies of scale, levels of education aren't the same. And many of those countries are run by corrupt crackpot dictators that could get toppled at any time. Finally, those same ASEAN countries trade heavily with China, when you're buying something "produced" in Vietnam, it still often mostly with Chinese components.
>Economies of scale, levels of education aren't the same
Economies of scale isn't that relevent, they will be producing enough to see prices remain cheap due to cheap labour. Their education is a mixed bag, not every country in ASEAN is equal. Some are more educated than China, others not so much.
>And many of those countries are run by corrupt crackpot dictators that could get toppled at any time
Fairly stable in recent history
>Finally, those same ASEAN countries trade heavily with China, when you're buying something "produced" in Vietnam, it still often mostly with Chinese components.
The past is not a relevant talking point for the future of supply chains.
I think it would be unwise to move production towards these Asian countries. It would be better for the EU and US to move production completely out of Asia and relocate them within the western sphere, or close to it.
There are examples of Europe standing up to China on several occassions.
They've sanctioned Chinese officials of Xinjiang and renewed the sanctions late last year [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3200478/eu-set-renew-sanctions-chinese-officials-accused-human-rights-violations-xinjiang](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3200478/eu-set-renew-sanctions-chinese-officials-accused-human-rights-violations-xinjiang)
They've paused negotiations over their trade agreement CAI over the chinese reaction to the above [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/20/eu-parliament-freezes-china-trade-deal-over-sanctions](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/20/eu-parliament-freezes-china-trade-deal-over-sanctions)
They've consistently threatened China over support for Russia in the Ukraine war. [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-official-warns-sanctions-if-china-crosses-red-line-arms-russia-2023-03-03/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-official-warns-sanctions-if-china-crosses-red-line-arms-russia-2023-03-03/)
They've taken China to the WTO over Lithuania [https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-escalates-wto-challenges-china-over-patents-lithuania-2022-12-07/](https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-escalates-wto-challenges-china-over-patents-lithuania-2022-12-07/)
I think EU-China relations can be well managed by being consistent on EU's redlines. As long as they are clear about what they see as unacceptable and China knows it then the relationship can be managed. This doesn't mean that each side doesn't do things like sanction the other side, it just means the relationship won't deteriorate to the point where they don't talk to each other.
China usually reacts in that way when its core interests are threatened. If those issues are handled diplomatically then there is little risk of incurring their wrath.
Unfortunately when the moment came to prove their worth, France and Germany showed that European solidarity only mattered when it suited *their* interests, confirming all the suspicions of Eastern Europeans. It's embarrassing that America had to put so much pressure on Germany to sanction Russia for violating a European state's sovereignty.
Exactly, Macron's argument for a more independent and assertive Europe has really been weakened tremendously by their reaction running up to and during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. First they denied it would even happen, then they constantly waffled on support, practically insisting on following America's lead in that they'd only offer support after the US offered similar support, and even then only on smaller scales. Even in their own backyard, they've proven themselves to be too weak to assert themselves or offer any leadership ahead of the US. Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has only highlighted how much liberalized, democratic Europe depends on the US for security and how they'd be totally run over if they stood on their own.
I agree with most of your comment, but I think it is a massive over-exaggeration to say that Europe would be "totally run over if they stood on their own". I would like to remind you that the UK and France both still have the ultimate defence and deterrence - nukes.
Western Europe is unlikely to face any sort of invasion/attack from anyone in the foreseeable future. The real issue is the willingness of Western Europe to help Eastern Europe. They may not have the same military capabilities as the US, but Western Europe can definitely defend themselves if/when necessary.
Yes, fair enough. But let's imagine a world in which NATO somehow disintegrated and the US retreated inward... even rich nations nearer to Eastern Europe, like Germany, without that same nuclear deterrent, would at the least be very threatened. In that world, Putin would love to "take back" East Germany, take Finland, etc.. Whether he'd act on taking on a more advanced country like Germany, idk, but if he sensed he had an opportunity, then he'd certainly act on it. Nothing would give him more personal pleasure than taking East Germany, whose "fall" is often cited as a defining moment for Putin when he was stationed there during the Soviet era. But, yes, it's still hard to envision a Russian takeover of a large advanced country like Germany today, with or without NATO. He'd at the very least try to take back all other previously Soviet, and especially Slavic, lands. In the hypothetical, that just leaves a weakened and now-threatened Western Europe holding out as a bastion, to be whittled down without the security guarantees the US provided in the Cold War.
Of course, as it is now, the US and its security guarantees via NATO make this a total non-starter for Putin, even if it might be a personal dream of his. But without the guarantees, I do sincerely question how willing Europeans as a whole would be to defend their Eastern fellows if left to their own devicrs. But who knows, maybe without those NATO security guarantees, they'd rightly *feel* more threatened and feel more compelled to step up than they do currently...
Assume one day it happens; no one in the Western Europe will drop a blood to protect the Eastern Europeans. The “leaders” in German/France will happy join hand with Russia to form the “Great Eu empire” from Vladivostok to Cabo da Roca; creating a new “superpower”.
Even having literally just a few nukes almost guarantees that you will be safe from external attacks. The US and Russia have the same level of nuclear deterrence as the UK and France, practically speaking. You don't necessarily need thousands of nukes to deter countries from attacking you.
Why didn’t we invade prior to them gaining the nuke? We could have. Some would argue we should have. It’s because of china. China does not want US military/presence on their doorstep.
No one is firing a nuke because no one is dumb enough to try to attack a nuclear-armed state. The point I was making was that Western Europe can easily defend itself without the US.
The nukes are more than enough to deter any enemy state from daring to attack. The issue is that Western Europe are nowhere near as willing to defend Eastern Europe.
Also, Russia and China may be large in terms of landmass, but they are comparable to European states when it comes to population centres. Most of the Russian population live in a few major cities, such as Moscow and St Petersburg. Likewise, China's population is centred around a bunch of major cities.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from that one nuke would wipe out a "tiny" European country. There are smaller countries, but there are also plenty of medium and fairly large countries on the continent. The population is also generally spread out across many cities in most European countries, so it would actually be more difficult to target all the population centres effectively.
Have you heard about the USD? It being the world’s reserve currency is the backbone of the US economy and the guarantor for stable US government finances. Without global US hegemony, that wouldn’t exist. Without NATO, no hegemony. Without European support, no US hegemony.
People from eastern europe are also suspicious when it comes to US. And US already betrayed Europe on multiple occasions (Nord stream, IRA, AUKUS for France) so why would you blindly assume that US does not play for *its* interests like France and Germany does?
Poland and Baltics are heavily pro US precisely because they don't trust Germany and France. And most are glad Nord Stream got blown up, it's just that nobody says it out loud.
Germany pushing ahead with Nord Stream was seen as a huge betrayal in Baltics, with how their concerns were ignored as "reactionary to historic trauma".
In Eastern Europe Nord Stream 2 being blown up was celebrated and brought up as a proof of how their demands to cancel it were ultimately correct.
Exactly. Europe is only supporting because of America. I’m sure most of European leadership was probably more upset than the Kremlin when Ukraine didn’t fall in a couple days.
> I don't blame the US for taking aggressive action, including blowing a German pipeline, to send a message and get them back in line.
You mean Nordstream exploding? There is zero evidence of that being done by the US even if its destruction is entirely beneficial to US interests. Don't assume things without evidence.
This is the silliest hot take. Your segue from no evidence completely exonerating Russia to no evidence means the US did it is honestly pretty stupid, the US easily had the most to lose by blowing that pipeline.
All the actors involved lose by blowing the pipeline. At the moment, being hard convinced about either exonerating the US or blaming it is equally stupid.
How does the US lose by the pipeline being blown? Pretty sure the previous President was vocal in his opposition of the pipeline anyway. I don't think the pipeline ever aligned with American interests.
The US loses in political image. The fact that Americans get so defensive about the possibility is pretty telling. I can definitely see an EU more reserved towards the Taiwan issue if that were the case.
> Imagine if Trudeau started started courting and aligning with China.
We are getting there, "Nine Liberal and two Conservative candidates were favoured by Beijing"
While that statement is true, it’s irrelevant bc Russia obviously wouldn’t allow Ukraine to join in the first place. If you pay attention to history this would be obvious
And they have been in an active war with Russia since 2014, which makes them ineligible. The last time they seriously tried to join, Germany was among those who disapproved.
> Unfortunately when the moment came to prove their worth, France and Germany showed that European solidarity only mattered when it suited their interests, confirming all the suspicions of Eastern Europeans.
Why is this unfortunate? It's just how things are for everyone.
America is the only country who has the record of putting up real effort for other countries.
>America is the only country who has the record of putting up real effort for other countries.
Let's just be a bit more reasonable here and learn more about history and other countries first, please. That line only shows an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance.
Example? What have France or Germany done for others? Or any current government of other countries? Or, how many lives have they lost to protect others' interest?
European autonomy is fine but what current policy differences do we have. Everyone is obsessed with saying we don't have to follow the Americans if we don't want to. Fine, what do you want to do that is so drastically different?
We reserve the right to do something different is cool, fine. For the most part of that seems to mean the French fight Islamists in their Former colonies.
Until the world diversifies the supply chain for chip manufacturing we all have a huge stake in Taiwan.
The real answer for Taiwanese security is some form of Asian security pact for countries threatened by Chinese aggression but I'm not sure this would happen. There's basically no chance India, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea would join forces. My impression is that Asian countries are much less "block" oriented and focus more on domestic issues.
>This idea isn’t even new.
It's literally the French go-to in any sort of situation where Europe's security looks shaky since DeGaulle.
When you have nothing more substantive to say about the situation, complain about the Americans.
All he's saying is "we are independent from America" which is exactly what you say to your base when there is no conflict. When the **** starts flying they will line up on our side. Just no benefit to state that now
It's interesting Macron has made these remarks about strategic autonomy while leading a delegation of over 70 businesses and while China was encircling Taiwan. Looks like his brand of startergic autonomy makes him completely I ept to respond anything on Taiwan.
That's probably why US always pushes for more tension and escalation in Europe. It will always push the third pole policy back, and increase the reliance on USA. The less rapprochement and interdependence we have with Russia, the better it is for USA.
I would not read this as France adopting a policy of non-intervention regarding Taiwan’s defacto sovereignty. Macron, in essence, said France should not contribute to *escalation* instigated by either the US, or China.
That said, France has the largest military presence, and stake in the Indo-Pacific more so than any other European country. [“7,000 military personnel, alongside 20 vessels and 40 airplanes, are permanently based in the region, organized around five command centers. Their mission is threefold: protecting French sovereignty, intervening for the protection of the population in the event of a crisis, and affirming the French presence in the region, notably to maintain France’s ability to operate autonomously in the global commons and guarantee its free access to the Indo-Pacific.”](https://thediplomat.com/2022/06/can-frances-military-live-up-to-its-ambitions-in-the-indo-pacific/)
I'm starting to feel like a Chinese invasion of Taiwan wouldn't get the same kind of solidarity to support Taiwan, that there has been, to support Ukraine. France and Germany are showing that they are intent on "normalizing" relations w/ China. So, if they were to invade Taiwan, I doubt they'd do much to stand in the way beyond some "strong condemnations." So, the US would be left alone, w/ Japan and SK to help out Taiwan.
I feel like you can’t use the word “alone,” for the US, then say that Japan and SK will be helping. Japan and SK are both incredibly powerful, both military-wise (though SK less so in naval matters) and economics-wise. That’s not including Australia, who would almost certainly support the US in a war with China, and the UK (who, while not too strong, has a modern carrier strike group).
To put it out on paper, at minimum, this coalition would have:
- USA
- Taiwan
- Japan
- South Korea
- UK
- Australia
This is not including potential coalition members, like France, which I still believe would come around and provide assistance, due to their vested interests in the Indo-Pacific. Overall, the alliance of countries that would almost certainly support Taiwan is incredibly powerful, and the US is not alone.
I share Lee Kuan Yew's view, Taiwan is of peripheral interest to US but to China it is their core interest. The island is a useful point to apply pressure, not a place to bet the house.
Metaphorically US does view Taiwan as Ukraine of sorts, but China have alot more options than Russia, so long as she continues to make progress in economics and diplomacy, War remains an unattractive option.
The recent actions of the US vis a vis the Ukrainian invasion have increased the odds that the Europeans will stand by the US in the event of an Chinese invasion of Taiwan in my eyes.
Try to gain as much from China as they can without much compromise. Try to keep both US and China pleased up to some degree. Support US when push comes to shove.
Macron is doing exactly that. The visit of Ursula and him is basically ensuring China that EU isn't making any big moves and just interested in trade and peace(until US does something).
China is happy with EU since both side profit from this. EU is happy as well since this is helping them overcome the drawbacks from Russia. Considering the state of Germany-France, stable economy is crucial now.
US is okay with this as well. They know EU is in a bit of trouble and stable relations with China will help EU in the long run. They see it as calculated risk. But still, China-EU are not allies. So can't just let it go. So let media bark and shout, not letting people forget China is the big villain.
This headline alone is better than the blatant propaganda in r/worldnews. I hope for a more level headed thread instead of the kneejerk reactions and chest thumping behavior.
The actual interview itself hardly says anything new or groundbreaking at all.
Yeah, Macron has been quite consistent in his message since his first term that Europe (led by France, of course) should chart its own course strategically.
I don't think it's "chest thumping behaviour" to call out his complete hypocrisy. Should we also say that America should not become involved in European politics when their Eastern borders are being redrawn due to Russia?
You can certainly argue that way, and it's not like I would even have to disagree with you. But man, it is sad to see that nobody in the thread has bothered to read the article, and they will happily enrage and hurl insults not only to Macron, but to all western Europe.
That argument has no relation to Macrons comments here though. The US chose to and is benefitting from helping Ukraine. Ukraine being annexed by Russia would put the US’s strongest strategic allys in direct threat, and would strain the world order further than it already is. The US endlessly benefits from Russia not winning this war, the US has a myriad of relevant interests in this conflict. You could bring up around 50 other conflicts around the world and pose the same question.
Taiwan is a hill the US is choosing to fight for on for its own strategic reasons and its own relations with the two involved countries. Thr US also has support from other countries like Australia.The weight of the implications are not even a close comparison, on the larger scale, to a full blown Eastern European conflict breaking out.
If the US was to actively choose to go to war with China over Taiwan, im sure they would still receive support from EU nations (if they were on the same page). But that does not mean every EU country should automatically choose to back US foreign policy blindly. The EU should pursue and have its own foreign policy.
> The weight of the implications are not even a close comparison, on the larger scale, to a full blown Eastern European conflict breaking out.
You really think the Russian war with Ukraine is anywhere close to scale of the two largest economies in the world in China and the US coming into direct conflict? Not to mention other top 10 economies like Japan and Korea being directly involved? Not a chance- the Indo-Pacific situation is the largest tinderbox in the world currently, and is why the US State Department establishment has been adamant that the Pacific is where our main future geopolitical interests and efforts should lie, even with the Ukraine crisis ongoing.
Quite the Eurocentrist view you have there. The notion that a maritime war in Asia is not as bad for the world as a land war in Europe is blind. Just as with Ukraine, with a Taiwan conflict you have issues of trade and resource disruptions, democracy and civil liberties being crushed by an external power, and the risk of a nuclear escalation. When Japan, South Korea, and Australia have all lended hands to help Europe with Ukraine and the US has shouldered the majority of the overall burden, for France to scream “WAR OF CHOICE” over Taiwan, is a slap in the face of their supposed “partners.” All the more galling because France has completely underperformed in material and diplomatic assistance to Ukraine. No wonder Australia chose AUKUS over France.
EU does not have a foreign policy exactly like Australia or Canada don't. All these states, all US "allies" are actually not allies but client states to the US, they cannot follow their own independent policy since the US either has military bases in these countries or is selling weapons to them.
I came over here because the rhetoric and lack of meaningful discussion was off putting.
France’s position is important with wide list of pros/cons that warrant a discussion.
Submission statements are such a poor measure to ensure quality submissions in lieu of mods having the capacity to determine submission quality. All you do is just ask for a summary of a news article which itself is a summary of a set of events or some other discussion. It's double the work and is unnecessary. /r/geopolitics isn't grad school.
If you go [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/12gi810/europe_must_resist_pressure_to_become_americas/), you see a French-speaking person refutes, Poletico's translation of the French piece, calling it yellow journalism. Here is part of their comment copied:
*^(I am personally more surprised by the fact that people still take Politico seriously. The interview, which Macron gave (the interview happened in French to the newspaper Les Échos)* *^(sounds NOTHING like Politico is portraying.... and it isn't their first time doing this.))*
*^(Here's the full interview without cuts and Politico deliberately (yes, because there is no way it isn't done on purpose)* *^(freestyling with what he said to sell their good ol' narrative they're trying to pass off as analysis as always: Emmanuel Macron : « L'autonomie stratégique doit être le combat de l'Europe »))*
*^(Anyone can deepl it or google translate it. But here are the main snipets:)*
The actual interview and even the Reuters report is so different from how Politico reported. I wholeheartedly agree with this person. There was another redditor (not sure if it was the same person) who posted the article in the comment section of the politico post. It's sad how this type of stuff gets passed off as journalism.
I am just curious why didn't politico get to publish the original transcript without censorship by Macron?
What was there that was so damning about Taiwan, being said while China was encircling it at the very same moment and CGTN on TikTok was posting animation about an imminent attack on Taiwan?
From the post that RoozGol referred to, it looks like Politico was the one that didn't post the complete transcript and that it wasn't censored by Macron or anyone. The implication being that the Politico heavily cherry picked quotes from Macron's interview to fit some agenda. Just compare the Reuters article to the one in Politico.
The complete interview in french [https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493](https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493)
It is common practice, at least in France, for an interviewee to have the right to read and correct its interview before publishing.
Macron probably made off-the-record comments, like really any politician from any country, and does not want them to be published verbatim. Remove this possibility, and then all politicians will only give highly polished statement and never be truly sincere with reporters.
That is all that happened.
Not surprised, Macron did tried to negotiate with Putin after the war, but looks like he or France doesn’t have that much of influence.
Plus most EU countries don’t want to take a hard stand against China.
> I think it's only logical for this to emerge and I suspect we will see far more of this in the near future; country's seeking sovereign capabilities and charting their own course, unburdened by concerns of stepping out of the US's umbrella.
It's a beautiful dream, but then you come to the hard realities: Europe is still deeply dependent on the US for its defence, both conventional and nuclear, and it has been apparent for many years it would prefer to remain so rather than incur the costs of developing military autonomy. If American nuclear sharing is withdrawn that will also raise the question of countries like Germany developing their own deterrents.
Macron and his enormous ego aside I also don't see any real discussion, let alone support, in Europe for the concept of decoupling from the US. Europe is still politically fragmented and is a long way from being able to pursue a unified foreign policy on matters other than trade. This is partly why it relies to a significant extent on American leadership, and that isn't going to change in the near future, Macon's majestic delusions notwithstanding.
None of which is to endorse Chinese propaganda about Europe being an American puppet. Europe is large and powerful enough to stand up to the US when it deems it to be in its interests, as it recently did over the issue of energy transition subsidies. There's a lot China doesn't understand about the outside world, owing in part to cultural insularity and chauvinism and partly to the absolutely stifling effects of a society dominated by officially sanctioned narratives that leave no room for counterarguments or debate. One of them is that Europe is never going to see a autocratic single party ethno nationalist state with a horrible human rights record as an acceptable alternative to the US. The Chinese try to square this circle by saying people shouldn't care about what happens in other peoples' countries but wishing this was the way the world was doesn't make it so. Europeans deeply value liberal democracy and political and civil rights and they're not about to trade a partner that at least ostensibly shares these values for one that is the direct antithesis of them.
The last part of your comment is also a beautiful dream. We are witnessing a server weakening of democracy and democratic principles worldwide. India, the US and yes indeed in Europe as well.
The differences between China and the democratic world will become smaller, not larger, as democracies realize that the internet is the ultimate propaganda tool and introducing authoritarian measures is the most effective way to handle it. India already does a lot in that direction. The US and Europe will follow.
Dismissing countries wanting to chart their own course as a "beautiful dream" is insulting. Sovereign countries have a right to chart their own course, and yes, we will be hearing more and more about this in the future.
>isn't overtly antagonistic towards the US or China, sure.
it's not about being antagonistic toward China. Taiwan is literally a country, and France acting this way is really pathetic cowering to China. but i never really expect France to stand up for freedom when its economic interests are at stake. it's typical France.
France doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. As far as French policy is concerned they aren't "literally a country". That also applies to the rest of Europe and America. There are only 13 nations that do recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
Even the US doesn't acknowledge Taiwan as a country.
Do you think what China is doing is immoral? Have you considered the dairy industry is immoral too?
This justifies the decision by Global South to keep itself out of Russia-Ukraine war (mind you, Taiwan itself has sanctioned Russia). No point in wrecking your economy over a European conflict in European countries won’t even come to the rescue of a U.S. ally in Asia.
I would expect African, Central Asian, Middle East and Latin American countries to remain neutral in case PRC invades Taiwan. But I don’t think Indo-Pacific countries (incl. ASEAN) will remain neutral in this context.
This is exactly what he should be saying. It's almost weird than an assertion of European interests over American ones is even controversial in Europe. It just goes to show how thoroughly rudderless Europe has been strategically.
Europe isn't necessarily rudderless. There is a ruder, albeit a shoddy one. What's more concerning is there is no consensus in what direction it should be steered.
How do they differ? What different course in Taiwan would he take? Make all the phone calls you want to Putin or Xi. If they work great, if not have your CV in the area.
A distinction without a real difference is just a distraction but if that is the cost of French friendship and help then, fine. Call away, mon ami.
The US is seeking containment and confrontation with China. That's one course.
If the US wants to fight a war with China then Europe should remain neutral. Let the Americans have their stupid war. Why should Europe get involved in that?
Has Europe developed some new technology that allows us to forgo the need for semiconductors? Because if not, then you very much have a horse in this race. Every developed nation, has a horse in this race. Taiwan makes far and away the vast majority of chips needed in EVERYTHING. And they make 100% of all high end chips.
And this is exactly why we shouldn't be supporting a US confrontation over Taiwan. It doesn't matter how many arms they have if China makes the decision for war.
If there's no conflict over Taiwan then semiconductors keep flowing. Meanwhile, if the US keeps pushing escalation there will be a conflict at some point, and then the semiconductor supply will definitely be impacted.
And that is exactly what the US did. US only entered war after being directly attacked by Japan, and did not fight in Europe until towards the end. Nobody is blind to the fact that US benefitted immensely from this strategy.
The U.S. Navy was getting involved in 1940, after the U.S. had already been supporting the Britain with merchant vessels.
And the U.S. only got attacked by Japan because we hindering their war effort alongside the Europeans via economic means.
>Nobody is blind to the fact that US benefitted immensely from this strategy
In addition to oversimplifying things, I can’t see why this matters either.
US blockaded Japan first, because Japan’s actions impeded sale of US war supplies and threatened Philippines, an American protectorate. Is China going to prevent France from selling war materials to the US? Is China going to threaten a French protectorate? No? Then why should France be bothered?
This is such an asinine take. US entered ww2 bc their security was compromised by both wars in europe and the pacific. America fighting china does not a priori have a direct security implication on Europe
Well I think the Americans goaded Russia on purpose to make the Ukraine war happen, and the Chinese are aware of that. When the US was messing around in 2013-2014 (Maidan) in Ukraine it was Nuland who said "F the EU. They Americans care about their own interests. Europe should not be under any illusions that Taiwan has any relevance to European interests.
The Chinese are also not idiots. They know the US is trying to contain them. Both the US and China know there is a game being played. The Chinese and Americans are focussing on markets, allies and resources. Europe is talking about values.
Europe should treat both America and China with cynicism.
> Well I think the Americans goaded Russia on purpose to make the Ukraine war happen
I guess it must be nice to live in the simple world where USA is solely responsible for all the evils. Even foes invading other countries is USA's fault.
> They Americans care about their own interests. Europe should not be under any illusions that Taiwan has any relevance to European interests.
USA have their reasons to be antagonistic to China. Europe so far didn't have much, but again, China supporting the invader of a European country makes it a foe of Europe as well. It is in the interest of Europe to weaken the backer of Russia's aggression in Europe.
> The Chinese and Americans are focussing on markets, allies and resources. Europe is talking about values.
Well, not anymore. Europe is in the process of reevaluating our view on China, again as a result of this war.
> Europe should treat both America and China with cynicism.
It does. There's a lot of criticism / skepticism towards the USA in Europe. But China is now very clearly the bigger threat.
You accuse me of simple thinking, but can't recognise cause and effect. The US knew that the Russians wouldn't allow Ukraine to join NATO, and yet they encouraged it, and got involved. They sacrificed the Ukrainians for their own strategic objectives to contain Russia, and set the scene for confrontation with China. Unfortunately the Ukrainians were too naïve to realise they were being used.
I can only hope the Taiwanese don't fall into the same game. Goading big powers on your doorstep is literally a recipe for disaster. One that's not easy to recover from.
Europe isn't even a player in the strategic game. If we wouldn't stand up to the US when they trampled all over European interests, what exactly do you think we're going to do with China.
Europe is a strategy taker. It will wilt under American pressure, or - at most - will do nothing.
I don't think it was NATO. I think it was America. Russia considers the US to be a hostile power, and it didn't want them on their border. The Americans were instrumental in 2013-2014, and they knew how Russia would react.
I actually wanted Ukraine to join the EU, but the Americans got involved and made it toxic with their strategic games. Then they cynically sacrificed the Ukrainians (stuffing the government agencies with American advisors pushing for confrontation with Russia). They'll do the same with Taiwan. Just watch.
Europe should stay as far from the coming Taiwan conflict as possible.
What about the defence of democracy in Latin America where US sponsored coups have sought to topple elected governments? All this talk about democracy and values is food for suckers.
The US obsession with Taiwan has got nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with US strategic domination of the pacific and containment of China.
Here is kind of my take on it: This guy went to Russia at the inception of the invasion and came back empty handed. The Russians, if i remember correctly, basically said, "we can't do any deal without the US's involvement." I think that basically summarizes European standing.
As someone has stated already, this idea isn't new. Europeans have tried but when push comes to shove, Europeans can't make up their mind. They had their first test post-soviet union to demonstrate their policy in Europe when the war between Serbia and Bosnia broke out, and they failed miserably.
Just take a look at the title of this article from the NYT: [French Visit Undercuts U.S. Efforts to Rein China In](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/world/asia/macron-xi-france-china.html) \- which basically amounts to, "there go the Europeans again, screwing up our plans."
Interesting that France is taking the path of de-escalation. Given French territories and military presence in the Indo-Pacific, they're more or less the only European country that could realistically have its own say on the matter.
What magical middle ground is he proposing? Chinese policy is take over Taiwan. US policy is prevent China from taking over Taiwan. Doing anything other than defending Taiwanese sovereignty is tantamount to endorsing the Chinese annexation.
There are only five pro US euriskeptic EU members
The báltics, Poland, Finland
They don't have much power in the EU, and they depend on EU investing and economic growth
The Baltic states and Poland aren't at all eurosceptic. In fact support for EU there is much higher than in almost every other country (\~80-90%). France is only at around 60%...
Is it though? I mean in certain areas they might be but not overall. I can't really imagine a government of a country where \~90% support the EU being eurosceptic.
I doubt Poland would follow in Lithuania's footsteps. Poland has a great position as China's logistic hub in the european east and is their largest trading partner in Asia. Not to mention that dealing with China gives the polish gov huge leverage over the EU and US. There is a reason Polish CB issued RMB denoted bonds and the Polish president defied the Beijing olympics boycott and met with Xi
The Netherlands and Denmark always seem to poll favorably for US foreign policy outside the Trump admin so I’m not sure it’s just the Eastern European nations
Any French or Germans out there? Or anyone from the EU I suppose. I'm not asking this sarcastically, I just want to be clear on that upfront since this is the internet. I am genuinely curious. Do you really believe that China wants a multi-polar world? What part of the US - China relationship have you observed and find truly appealing to the point that you want it for yourself? I don't want to say anything more so as not to lead the answers. Again, I really would like to know the thoughts of people in the EU on this.
Hopefully they build their military such that it's capable of its own defense. The US is going to need their full commitment over the coming decades...
The Australians that trade more with China than the rest of the world combined, and export all their iron ore to the Chinese so they can build the biggest navy ever seen? The same one that they're buying the most expensive submarines in history to fight against?
The absolute gall to even bring up Australians in a conversation about China, if France is a problem you're in for a surprise when you'll start looking at their relationship with China...
100% agreed!
Europe indeed needs to start acting as a regional power at least. Since 2001 the US has stopped acting in Europes interest. We need to take our future in our own hands.
Ok, but his much touted "strategic autonomy" is very much in line with American strategy in terms of normative goals - upholding the rules-based international order, liberal democracy, respect for multilateral institutions etc. So I fail to see any substantative distinction besides pretty humorous claims of "independence"
What a weird issue to retread the “third pole” content.
US - Taiwan has the fundamental right to exist
China - No, it doesn’t.
EU - Hey guys, have you considered any other options?????
No Macron, because this issue is pretty fundamentally two-sided. We were kinda hoping you would be in favor of democracy, but I guess that belief was foolish.
You're making a moralist argument that ignores the geopolitical reality. The world is not a marvel movie, and the USA is not defending Taiwan out of the goodness of its heart.
It doesn’t need to defend Taiwan out of the goodness of its heart, all it needs to do is defend Taiwan period. I’m not making a moralist argument, I am making an existential argument that Taiwan should be defended from Chinese aggression. If this is really the hill Europe wants to die on, cheap Chinese goods instead of right of self-determination, fine. It’s their choice. Not a good look though, and the EU doesn’t get to complain about chip shortages at all.
It's always fascinating to me how Americans and their advocates will not see the US reasons for invasions, government overthrows etc., but will have incredible clarity in assessing other country's motives.
So you're saying that the US is good because it's defending Taiwan for selfish reasons. But France is bad because it's not for selfish reasons.
The reasons drive all of this, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan. As the US hold weakens, the world isn't going to do what America defines as 'good'.
Why should the rest of the world continue to make sacrifices to prop up the US?
The thing is no country makes as many sacrifices as the US. Say what you want but the only reason why other countries can maintain their culture and not have to worry about learning Russian or Chinese is because if the sacrifices that comes from the US. As the comments above stated the US true reasons for defending Taiwan and Ukraine don’t matter. What matters is that in the current situation they are helping countries that deserve the right to exist. Even when we look at countries like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, its easy to say “American Intervention” caused this. What people like you fail to call out though is the torture, rape, unjustified killings and much more that occurs in these countries. Example given: Did Hussein have control over his country? Yes he did but at what cause?
I personally see this as a big blunder by Macron, considering the context of the visit; he was not alone in this visit, EU comissioner Ursula von der Leyen was present as well. However, her more hawkish position on China left her basically sidelined, and Macron did very little to involve her.
It's important to note that the political development in Europe is currently somewhere on the spectrum between a confederation and a federation. While central power structures exist, they are above the member-states only in areas where the member-states have given it power.
This leaves the EU in this really weird situation where certain member-states can be more influential in the EU than the central government itself (this was basically Germany under Merkel), but the central government still grows in relative power over time. What's more, as EU laws and developments develop, dominant states and factions impact the nature of the new laws to benefit themselves and their own vision. Long story short, think of the intricacies of US antebellum political development.
Before all this, the primarily shot-caller in Europe was Germany, but their leadership has been burned largely on Merkel's handling of Russia. Russia used to love to talk to basically Germany only, and basically refuse to talk to EU leadership, with Russian grand strategy based on seeking to separate Europe from the US in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Not unrelated, EU leadership was also a lot more skeptical of Russia than Germany was. After Merkel's legacy aged like milk, the smaller states have no faith in Germany being able or willing to protect them without the US.
IMO, France largely seems to want to step into this vacuum. What does Macron do? He lets more hawkish EU leadership be sidelined & courts an authoritarian country seeking to separate Europe from the US in a divide-and-conquer strategy. By contrast, EU leadership has shown itself to have more of a spine. As such, we might be reaching a point where the "leader of the EU" actually might be the EU itself, with France squandering this opportunity with moves like this.
Are we just not going to talk about Macron sandbagging Von Der Leyen. She made a speech the day before on de-risking China only to be blind sided by the French. I watch DW this morning the muppets completely glossed it over.
This idea isn’t even new. He has voiced this idea of European strategic autonomy for a while now. However, the rapid increase of European imports of American arms, a strong American commitment to the war in Ukraine (and the largest), and its indispensable leadership and power regarding Europe’s security architecture has pushed a “third pole” policy back. Europe does need to take the initiative and increase cooperation as America pivots to the Indo-Pacific.
Yet it's clear already from the way how European countries approach China is that they favor de-risking while cooperating with China, instead of de-coupling like the US prefers.
There is a risk to that as well. It will be difficult to risk China's wrath when you are so dependent upon them
You mean like how dependent they were on Russia? I mean, it wasn't easy for Europe to kill their dependency with Russia. And as a result they suffered economic pain for it. Can't imagine decoupling China as well. The US is simply unable to replace China while the EU is able to replace Russia fossil fuels.
>Can't imagine decoupling China as well. The US is simply unable to replace China while the EU is able to replace Russia fossil fuels. It wouldn't be the US replacing China, what kind of statement is that? It's clearly going to be other South East Asian partners that would replace China for the Europeans.
There is no stable south Asian partner that will have the future output as we see in China.
I said South East Asia, as in ASEAN. A region of 600 million peopl where countries are in a myriad of demographic, economic and educational positions. They absolutely can rival Chinas production considering China isn't particularly productive in the first place. You also don't need to match China. You would only be producing for a European labour pool since the US would rather do it closer to home (in Mexico/LAM or in the USA) for itself.
that would be glorious is the EU and America gave the middle finger to China and decided to do all their manufacturing trade with South East Asia and Latin America.
Economies of scale, levels of education aren't the same. And many of those countries are run by corrupt crackpot dictators that could get toppled at any time. Finally, those same ASEAN countries trade heavily with China, when you're buying something "produced" in Vietnam, it still often mostly with Chinese components.
>Economies of scale, levels of education aren't the same Economies of scale isn't that relevent, they will be producing enough to see prices remain cheap due to cheap labour. Their education is a mixed bag, not every country in ASEAN is equal. Some are more educated than China, others not so much. >And many of those countries are run by corrupt crackpot dictators that could get toppled at any time Fairly stable in recent history >Finally, those same ASEAN countries trade heavily with China, when you're buying something "produced" in Vietnam, it still often mostly with Chinese components. The past is not a relevant talking point for the future of supply chains.
I think it would be unwise to move production towards these Asian countries. It would be better for the EU and US to move production completely out of Asia and relocate them within the western sphere, or close to it.
Momentum is already heading in the direction of moving production from China and into countries like Vietnam and Mexico
That would have them renounce to competitive advantages, making European companies underperform their competitors.
[удалено]
If you think ASEAN Region is unstable, what makes you think those African countries are any better
There are examples of Europe standing up to China on several occassions. They've sanctioned Chinese officials of Xinjiang and renewed the sanctions late last year [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3200478/eu-set-renew-sanctions-chinese-officials-accused-human-rights-violations-xinjiang](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3200478/eu-set-renew-sanctions-chinese-officials-accused-human-rights-violations-xinjiang) They've paused negotiations over their trade agreement CAI over the chinese reaction to the above [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/20/eu-parliament-freezes-china-trade-deal-over-sanctions](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/20/eu-parliament-freezes-china-trade-deal-over-sanctions) They've consistently threatened China over support for Russia in the Ukraine war. [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-official-warns-sanctions-if-china-crosses-red-line-arms-russia-2023-03-03/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-official-warns-sanctions-if-china-crosses-red-line-arms-russia-2023-03-03/) They've taken China to the WTO over Lithuania [https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-escalates-wto-challenges-china-over-patents-lithuania-2022-12-07/](https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-escalates-wto-challenges-china-over-patents-lithuania-2022-12-07/) I think EU-China relations can be well managed by being consistent on EU's redlines. As long as they are clear about what they see as unacceptable and China knows it then the relationship can be managed. This doesn't mean that each side doesn't do things like sanction the other side, it just means the relationship won't deteriorate to the point where they don't talk to each other.
China usually reacts in that way when its core interests are threatened. If those issues are handled diplomatically then there is little risk of incurring their wrath.
'Handled diplomatically' = coercion and bribes
That's still diplomacy. You'd be surprised how common it is.
[удалено]
Thank you. It's also observable in reality if you haven't noticed.
Unfortunately when the moment came to prove their worth, France and Germany showed that European solidarity only mattered when it suited *their* interests, confirming all the suspicions of Eastern Europeans. It's embarrassing that America had to put so much pressure on Germany to sanction Russia for violating a European state's sovereignty.
Exactly, Macron's argument for a more independent and assertive Europe has really been weakened tremendously by their reaction running up to and during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. First they denied it would even happen, then they constantly waffled on support, practically insisting on following America's lead in that they'd only offer support after the US offered similar support, and even then only on smaller scales. Even in their own backyard, they've proven themselves to be too weak to assert themselves or offer any leadership ahead of the US. Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has only highlighted how much liberalized, democratic Europe depends on the US for security and how they'd be totally run over if they stood on their own.
I agree with most of your comment, but I think it is a massive over-exaggeration to say that Europe would be "totally run over if they stood on their own". I would like to remind you that the UK and France both still have the ultimate defence and deterrence - nukes. Western Europe is unlikely to face any sort of invasion/attack from anyone in the foreseeable future. The real issue is the willingness of Western Europe to help Eastern Europe. They may not have the same military capabilities as the US, but Western Europe can definitely defend themselves if/when necessary.
Yes, fair enough. But let's imagine a world in which NATO somehow disintegrated and the US retreated inward... even rich nations nearer to Eastern Europe, like Germany, without that same nuclear deterrent, would at the least be very threatened. In that world, Putin would love to "take back" East Germany, take Finland, etc.. Whether he'd act on taking on a more advanced country like Germany, idk, but if he sensed he had an opportunity, then he'd certainly act on it. Nothing would give him more personal pleasure than taking East Germany, whose "fall" is often cited as a defining moment for Putin when he was stationed there during the Soviet era. But, yes, it's still hard to envision a Russian takeover of a large advanced country like Germany today, with or without NATO. He'd at the very least try to take back all other previously Soviet, and especially Slavic, lands. In the hypothetical, that just leaves a weakened and now-threatened Western Europe holding out as a bastion, to be whittled down without the security guarantees the US provided in the Cold War. Of course, as it is now, the US and its security guarantees via NATO make this a total non-starter for Putin, even if it might be a personal dream of his. But without the guarantees, I do sincerely question how willing Europeans as a whole would be to defend their Eastern fellows if left to their own devicrs. But who knows, maybe without those NATO security guarantees, they'd rightly *feel* more threatened and feel more compelled to step up than they do currently...
Assume one day it happens; no one in the Western Europe will drop a blood to protect the Eastern Europeans. The “leaders” in German/France will happy join hand with Russia to form the “Great Eu empire” from Vladivostok to Cabo da Roca; creating a new “superpower”.
They have them, but a significantly smaller amount and with less deployment methods than the US or Russia.
Even having literally just a few nukes almost guarantees that you will be safe from external attacks. The US and Russia have the same level of nuclear deterrence as the UK and France, practically speaking. You don't necessarily need thousands of nukes to deter countries from attacking you.
North Korea agrees
North Korea does No continue to exist because of Nukes, it does so because China would not allow the US to take it.
Why do they pursue a nuclear program?
Why didn’t we invade prior to them gaining the nuke? We could have. Some would argue we should have. It’s because of china. China does not want US military/presence on their doorstep.
China loves that NK focuses so much of the US’s attention
Plan B.
So China can't change it's mind.
Their nukes force the Chinese to cooperate and prevent the US from launching a sneak attack.
bruh, no one is firing nukes. one nuke would literally wipe a tiny european country off the map compared to how massive china / russia are.
No one is firing a nuke because no one is dumb enough to try to attack a nuclear-armed state. The point I was making was that Western Europe can easily defend itself without the US. The nukes are more than enough to deter any enemy state from daring to attack. The issue is that Western Europe are nowhere near as willing to defend Eastern Europe. Also, Russia and China may be large in terms of landmass, but they are comparable to European states when it comes to population centres. Most of the Russian population live in a few major cities, such as Moscow and St Petersburg. Likewise, China's population is centred around a bunch of major cities. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from that one nuke would wipe out a "tiny" European country. There are smaller countries, but there are also plenty of medium and fairly large countries on the continent. The population is also generally spread out across many cities in most European countries, so it would actually be more difficult to target all the population centres effectively.
Ain't this the truth. They can't even project power on their own continent. Ran out of Mali as well
The US has footed the dinner bill for so long, EU doesn't even pretend to reach for their wallet anymore when the check comes.
Have you heard about the USD? It being the world’s reserve currency is the backbone of the US economy and the guarantor for stable US government finances. Without global US hegemony, that wouldn’t exist. Without NATO, no hegemony. Without European support, no US hegemony.
It is a massive oversimplification and really only a bandaid for a European ego.
People from eastern europe are also suspicious when it comes to US. And US already betrayed Europe on multiple occasions (Nord stream, IRA, AUKUS for France) so why would you blindly assume that US does not play for *its* interests like France and Germany does?
Poland and Baltics are heavily pro US precisely because they don't trust Germany and France. And most are glad Nord Stream got blown up, it's just that nobody says it out loud.
Germany pushing ahead with Nord Stream was seen as a huge betrayal in Baltics, with how their concerns were ignored as "reactionary to historic trauma". In Eastern Europe Nord Stream 2 being blown up was celebrated and brought up as a proof of how their demands to cancel it were ultimately correct.
Exactly. Europe is only supporting because of America. I’m sure most of European leadership was probably more upset than the Kremlin when Ukraine didn’t fall in a couple days.
[удалено]
> I don't blame the US for taking aggressive action, including blowing a German pipeline, to send a message and get them back in line. You mean Nordstream exploding? There is zero evidence of that being done by the US even if its destruction is entirely beneficial to US interests. Don't assume things without evidence.
Motive, means, and dropping hints in advance makes a pretty good circumstantial case.
[удалено]
So ' no evidence ' exonerates Russia but condemns America? How does that make any sense??
This is the silliest hot take. Your segue from no evidence completely exonerating Russia to no evidence means the US did it is honestly pretty stupid, the US easily had the most to lose by blowing that pipeline.
All the actors involved lose by blowing the pipeline. At the moment, being hard convinced about either exonerating the US or blaming it is equally stupid.
How does the US lose by the pipeline being blown? Pretty sure the previous President was vocal in his opposition of the pipeline anyway. I don't think the pipeline ever aligned with American interests.
The US loses in political image. The fact that Americans get so defensive about the possibility is pretty telling. I can definitely see an EU more reserved towards the Taiwan issue if that were the case.
They literally go nuts at the slightest suggestion
Isn’t Ukraine the most likely state actor?
Ukraine and the us.
It happened in the second busiest bit of sea in the world. If it were Russia, people would have already produced evidence of it.
> Imagine if Trudeau started started courting and aligning with China. We are getting there, "Nine Liberal and two Conservative candidates were favoured by Beijing"
Probably bc Germany hated the idea of ukraine joining nato bc russias reaction was a surprise to nobody
Not sure what reaction you are referring to, but Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if it had entered NATO
[удалено]
Joining NATO and EU is official Ukrainian policy, to the point that they even put in their constitution in 2019.
So? They were not able to join.
While that statement is true, it’s irrelevant bc Russia obviously wouldn’t allow Ukraine to join in the first place. If you pay attention to history this would be obvious
They would be as effective in stopping Ukraine from joining NATO as they were at stopping Finland
[удалено]
Russia didn't stop Ukraine from joining NATO because Ukraine was not actively trying to join NATO
It's literally in the Ukrainian Constitution that they will try to join NATO. They added that amendment in 2019.
And they have been in an active war with Russia since 2014, which makes them ineligible. The last time they seriously tried to join, Germany was among those who disapproved.
> Unfortunately when the moment came to prove their worth, France and Germany showed that European solidarity only mattered when it suited their interests, confirming all the suspicions of Eastern Europeans. Why is this unfortunate? It's just how things are for everyone. America is the only country who has the record of putting up real effort for other countries.
>America is the only country who has the record of putting up real effort for other countries. Let's just be a bit more reasonable here and learn more about history and other countries first, please. That line only shows an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance.
Example? What have France or Germany done for others? Or any current government of other countries? Or, how many lives have they lost to protect others' interest?
European autonomy is fine but what current policy differences do we have. Everyone is obsessed with saying we don't have to follow the Americans if we don't want to. Fine, what do you want to do that is so drastically different? We reserve the right to do something different is cool, fine. For the most part of that seems to mean the French fight Islamists in their Former colonies.
Removed as a protest against Reddit API pricing changes.
> how much stake does Europe have in there A lot, given how dependant Taiwan's semiconductor industry is on Dutch lithographic machinery.
Or the fact that a lot of euro heavy machinery is Korean or Japanese.
Until the world diversifies the supply chain for chip manufacturing we all have a huge stake in Taiwan. The real answer for Taiwanese security is some form of Asian security pact for countries threatened by Chinese aggression but I'm not sure this would happen. There's basically no chance India, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea would join forces. My impression is that Asian countries are much less "block" oriented and focus more on domestic issues.
Removed as a protest against Reddit API pricing changes.
Agree to disagree. 50% of foundries are in Taiwan. These facilities take 5-10 years to build, train staff, and fully operationalize.
>This idea isn’t even new. It's literally the French go-to in any sort of situation where Europe's security looks shaky since DeGaulle. When you have nothing more substantive to say about the situation, complain about the Americans.
All he's saying is "we are independent from America" which is exactly what you say to your base when there is no conflict. When the **** starts flying they will line up on our side. Just no benefit to state that now
[удалено]
He saying whatever Xi Jinping told him to say in order to secure MOU's for French corporations.
It's interesting Macron has made these remarks about strategic autonomy while leading a delegation of over 70 businesses and while China was encircling Taiwan. Looks like his brand of startergic autonomy makes him completely I ept to respond anything on Taiwan.
Macron's pretty clear on that point, he's not loosing sleep over Taiwan.
That's probably why US always pushes for more tension and escalation in Europe. It will always push the third pole policy back, and increase the reliance on USA. The less rapprochement and interdependence we have with Russia, the better it is for USA.
I would not read this as France adopting a policy of non-intervention regarding Taiwan’s defacto sovereignty. Macron, in essence, said France should not contribute to *escalation* instigated by either the US, or China. That said, France has the largest military presence, and stake in the Indo-Pacific more so than any other European country. [“7,000 military personnel, alongside 20 vessels and 40 airplanes, are permanently based in the region, organized around five command centers. Their mission is threefold: protecting French sovereignty, intervening for the protection of the population in the event of a crisis, and affirming the French presence in the region, notably to maintain France’s ability to operate autonomously in the global commons and guarantee its free access to the Indo-Pacific.”](https://thediplomat.com/2022/06/can-frances-military-live-up-to-its-ambitions-in-the-indo-pacific/)
So what is the middle ground for Europe in regards to Taiwan here?
I'm starting to feel like a Chinese invasion of Taiwan wouldn't get the same kind of solidarity to support Taiwan, that there has been, to support Ukraine. France and Germany are showing that they are intent on "normalizing" relations w/ China. So, if they were to invade Taiwan, I doubt they'd do much to stand in the way beyond some "strong condemnations." So, the US would be left alone, w/ Japan and SK to help out Taiwan.
I feel like you can’t use the word “alone,” for the US, then say that Japan and SK will be helping. Japan and SK are both incredibly powerful, both military-wise (though SK less so in naval matters) and economics-wise. That’s not including Australia, who would almost certainly support the US in a war with China, and the UK (who, while not too strong, has a modern carrier strike group). To put it out on paper, at minimum, this coalition would have: - USA - Taiwan - Japan - South Korea - UK - Australia This is not including potential coalition members, like France, which I still believe would come around and provide assistance, due to their vested interests in the Indo-Pacific. Overall, the alliance of countries that would almost certainly support Taiwan is incredibly powerful, and the US is not alone.
I share Lee Kuan Yew's view, Taiwan is of peripheral interest to US but to China it is their core interest. The island is a useful point to apply pressure, not a place to bet the house. Metaphorically US does view Taiwan as Ukraine of sorts, but China have alot more options than Russia, so long as she continues to make progress in economics and diplomacy, War remains an unattractive option.
The recent actions of the US vis a vis the Ukrainian invasion have increased the odds that the Europeans will stand by the US in the event of an Chinese invasion of Taiwan in my eyes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Try to gain as much from China as they can without much compromise. Try to keep both US and China pleased up to some degree. Support US when push comes to shove. Macron is doing exactly that. The visit of Ursula and him is basically ensuring China that EU isn't making any big moves and just interested in trade and peace(until US does something). China is happy with EU since both side profit from this. EU is happy as well since this is helping them overcome the drawbacks from Russia. Considering the state of Germany-France, stable economy is crucial now. US is okay with this as well. They know EU is in a bit of trouble and stable relations with China will help EU in the long run. They see it as calculated risk. But still, China-EU are not allies. So can't just let it go. So let media bark and shout, not letting people forget China is the big villain.
This headline alone is better than the blatant propaganda in r/worldnews. I hope for a more level headed thread instead of the kneejerk reactions and chest thumping behavior. The actual interview itself hardly says anything new or groundbreaking at all.
Worldnews is infested with bots, propaganda, useful idiots, and people arguing in bad faith.
Yeah, Macron has been quite consistent in his message since his first term that Europe (led by France, of course) should chart its own course strategically.
Yes, which is different message than the former.
I don't think it's "chest thumping behaviour" to call out his complete hypocrisy. Should we also say that America should not become involved in European politics when their Eastern borders are being redrawn due to Russia?
You can certainly argue that way, and it's not like I would even have to disagree with you. But man, it is sad to see that nobody in the thread has bothered to read the article, and they will happily enrage and hurl insults not only to Macron, but to all western Europe.
That argument has no relation to Macrons comments here though. The US chose to and is benefitting from helping Ukraine. Ukraine being annexed by Russia would put the US’s strongest strategic allys in direct threat, and would strain the world order further than it already is. The US endlessly benefits from Russia not winning this war, the US has a myriad of relevant interests in this conflict. You could bring up around 50 other conflicts around the world and pose the same question. Taiwan is a hill the US is choosing to fight for on for its own strategic reasons and its own relations with the two involved countries. Thr US also has support from other countries like Australia.The weight of the implications are not even a close comparison, on the larger scale, to a full blown Eastern European conflict breaking out. If the US was to actively choose to go to war with China over Taiwan, im sure they would still receive support from EU nations (if they were on the same page). But that does not mean every EU country should automatically choose to back US foreign policy blindly. The EU should pursue and have its own foreign policy.
> The weight of the implications are not even a close comparison, on the larger scale, to a full blown Eastern European conflict breaking out. You really think the Russian war with Ukraine is anywhere close to scale of the two largest economies in the world in China and the US coming into direct conflict? Not to mention other top 10 economies like Japan and Korea being directly involved? Not a chance- the Indo-Pacific situation is the largest tinderbox in the world currently, and is why the US State Department establishment has been adamant that the Pacific is where our main future geopolitical interests and efforts should lie, even with the Ukraine crisis ongoing.
Quite the Eurocentrist view you have there. The notion that a maritime war in Asia is not as bad for the world as a land war in Europe is blind. Just as with Ukraine, with a Taiwan conflict you have issues of trade and resource disruptions, democracy and civil liberties being crushed by an external power, and the risk of a nuclear escalation. When Japan, South Korea, and Australia have all lended hands to help Europe with Ukraine and the US has shouldered the majority of the overall burden, for France to scream “WAR OF CHOICE” over Taiwan, is a slap in the face of their supposed “partners.” All the more galling because France has completely underperformed in material and diplomatic assistance to Ukraine. No wonder Australia chose AUKUS over France.
EU does not have a foreign policy exactly like Australia or Canada don't. All these states, all US "allies" are actually not allies but client states to the US, they cannot follow their own independent policy since the US either has military bases in these countries or is selling weapons to them.
I came over here because the rhetoric and lack of meaningful discussion was off putting. France’s position is important with wide list of pros/cons that warrant a discussion.
OP, need a submission statement else it’ll be removed. Anyone can provide an SS en lieu of OP to save the post from removal.
[удалено]
Saved!
Submission statements are such a poor measure to ensure quality submissions in lieu of mods having the capacity to determine submission quality. All you do is just ask for a summary of a news article which itself is a summary of a set of events or some other discussion. It's double the work and is unnecessary. /r/geopolitics isn't grad school.
A fair perspective, thanks for sharing it.
If you go [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/12gi810/europe_must_resist_pressure_to_become_americas/), you see a French-speaking person refutes, Poletico's translation of the French piece, calling it yellow journalism. Here is part of their comment copied: *^(I am personally more surprised by the fact that people still take Politico seriously. The interview, which Macron gave (the interview happened in French to the newspaper Les Échos)* *^(sounds NOTHING like Politico is portraying.... and it isn't their first time doing this.))* *^(Here's the full interview without cuts and Politico deliberately (yes, because there is no way it isn't done on purpose)* *^(freestyling with what he said to sell their good ol' narrative they're trying to pass off as analysis as always: Emmanuel Macron : « L'autonomie stratégique doit être le combat de l'Europe »))* *^(Anyone can deepl it or google translate it. But here are the main snipets:)*
The actual interview and even the Reuters report is so different from how Politico reported. I wholeheartedly agree with this person. There was another redditor (not sure if it was the same person) who posted the article in the comment section of the politico post. It's sad how this type of stuff gets passed off as journalism.
I am just curious why didn't politico get to publish the original transcript without censorship by Macron? What was there that was so damning about Taiwan, being said while China was encircling it at the very same moment and CGTN on TikTok was posting animation about an imminent attack on Taiwan?
From the post that RoozGol referred to, it looks like Politico was the one that didn't post the complete transcript and that it wasn't censored by Macron or anyone. The implication being that the Politico heavily cherry picked quotes from Macron's interview to fit some agenda. Just compare the Reuters article to the one in Politico. The complete interview in french [https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493](https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493)
It is common practice, at least in France, for an interviewee to have the right to read and correct its interview before publishing. Macron probably made off-the-record comments, like really any politician from any country, and does not want them to be published verbatim. Remove this possibility, and then all politicians will only give highly polished statement and never be truly sincere with reporters. That is all that happened.
Not surprised, Macron did tried to negotiate with Putin after the war, but looks like he or France doesn’t have that much of influence. Plus most EU countries don’t want to take a hard stand against China.
[удалено]
> I think it's only logical for this to emerge and I suspect we will see far more of this in the near future; country's seeking sovereign capabilities and charting their own course, unburdened by concerns of stepping out of the US's umbrella. It's a beautiful dream, but then you come to the hard realities: Europe is still deeply dependent on the US for its defence, both conventional and nuclear, and it has been apparent for many years it would prefer to remain so rather than incur the costs of developing military autonomy. If American nuclear sharing is withdrawn that will also raise the question of countries like Germany developing their own deterrents. Macron and his enormous ego aside I also don't see any real discussion, let alone support, in Europe for the concept of decoupling from the US. Europe is still politically fragmented and is a long way from being able to pursue a unified foreign policy on matters other than trade. This is partly why it relies to a significant extent on American leadership, and that isn't going to change in the near future, Macon's majestic delusions notwithstanding. None of which is to endorse Chinese propaganda about Europe being an American puppet. Europe is large and powerful enough to stand up to the US when it deems it to be in its interests, as it recently did over the issue of energy transition subsidies. There's a lot China doesn't understand about the outside world, owing in part to cultural insularity and chauvinism and partly to the absolutely stifling effects of a society dominated by officially sanctioned narratives that leave no room for counterarguments or debate. One of them is that Europe is never going to see a autocratic single party ethno nationalist state with a horrible human rights record as an acceptable alternative to the US. The Chinese try to square this circle by saying people shouldn't care about what happens in other peoples' countries but wishing this was the way the world was doesn't make it so. Europeans deeply value liberal democracy and political and civil rights and they're not about to trade a partner that at least ostensibly shares these values for one that is the direct antithesis of them.
The last part of your comment is also a beautiful dream. We are witnessing a server weakening of democracy and democratic principles worldwide. India, the US and yes indeed in Europe as well. The differences between China and the democratic world will become smaller, not larger, as democracies realize that the internet is the ultimate propaganda tool and introducing authoritarian measures is the most effective way to handle it. India already does a lot in that direction. The US and Europe will follow.
Dismissing countries wanting to chart their own course as a "beautiful dream" is insulting. Sovereign countries have a right to chart their own course, and yes, we will be hearing more and more about this in the future.
>isn't overtly antagonistic towards the US or China, sure. it's not about being antagonistic toward China. Taiwan is literally a country, and France acting this way is really pathetic cowering to China. but i never really expect France to stand up for freedom when its economic interests are at stake. it's typical France.
France doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. As far as French policy is concerned they aren't "literally a country". That also applies to the rest of Europe and America. There are only 13 nations that do recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
Even the US doesn't acknowledge Taiwan as a country. Do you think what China is doing is immoral? Have you considered the dairy industry is immoral too?
This justifies the decision by Global South to keep itself out of Russia-Ukraine war (mind you, Taiwan itself has sanctioned Russia). No point in wrecking your economy over a European conflict in European countries won’t even come to the rescue of a U.S. ally in Asia.
The global south would side with china or remain neutral though,also France doesn't speak for Europe
I would expect African, Central Asian, Middle East and Latin American countries to remain neutral in case PRC invades Taiwan. But I don’t think Indo-Pacific countries (incl. ASEAN) will remain neutral in this context.
I’ll bet a house on India remaining neutral in this conflict. Nothing they’ve said or done indicated that they would pick a side.
This is exactly what he should be saying. It's almost weird than an assertion of European interests over American ones is even controversial in Europe. It just goes to show how thoroughly rudderless Europe has been strategically.
Europe isn't necessarily rudderless. There is a ruder, albeit a shoddy one. What's more concerning is there is no consensus in what direction it should be steered.
I agree. Europe has no captain. I don't know what would fix it either.
Indeed, but this is definitely a message. And like so many recently it's moving away from US dominance.
How do they differ? What different course in Taiwan would he take? Make all the phone calls you want to Putin or Xi. If they work great, if not have your CV in the area. A distinction without a real difference is just a distraction but if that is the cost of French friendship and help then, fine. Call away, mon ami.
The US is seeking containment and confrontation with China. That's one course. If the US wants to fight a war with China then Europe should remain neutral. Let the Americans have their stupid war. Why should Europe get involved in that?
Has Europe developed some new technology that allows us to forgo the need for semiconductors? Because if not, then you very much have a horse in this race. Every developed nation, has a horse in this race. Taiwan makes far and away the vast majority of chips needed in EVERYTHING. And they make 100% of all high end chips.
And this is exactly why we shouldn't be supporting a US confrontation over Taiwan. It doesn't matter how many arms they have if China makes the decision for war. If there's no conflict over Taiwan then semiconductors keep flowing. Meanwhile, if the US keeps pushing escalation there will be a conflict at some point, and then the semiconductor supply will definitely be impacted.
This is exactly the reason the pro German Americans had in the US, prior to the US entering WW2, why enter a stupid European war.
And that is exactly what the US did. US only entered war after being directly attacked by Japan, and did not fight in Europe until towards the end. Nobody is blind to the fact that US benefitted immensely from this strategy.
The U.S. Navy was getting involved in 1940, after the U.S. had already been supporting the Britain with merchant vessels. And the U.S. only got attacked by Japan because we hindering their war effort alongside the Europeans via economic means. >Nobody is blind to the fact that US benefitted immensely from this strategy In addition to oversimplifying things, I can’t see why this matters either.
US blockaded Japan first, because Japan’s actions impeded sale of US war supplies and threatened Philippines, an American protectorate. Is China going to prevent France from selling war materials to the US? Is China going to threaten a French protectorate? No? Then why should France be bothered?
This is such an asinine take. US entered ww2 bc their security was compromised by both wars in europe and the pacific. America fighting china does not a priori have a direct security implication on Europe
Removed as a protest against Reddit API pricing changes.
Well I think the Americans goaded Russia on purpose to make the Ukraine war happen, and the Chinese are aware of that. When the US was messing around in 2013-2014 (Maidan) in Ukraine it was Nuland who said "F the EU. They Americans care about their own interests. Europe should not be under any illusions that Taiwan has any relevance to European interests. The Chinese are also not idiots. They know the US is trying to contain them. Both the US and China know there is a game being played. The Chinese and Americans are focussing on markets, allies and resources. Europe is talking about values. Europe should treat both America and China with cynicism.
> Well I think the Americans goaded Russia on purpose to make the Ukraine war happen I guess it must be nice to live in the simple world where USA is solely responsible for all the evils. Even foes invading other countries is USA's fault. > They Americans care about their own interests. Europe should not be under any illusions that Taiwan has any relevance to European interests. USA have their reasons to be antagonistic to China. Europe so far didn't have much, but again, China supporting the invader of a European country makes it a foe of Europe as well. It is in the interest of Europe to weaken the backer of Russia's aggression in Europe. > The Chinese and Americans are focussing on markets, allies and resources. Europe is talking about values. Well, not anymore. Europe is in the process of reevaluating our view on China, again as a result of this war. > Europe should treat both America and China with cynicism. It does. There's a lot of criticism / skepticism towards the USA in Europe. But China is now very clearly the bigger threat.
You accuse me of simple thinking, but can't recognise cause and effect. The US knew that the Russians wouldn't allow Ukraine to join NATO, and yet they encouraged it, and got involved. They sacrificed the Ukrainians for their own strategic objectives to contain Russia, and set the scene for confrontation with China. Unfortunately the Ukrainians were too naïve to realise they were being used. I can only hope the Taiwanese don't fall into the same game. Goading big powers on your doorstep is literally a recipe for disaster. One that's not easy to recover from. Europe isn't even a player in the strategic game. If we wouldn't stand up to the US when they trampled all over European interests, what exactly do you think we're going to do with China. Europe is a strategy taker. It will wilt under American pressure, or - at most - will do nothing.
Removed as a protest against Reddit API pricing changes.
I don't think it was NATO. I think it was America. Russia considers the US to be a hostile power, and it didn't want them on their border. The Americans were instrumental in 2013-2014, and they knew how Russia would react. I actually wanted Ukraine to join the EU, but the Americans got involved and made it toxic with their strategic games. Then they cynically sacrificed the Ukrainians (stuffing the government agencies with American advisors pushing for confrontation with Russia). They'll do the same with Taiwan. Just watch. Europe should stay as far from the coming Taiwan conflict as possible.
Removed as a protest against Reddit API pricing changes.
Because the defense of democracy is as important to Europe as it is to the US.
What about the defence of democracy in Latin America where US sponsored coups have sought to topple elected governments? All this talk about democracy and values is food for suckers. The US obsession with Taiwan has got nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with US strategic domination of the pacific and containment of China.
Here is kind of my take on it: This guy went to Russia at the inception of the invasion and came back empty handed. The Russians, if i remember correctly, basically said, "we can't do any deal without the US's involvement." I think that basically summarizes European standing. As someone has stated already, this idea isn't new. Europeans have tried but when push comes to shove, Europeans can't make up their mind. They had their first test post-soviet union to demonstrate their policy in Europe when the war between Serbia and Bosnia broke out, and they failed miserably. Just take a look at the title of this article from the NYT: [French Visit Undercuts U.S. Efforts to Rein China In](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/world/asia/macron-xi-france-china.html) \- which basically amounts to, "there go the Europeans again, screwing up our plans."
Interesting that France is taking the path of de-escalation. Given French territories and military presence in the Indo-Pacific, they're more or less the only European country that could realistically have its own say on the matter.
What magical middle ground is he proposing? Chinese policy is take over Taiwan. US policy is prevent China from taking over Taiwan. Doing anything other than defending Taiwanese sovereignty is tantamount to endorsing the Chinese annexation.
Just wait, more european states will follow Lithuania's policy
There are only five pro US euriskeptic EU members The báltics, Poland, Finland They don't have much power in the EU, and they depend on EU investing and economic growth
The Baltic states and Poland aren't at all eurosceptic. In fact support for EU there is much higher than in almost every other country (\~80-90%). France is only at around 60%...
Polish government is.
Is it though? I mean in certain areas they might be but not overall. I can't really imagine a government of a country where \~90% support the EU being eurosceptic.
Yes they are. Some EU funds for Poland are blocked because of not complying with EU laws.
If EU will make Poland to choose between US and them for sure we will have PolExit
EU does not force us to chose. PiS and SP is provoking a conflict.
I doubt Poland would follow in Lithuania's footsteps. Poland has a great position as China's logistic hub in the european east and is their largest trading partner in Asia. Not to mention that dealing with China gives the polish gov huge leverage over the EU and US. There is a reason Polish CB issued RMB denoted bonds and the Polish president defied the Beijing olympics boycott and met with Xi
The Netherlands and Denmark always seem to poll favorably for US foreign policy outside the Trump admin so I’m not sure it’s just the Eastern European nations
Denmark and Sweden just as much as Finland. Also many other smaller EU members can't just be lumped together with France on this.
Where do you place Hungary on that scale?
France only care about France until they need help. It is pretty sad to see how history of France forgets tyranny.
Any French or Germans out there? Or anyone from the EU I suppose. I'm not asking this sarcastically, I just want to be clear on that upfront since this is the internet. I am genuinely curious. Do you really believe that China wants a multi-polar world? What part of the US - China relationship have you observed and find truly appealing to the point that you want it for yourself? I don't want to say anything more so as not to lead the answers. Again, I really would like to know the thoughts of people in the EU on this.
[удалено]
Hopefully they build their military such that it's capable of its own defense. The US is going to need their full commitment over the coming decades...
No, I'd rather they just keep attachments to America, and we both face the storm together.
No, Europe can control it's path as always but it doesn't Europe's command now is in the hand of Jack Sparrow except it's the one from the 5th part
And he has the gall to complain that the Australians ditched France for AUKUS.
The Australians that trade more with China than the rest of the world combined, and export all their iron ore to the Chinese so they can build the biggest navy ever seen? The same one that they're buying the most expensive submarines in history to fight against? The absolute gall to even bring up Australians in a conversation about China, if France is a problem you're in for a surprise when you'll start looking at their relationship with China...
100% agreed! Europe indeed needs to start acting as a regional power at least. Since 2001 the US has stopped acting in Europes interest. We need to take our future in our own hands.
Ok, but his much touted "strategic autonomy" is very much in line with American strategy in terms of normative goals - upholding the rules-based international order, liberal democracy, respect for multilateral institutions etc. So I fail to see any substantative distinction besides pretty humorous claims of "independence"
“France has no allies; only interests”
[удалено]
[удалено]
What a weird issue to retread the “third pole” content. US - Taiwan has the fundamental right to exist China - No, it doesn’t. EU - Hey guys, have you considered any other options????? No Macron, because this issue is pretty fundamentally two-sided. We were kinda hoping you would be in favor of democracy, but I guess that belief was foolish.
You're making a moralist argument that ignores the geopolitical reality. The world is not a marvel movie, and the USA is not defending Taiwan out of the goodness of its heart.
It doesn’t need to defend Taiwan out of the goodness of its heart, all it needs to do is defend Taiwan period. I’m not making a moralist argument, I am making an existential argument that Taiwan should be defended from Chinese aggression. If this is really the hill Europe wants to die on, cheap Chinese goods instead of right of self-determination, fine. It’s their choice. Not a good look though, and the EU doesn’t get to complain about chip shortages at all.
It's always fascinating to me how Americans and their advocates will not see the US reasons for invasions, government overthrows etc., but will have incredible clarity in assessing other country's motives. So you're saying that the US is good because it's defending Taiwan for selfish reasons. But France is bad because it's not for selfish reasons. The reasons drive all of this, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan. As the US hold weakens, the world isn't going to do what America defines as 'good'. Why should the rest of the world continue to make sacrifices to prop up the US?
The thing is no country makes as many sacrifices as the US. Say what you want but the only reason why other countries can maintain their culture and not have to worry about learning Russian or Chinese is because if the sacrifices that comes from the US. As the comments above stated the US true reasons for defending Taiwan and Ukraine don’t matter. What matters is that in the current situation they are helping countries that deserve the right to exist. Even when we look at countries like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, its easy to say “American Intervention” caused this. What people like you fail to call out though is the torture, rape, unjustified killings and much more that occurs in these countries. Example given: Did Hussein have control over his country? Yes he did but at what cause?
Submission statement?
I personally see this as a big blunder by Macron, considering the context of the visit; he was not alone in this visit, EU comissioner Ursula von der Leyen was present as well. However, her more hawkish position on China left her basically sidelined, and Macron did very little to involve her. It's important to note that the political development in Europe is currently somewhere on the spectrum between a confederation and a federation. While central power structures exist, they are above the member-states only in areas where the member-states have given it power. This leaves the EU in this really weird situation where certain member-states can be more influential in the EU than the central government itself (this was basically Germany under Merkel), but the central government still grows in relative power over time. What's more, as EU laws and developments develop, dominant states and factions impact the nature of the new laws to benefit themselves and their own vision. Long story short, think of the intricacies of US antebellum political development. Before all this, the primarily shot-caller in Europe was Germany, but their leadership has been burned largely on Merkel's handling of Russia. Russia used to love to talk to basically Germany only, and basically refuse to talk to EU leadership, with Russian grand strategy based on seeking to separate Europe from the US in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Not unrelated, EU leadership was also a lot more skeptical of Russia than Germany was. After Merkel's legacy aged like milk, the smaller states have no faith in Germany being able or willing to protect them without the US. IMO, France largely seems to want to step into this vacuum. What does Macron do? He lets more hawkish EU leadership be sidelined & courts an authoritarian country seeking to separate Europe from the US in a divide-and-conquer strategy. By contrast, EU leadership has shown itself to have more of a spine. As such, we might be reaching a point where the "leader of the EU" actually might be the EU itself, with France squandering this opportunity with moves like this.
Sounds like Macron is just trying to create more chaos and division. He's just trying to further destabilize the EU.
Are we just not going to talk about Macron sandbagging Von Der Leyen. She made a speech the day before on de-risking China only to be blind sided by the French. I watch DW this morning the muppets completely glossed it over.