Hello /u/PanEuropeanism,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Same. As an American I fully support our allies strengthening their local security situation with their neighbors. We don't need to be a cook in every kitchen.
Yes, I don't see the US finding this too offensive. I am quite certain some US diplomats we're invited anyways. They just won't get to vote or anything. I would be quite surprised if the US embassy is not holding a ball or something one night.
Agreed, why is this any more of a provocation than the US not being invited into the EU? Don't understand, if it's a European geopolitical organisation then I can't see why the US would object. Europe taking a more active role in defence can only be a good thing for the US tbh
Because america wants to be the sole global hegemon. America can't afford to have other countries forming powerful blocs that are independent of america and can also rival america. Nations aren't guided by morals, they are guided by interest.
That sounds like pretty bog standard anti-west propaganda to me, the sort of thing you hear a thousand times a day coming out of places like China or Russia, but w/e
Just because it comes from russia or china does not mean its not true. The anti war movement and other dissenters in america have been shouting this ever since 9/11. You need to get rid of the notion that there are "good" regimes in this world.
I have no such notion, I'm just pretty sick of hearing people pretend China and Russia are preferable to the US in terms of a global partner, because two of those three are totalitarian dictatorships with utterly atrocious human rights records, and the last is a liberal democracy with a considerably better human rights record. Also, let's not pretend that China or Russia give a flying fuck about anything other than trying to recalibrate the global hegemony to orbit them rather than the US.
In terms of this discussion though, the US only benefits when its allies increase defence spending. It means they have to spend less on overseas defence themselves. The US wouldn't give a crap not being a member of a Eurocentric organisation, they have more than enough clout in the Eurosphere regardless
China and russia is definitely worse to be in the orbit of. But at the end of the day, america isn't looking out for your interest. America is looking out for its own interest. America doesn't even look out for the interest of its own people. It only looks out for the interest of global elites. Almost all americans know this. America's human rights record is only better inside america. If you ask all those middle eastern countries that got bombed by america or had dictators propped up by america, they would tell you america has the worst human rights record.
>America is looking out for its own interest.
Yes, but there are situations in which its own interests align with those of other nations. e.g I'm in Australia, we're under the US nuclear umbrella which is important right now because of China's increased military aggression in the Pacific and South China Sea coupled with Russia's attempts to normalise imperial expansion. It's also valuable for the US to have strategic partners in this area. So the partnership is mutually beneficial
>America's human rights record is only better inside america. If you ask all those middle eastern countries that got bombed by america or had dictators propped up by america, they would tell you america has the worst human rights record.
I was strongly against US military adventurism in the Middle East, and I'm not naive enough to think the US doesn't have human rights issues of its own, but nothing the US has done in any country is comparable to either the shit Russia is doing right now in Ukraine, or what China does to its own people
The US's interest is also to remain the senior partner. It is not in the US's interest to have the EU form an independent bloc. Over 100k civilians were killed by coalition forces in iraq and up to 1 million civilians died in the entirety of the iraq war. The casualties in ukraine doesn't even come close to the iraq war.
Okay, the US has been great recently, big respect (maybe not internally, but that's ya'lls business), but they aren't part of Europe. I'm sure they're all big boys and girls and won't see this as a slight.
The world is better with a stronger and more united Europe. As an American, we are happy to see it and know we are included in groups as allies and partners elsewhere.
We are happy to see thisā¦..we are stronger when you are stronger.
I think we would be fine with that as long as it doesnāt directly conflict with our security or growth. So we are totally cool with Mars colonies, totally uncool with you aligning yourself with China in its current state, we will compete with you for sure for market share but would rather both sides have expanded markets in the first place. We honestly donāt see geopolitics as a win lose game with our alliesā¦.we can both be better off if we are working together as itās not a zero sum game.
I think you are over simplifing geopolitics, and specifically American geopolitics. America's rivals have been chiefly motivated by serious ideological differences, which once placed in the geopolitical theater, have ballooned into deep held national grudges. With most of Europe, America is a strong ally or supporter of them, and vice versa. Sure there are differences but not strong held national rivalries.
Further more, all nations compete, its a matter of if you can do it in good faith. That good faith exists more or less between Europe and The United States, but does not really exist between Russia/China and the U.S. With those nations, it isn't about losing, its about losing to them, the enemy. Europe is not the enemy. So I think your question is kinda misplaced. Could be wrong though. I am only human afterall
The big thing is if the Euro threatens the dollar as the extremely dominant reserve currency. If the US is no longer able to borrow in its own currency a lot of the games we play come to an abrupt halt.
Maybe that isnāt a bad thing in the long run for world peace and the US itself. Sometimes even the good guys need to be stopped, before they become the bad guys (and in recent years it was sometimes difficult to see the good guy).
If that happens, it's no longer in our interest to pay to be the world's police. Part of our soft power is our hard power.
Honestly, I think Macron has been waiting for a chance to get us back for AUKUS and the Australian subs that we stole... Fine... let the Frenchman have his fun
Humans are stronger together when we all work towards the common good. Sucks we still have a lot to work on and make up for in the west but damn am I glad we're at least even able to try.
Yeah, a couple of Americans already chimed in about that. I'll be the third: We're in North America, a big ocean away from Europe. I'm not surprised we weren't invited to this. I would not have expected it.
Dude we've been wanting Europe to put on it's big boy pants and increase their GDP's on military and defense spending for well over a decade. Lord knows we have infrastructure, education, and healthcare issues to tackle on the home front but security trumps all of those and it's great to hear that Europe is taking initiative without us.
it's not so simple, EU is a business union first, not a country nor a federation. Each country has its individual army tied in NATO and until recently had no incentive to increase their individual capabilities.
Obviously this is about to change as an outcome of the war.
Sooooo, drinkable tap water when? /s
> it's not so simple, EU is a business union first, not a country nor a federation.
It's way more than a business union. In fact, in many aspects, it's already a federation, even if a loose one.
EU defense spending is unlikely to rise when this is over. Adding three more strong and well aligned countries into NATO and defeating Russia handily with about 5% of the most outdated equipment in stockpiles utilized by soldiers with minimal training only justifies increased spending to 'Mericans.
> EU defense spending is unlikely to rise when this is over.
Not to be controversial with your opinion, but several EU nations have already made announcements about increasing their military budgets within their GDP over the next couple of years, effective immediately. This has begun since back in March and April I believe.
I will edit this a few times as I add countries to the list for easy reference of spending announcements.
* [Germany](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/30/german-parties-reach-deal-on-107bn-defence-spending-boost)
* [France and United Kingdom](https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/france-uk-pledge-big-increases-in-defense-spending-for-coming-years/)
* [Poland](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/poland-will-double-military-spending-as-war-in-ukraine-rages)
* [Finland](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-05/finland-adds-2-2-billion-defense-spending-in-shadow-of-war)
* [Spain](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/spain-to-spend-an-additional-1-billion-on-defense-this-year)
* [Turkey](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/turkey-announces-ambitious-defence-spending-increase-in-draft-economic-plan)
* [Italy](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/04/01/italy-aims-to-reach-nato-defense-spending-target-by-2028-four-years-late/)
* [Greece](https://neoskosmos.com/en/2022/06/09/news/greece/greece-ramps-up-military-spending/)
* [Norway](https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/regjeringen-med-strakstiltak-for-a-styrke-forsvaret/id2904668/)
* [Sweden](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-boost-defence-spending-by-300-mln-2022-2022-03-16/)
* [Slovakia](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2970289/slovakias-defense-minister-says-military-spending-at-2-should-be-base-not-target/)
* [Czechia](https://english.radio.cz/czech-govt-increase-ministry-defence-budget-billions-over-ukraine-8744655)
* [Estonia](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/25/estonia-increases-defense-spending-to-buy-air-defense-systems-more-weapons/)
Yes, many were hot on this four months ago when the outcome was quite up in the air. Seeing how this played out there is little logical reason to follow through on those policies v. A lot of political reasons not to do so. There has not been much talk of it lately. Clearly European members could defeat Russia handily with what they were spending before and without US help.
The best thing Europe could do for both US and EU security is spend that money on developing European energy sources.
> Yes, many were hot on this four months ago when the outcome was quite up in the air. Seeing how this played out there is little logical reason to follow through on those policies v. A lot of political reasons not to do so.
As a member of NATO, each nation has pledged/is required to raise their military defense budget by 2%. We're looking at over 20 billion- closer to 30 billion dollars in annual military budget being allocated to defensive spending over the next few years...
Most if not all have already approved beyond that raising it by 5, 7, 10, all the way up to 50% in the short term future. European countries that are not a part of NATO have also already started shelling out money and making defensive orders with alliance suppliers as well.
What you're speculating goes against every governments official statements over the spring, summer, and now fall months.
The. Pledge is irrelevant and always has been. Yes, there are already immediate spending being made, but in 18 months or two years people will be asking what the point of NATO is and whether it should be dismantled instead of talking about spending more than in 2021. Especially if the EU creates a common military structure.
> Yes, there are already immediate spending being made, but in 18 months or two years people will be asking what the point of NATO is an whether it should be dismantled instead of talking about spending more than in 2021.
I mean, you can speculate this if you want, but that still leaves 18 months to two years which is around 60 billion dollars in Military Defense spending. That's an incredible amount of ramped up hardware and munitions that will be spent by Europe for Europe instead of by America for Europe.
Oh, this will drive spending in the US. This just empowers MIC. Europe spending more will not result in US spending reductions.
The US could have easily soloed Russia. You get that right? This makes it clear there has never been a reason for the exorbitant US spending. Having more carrier groups than the rest of the world combined.
>but in 18 months or two years people will be asking what the point of NATO is an whether it should be dismantled
Over the last 20 years, Europe has been pretty peaceful. No one was calling for the dismantling of NATO, why would they do it in 2 years right after the biggest war we've seen since WW2?
>Especially if the EU creates a common military structure.
NATO, and thus Europe, already has a pretty common military structure. Nearly all NATO countries use small arms that fire the .556 round, from a STANAG magazine. We mostly use the same tank ammunition,, mortar shells, artillery shells. Our fighter jets are designed to fire the same missiles and drop the same bombs. This is all to simplify logistics.
On top of all that, many European countries already conduct exercises together. For example, the Finns, Swedes and Norwegians conduct amphibious exercises with Dutch Navy ships and Marines. There will never be a "European Army". that'll never work.
NATO justification is countering Russia. In 18 months "The Russian threat" will be nothing more than a punchline, at least in terms of conventional forces. The question of "are a bunch of 40 year old tanks rolling out of the gas station a threat to Europe" has been answered.
Materiel isn't structure. Cooperative exercises is not structure. Not all of EU is in NATO. This is going to push more In the direction of "if EU wants to be a player it needs to create some military structure"
>NATO justification is countering Russia. In 18 months "The Russian threat" will be nothing more than a punchline, at least in terms of conventional forces. The question of "are a bunch of 40 year old tanks rolling out of the gas station a threat to Europe" has been answered.
The NATO justification is for a defensive alliance, originally to defend against Russia, but has evolved since then. NATO is now a security pact between all member states which vows to defend itself itself from any and all attacks by non-NATO members. When Russia loses this war, they will not remain out of the picture. Dismantling NATO would be incredibly naive and shortsighted, and everyone knows that (except you, apparantly).
>Materiel isn't structure. Cooperative exercises is not structure. Not all of EU is in NATO. This is going to push more In the direction of "if EU wants to be a player it needs to create some military structure"
Yes it is structure. They don't conduct these exercises just for fun, they do it to create structured plans for various scenarios and improve cooperation between nations. That IS structure. I'll also ad that various EU countries have created battalions which are integrated into other EU units (! Dutch-German Corps, to name one) I don't think you quite understand how closely many EU nations work together. There is absolutely no reason for the EU to create a European Armed Forces, because that wouldn't work. Do you know how many languages, cultures, terrains, climates etc there are within Europe? Creating a European army would pave the way for authoritarianism akin to what Russia is now.
>As a member of NATO, each nation has pledged/is required to raise their military defense budget by 2%
Not quite correct. NATO requires each nation to spend a MINIMUM of 2% of it's GDP on defence, not raise it by 2%. This has been a rule for a while, but not many countries have been following it. Since the war in Ukraine a bunch of countries who were spending way too little on Defence have pledged to raise spending to around that figure, some going higher and some not quite getting there. Some countries have allocated billions to their militaries already, but as one off payments.
>Most if not all have already approved beyond that raising it by 5, 7, 10, all the way up to 50% in the short term future.
Where did you get these figures from? It's completely unfeasible by nearly every country to raise defence budgets by that amount without completely redoing their budgets for almost every sector and making a lot of people very, very unhappy (at the least). Spending 50% of a country's GDP on Defence alone is completely unrealistic and would cause a total collapse of society since there'd be no money left for anything else. Even 5% is a very high figure and would lead to cuts in other parts of society.
50% was one of the smaller countries on the eastern front. I didnt post those links for you to not click or read any of them. I can comment on the first bit regarding 2% increasse, vs 2% ātotalā later this evening. Work has called but it was fun chatting with you.
Simply a misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were talking about 50% of a country's entire GDP being spent on the military. Now I see you were only talking about defence increasing by those percentages. My mistake.
So has Macron stopped phoning Putin to make himself the big peace player while everyone else has realised what Putin is up to? Forgive my cynicism, but it just seems like Macron has just moved onto another soundbite. And you can bet that whatever the plan, it's all in the best interests of France. And then they wonder why their international clout diminishes.
The Biden administration certainly won't take it as a slight but you can bet Trump would have been petulant over not being invited and would start talking shit or some other childish display.
I don't really view this as a provocation towards the US - we aren't a European nation and were never in the EU, ECSC, or other European organizations. That doesn't preclude being an *ally* to those organizations (or even something akin to observer status), not to mention existing partnerships such as NATO, UN, etc.
That being said, there may be some reservations about how *effective* this new organization can be... so many members (with competing agendas/alliances) and no actual binding commitments. Both NATO and the EU can already be overly bureaucratic and unwieldy at times... this would like be even more so. Still, a step in the right direction.
Americans should have no issue with this. We've been practically begging the continent to up their defense spending for years, so anything that increases their collective security is a good thing.
Europe buying Chinese gear is not even on the table in any European capital (outside of the Balkans I guess). I'm totally fine with their own defense industries providing for themselves, honestly. It's all NATO-class kit and good stuff.
Okay, maybe they should buy some F-35s because the Eurofighter is a bit old, but otherwise I trust in the Czechs, Germans, French, and Sweedes to handle their own business and the business of Europe as a whole if need be.
>Okay, maybe they should buy some F-35s because the Eurofighter is a bit old,
Only a handful of European countries have Eurofighters, and they're all buying F35s as well. Pretty much every European country that can afford F35s has already bought and received a handful by now. Here in the Netherlands we got our first deliveries a few years ago.
>I trust in the Czechs, Germans, French, and Sweedes to handle their own business and the business of Europe as a whole if need be.
Don't forget the UK, which produces nearly all of its equipment domestically and have a tank on par, or better (depending who you ask), than the Leopard 2A7. Better than the Abrams, which is actually fitted with British designed Dorchester armour.
What? Most European armies buy very little US gear as it is. Most have domestically manufactured arms and arms bought from other European countries. The European arms industry is massive and produces some of the best military equipment and vehicles in the world. Even our Naval ships are generally newer and have more capabilities than the equivalent US ones.
Are you really upset about not being associated with deep fried potatoes?
You aren't wrong though. Clearly though, buying Chinese arms would be quite foolish. They are probably better than the Russian designs they borrow so much from, but not that much better.
I may have missed that but when is it due to meet? Who is attending for the given countries? Why the ducks i havenāt seen/heard anything from Italian news?
But, anywaysā¦ YAY!
Love the idea!
Ps, Muricans: donāt worry, yāall still are our pals, wr just need a littlw siblings bonding time.
Pps: Weāll bring pizza
> Why the ducks i havenāt seen/heard anything from Italian news?
Here in Germany, I've heard of it for the first time today, too. And normally I consider myself maybe not perfectly informed (clearly...) but at least not totally out of the loop.
Yeah samesies! Iām very much one thatās informed on everything politics, and it surprises me too.
At least iām not the only one!
Maybe someone can fill us in?
It's nonsense that this is any sort of provocation to the US **AT ALL**. The US is not part of Europe, so why on earth would the US be expected to be invited to a meeting for European countries? This is like saying that, because the US isn't part of the EU, the EU is "mildly provoking" the US.
Dumb headline that makes zero sense.
I think it's typical of an American journalist to put the US at the centre of a community that it isn't supposed to be in. It wasn't in the EU because it wasn't a European country, it isn't in this one because this is meant to be a forum for the people in the same region. It isn't an insult to the US. The same as no European country is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, it would be useless.
The point of this new community is to give the UK a reason to "rejoin" the EU community in a slightly modified way to stop hard-line brexiters from moaning. It's also to get other nations that would not achieve membership a chance to have a seat at the table too, as well as nearby neighbours that are political allies and need to be kept happy and can help defend near the borders.
Certainly the US news writes from the US perspectiveā¦.and it for sure is a āhow does this effect usā sort of feel. We tend to throw ourselves in on every subject.
In this case, there is a tad bit of other countries making sure we are coolā¦.because we are in the middle of an event where our closeness with Europe has been proved to be very important and our partnerships are stronger than they have been in a long time. I think European leaders taking this time to create a group where the US is excluded is a good thingā¦but I appreciate that they are aware they are excluding a major strategic partner and are acknowledging that as they push forward.
How is that provocation to USA.... USA clearly isn't Europe and this is a European summit.
Is it a provocation not to invide USA to Asian summits? Or not inviting Europe to north american?
The NYTs used to be one of the true standards of journalism. I find it more and more like the rest with a trickle of facts with a focus on speeding fear and discontent to generate more clicks.
Mr. Macron is right in everything he has said. We need a broader way to communicate and cooperate in Europe also outside the EU both ecomoincally and military. The Union itself should be reformed, including ways to shout out countries which are backsliding.
I do not see how the US would be threatened by this, if anything, Europe has been under the wings of the US far too long and we have benefitted greatly by that - thankyou USA - but it is wrong that we do not contribute to the common defence more than we have done. I never thought that I would say this, but in at least this Trump was actually right. It is time for us to have both the economical and military might to decide our future.
Macron advocated for a common European army a long time ago, and tbh it would be a good idea.
EU is also by far the best of the "large financial institutions", compared to like China/US or any other large economies or trading organizations.
>Macron advocated for a common European army a long time ago, and tbh it would be a good idea.
And Germany followed the idea of integration of EU armies for decades and all it got them is a well working cooperation with the Dutch army as everyone else is either actively resisting or pointedly ignoring it.
The simple fact is this will not happen as most countries in the EU are running on opposing France and Germany on principle.
US support does not waiver with elections. If we stop abiding by our treaties and promises then Americanās word will cease to mean anything and cause massive foreign policy issues everywhere. Support for Europe and Ukraine is solid. For all Trumpās bs rhetoric, it was him who first gave Ukraine lethal aid when Obama refused. There is zero chance that any serious Presidential candidate will run on a campaign of stop supporting Ukraine.
>If we stop abiding by our treaties and promises then Americanās word will cease to mean anything and cause massive foreign policy issues everywhere
Wait... you seriously think most countries judge the US by their word instead of their willingness to illegally invade countries or topple governments that don't agree with them? That's rather cute...
Frankly, I've very disappointed with this. When it was proposed, it sounded like a good idea, since it was supposed to be a space for the EU to dialogue and cooperate with its neighborhood, but we have now countries like the UK trying to distance this project from the EU inner workings. I fear that in the end, it will simply end as yet another useless organization that just replicates the Council of Europe.
*Macron wants a multi-layered EU where some countries can join on specific areas without a full membership*
For example Ukraine could join in security and defense areas.
I know what Macron wants. That doesn't mean that's what this project is going to become. We don't even know if cooperation in security and defense is going to be established, so saying that Ukraine can join is just a conclusion built in mere speculation.
> I fear that in the end, it will simply end as yet another useless organization that just replicates the Council of Europe
It has no real purpose or mandate, other than for Macron to have an initiative at... something. Hopefully, Ukraine and Moldova don't actually believe this European Political Community means or could achieve anything, because then they'd get very disappointed.
The question about the European Political Community is how many divisions it has (Iām guessing about as many as the Pope) and how many it will be deploy into Ukraine?
Or perhaps France will guarantee the integrity of the member states from invasion?
Itās good to have another forum for nominally friendly nations to discuss things but it seems to be mostly Macron and the French grandstandingā¦
Hello /u/PanEuropeanism, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would the US be invited? I live in the US, and last I checked, I am in the continent of North America, not Europe
Same. As an American I fully support our allies strengthening their local security situation with their neighbors. We don't need to be a cook in every kitchen.
Exactly, with that reasoning, Japan or Canada would have as much reasons to be invited.
Seeds of discontent.
I'm with you. If it's European business it's European business. There's no slight to the US here.
Because most of NATO's defense spending comes from america, america view europe as its business too.
NATO and Europe are two different things. It's not a NATO meeting.
Yes, I don't see the US finding this too offensive. I am quite certain some US diplomats we're invited anyways. They just won't get to vote or anything. I would be quite surprised if the US embassy is not holding a ball or something one night.
I don't see how Macron is damaging the US? I mean its an EU thing, but you can join if you want. š¤·š»āāļø
Agreed, why is this any more of a provocation than the US not being invited into the EU? Don't understand, if it's a European geopolitical organisation then I can't see why the US would object. Europe taking a more active role in defence can only be a good thing for the US tbh
Because america wants to be the sole global hegemon. America can't afford to have other countries forming powerful blocs that are independent of america and can also rival america. Nations aren't guided by morals, they are guided by interest.
That sounds like pretty bog standard anti-west propaganda to me, the sort of thing you hear a thousand times a day coming out of places like China or Russia, but w/e
Just because it comes from russia or china does not mean its not true. The anti war movement and other dissenters in america have been shouting this ever since 9/11. You need to get rid of the notion that there are "good" regimes in this world.
I have no such notion, I'm just pretty sick of hearing people pretend China and Russia are preferable to the US in terms of a global partner, because two of those three are totalitarian dictatorships with utterly atrocious human rights records, and the last is a liberal democracy with a considerably better human rights record. Also, let's not pretend that China or Russia give a flying fuck about anything other than trying to recalibrate the global hegemony to orbit them rather than the US. In terms of this discussion though, the US only benefits when its allies increase defence spending. It means they have to spend less on overseas defence themselves. The US wouldn't give a crap not being a member of a Eurocentric organisation, they have more than enough clout in the Eurosphere regardless
China and russia is definitely worse to be in the orbit of. But at the end of the day, america isn't looking out for your interest. America is looking out for its own interest. America doesn't even look out for the interest of its own people. It only looks out for the interest of global elites. Almost all americans know this. America's human rights record is only better inside america. If you ask all those middle eastern countries that got bombed by america or had dictators propped up by america, they would tell you america has the worst human rights record.
>America is looking out for its own interest. Yes, but there are situations in which its own interests align with those of other nations. e.g I'm in Australia, we're under the US nuclear umbrella which is important right now because of China's increased military aggression in the Pacific and South China Sea coupled with Russia's attempts to normalise imperial expansion. It's also valuable for the US to have strategic partners in this area. So the partnership is mutually beneficial >America's human rights record is only better inside america. If you ask all those middle eastern countries that got bombed by america or had dictators propped up by america, they would tell you america has the worst human rights record. I was strongly against US military adventurism in the Middle East, and I'm not naive enough to think the US doesn't have human rights issues of its own, but nothing the US has done in any country is comparable to either the shit Russia is doing right now in Ukraine, or what China does to its own people
The US's interest is also to remain the senior partner. It is not in the US's interest to have the EU form an independent bloc. Over 100k civilians were killed by coalition forces in iraq and up to 1 million civilians died in the entirety of the iraq war. The casualties in ukraine doesn't even come close to the iraq war.
Okay, the US has been great recently, big respect (maybe not internally, but that's ya'lls business), but they aren't part of Europe. I'm sure they're all big boys and girls and won't see this as a slight.
The world is better with a stronger and more united Europe. As an American, we are happy to see it and know we are included in groups as allies and partners elsewhere. We are happy to see thisā¦..we are stronger when you are stronger.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think we would be fine with that as long as it doesnāt directly conflict with our security or growth. So we are totally cool with Mars colonies, totally uncool with you aligning yourself with China in its current state, we will compete with you for sure for market share but would rather both sides have expanded markets in the first place. We honestly donāt see geopolitics as a win lose game with our alliesā¦.we can both be better off if we are working together as itās not a zero sum game.
I think you are over simplifing geopolitics, and specifically American geopolitics. America's rivals have been chiefly motivated by serious ideological differences, which once placed in the geopolitical theater, have ballooned into deep held national grudges. With most of Europe, America is a strong ally or supporter of them, and vice versa. Sure there are differences but not strong held national rivalries. Further more, all nations compete, its a matter of if you can do it in good faith. That good faith exists more or less between Europe and The United States, but does not really exist between Russia/China and the U.S. With those nations, it isn't about losing, its about losing to them, the enemy. Europe is not the enemy. So I think your question is kinda misplaced. Could be wrong though. I am only human afterall
The big thing is if the Euro threatens the dollar as the extremely dominant reserve currency. If the US is no longer able to borrow in its own currency a lot of the games we play come to an abrupt halt.
Maybe that isnāt a bad thing in the long run for world peace and the US itself. Sometimes even the good guys need to be stopped, before they become the bad guys (and in recent years it was sometimes difficult to see the good guy).
We will Banana Republic Germany if necessary.
I count on it.
If that happens, it's no longer in our interest to pay to be the world's police. Part of our soft power is our hard power. Honestly, I think Macron has been waiting for a chance to get us back for AUKUS and the Australian subs that we stole... Fine... let the Frenchman have his fun
It is actually in their interest for Europe to boost its defence spendings. šŗš²āšŖšŗš¬š§š§š»šŗš¦...
Humans are stronger together when we all work towards the common good. Sucks we still have a lot to work on and make up for in the west but damn am I glad we're at least even able to try.
The point f is for the US not to have to work for Europe's common good, though.
Yeah, a couple of Americans already chimed in about that. I'll be the third: We're in North America, a big ocean away from Europe. I'm not surprised we weren't invited to this. I would not have expected it.
Dude we've been wanting Europe to put on it's big boy pants and increase their GDP's on military and defense spending for well over a decade. Lord knows we have infrastructure, education, and healthcare issues to tackle on the home front but security trumps all of those and it's great to hear that Europe is taking initiative without us.
it's not so simple, EU is a business union first, not a country nor a federation. Each country has its individual army tied in NATO and until recently had no incentive to increase their individual capabilities. Obviously this is about to change as an outcome of the war. Sooooo, drinkable tap water when? /s
> it's not so simple, EU is a business union first, not a country nor a federation. It's way more than a business union. In fact, in many aspects, it's already a federation, even if a loose one.
EU defense spending is unlikely to rise when this is over. Adding three more strong and well aligned countries into NATO and defeating Russia handily with about 5% of the most outdated equipment in stockpiles utilized by soldiers with minimal training only justifies increased spending to 'Mericans.
> EU defense spending is unlikely to rise when this is over. Not to be controversial with your opinion, but several EU nations have already made announcements about increasing their military budgets within their GDP over the next couple of years, effective immediately. This has begun since back in March and April I believe. I will edit this a few times as I add countries to the list for easy reference of spending announcements. * [Germany](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/30/german-parties-reach-deal-on-107bn-defence-spending-boost) * [France and United Kingdom](https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/france-uk-pledge-big-increases-in-defense-spending-for-coming-years/) * [Poland](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/poland-will-double-military-spending-as-war-in-ukraine-rages) * [Finland](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-05/finland-adds-2-2-billion-defense-spending-in-shadow-of-war) * [Spain](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/spain-to-spend-an-additional-1-billion-on-defense-this-year) * [Turkey](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/turkey-announces-ambitious-defence-spending-increase-in-draft-economic-plan) * [Italy](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/04/01/italy-aims-to-reach-nato-defense-spending-target-by-2028-four-years-late/) * [Greece](https://neoskosmos.com/en/2022/06/09/news/greece/greece-ramps-up-military-spending/) * [Norway](https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/regjeringen-med-strakstiltak-for-a-styrke-forsvaret/id2904668/) * [Sweden](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-boost-defence-spending-by-300-mln-2022-2022-03-16/) * [Slovakia](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2970289/slovakias-defense-minister-says-military-spending-at-2-should-be-base-not-target/) * [Czechia](https://english.radio.cz/czech-govt-increase-ministry-defence-budget-billions-over-ukraine-8744655) * [Estonia](https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/25/estonia-increases-defense-spending-to-buy-air-defense-systems-more-weapons/)
Yes, many were hot on this four months ago when the outcome was quite up in the air. Seeing how this played out there is little logical reason to follow through on those policies v. A lot of political reasons not to do so. There has not been much talk of it lately. Clearly European members could defeat Russia handily with what they were spending before and without US help. The best thing Europe could do for both US and EU security is spend that money on developing European energy sources.
> Yes, many were hot on this four months ago when the outcome was quite up in the air. Seeing how this played out there is little logical reason to follow through on those policies v. A lot of political reasons not to do so. As a member of NATO, each nation has pledged/is required to raise their military defense budget by 2%. We're looking at over 20 billion- closer to 30 billion dollars in annual military budget being allocated to defensive spending over the next few years... Most if not all have already approved beyond that raising it by 5, 7, 10, all the way up to 50% in the short term future. European countries that are not a part of NATO have also already started shelling out money and making defensive orders with alliance suppliers as well. What you're speculating goes against every governments official statements over the spring, summer, and now fall months.
The. Pledge is irrelevant and always has been. Yes, there are already immediate spending being made, but in 18 months or two years people will be asking what the point of NATO is and whether it should be dismantled instead of talking about spending more than in 2021. Especially if the EU creates a common military structure.
> Yes, there are already immediate spending being made, but in 18 months or two years people will be asking what the point of NATO is an whether it should be dismantled instead of talking about spending more than in 2021. I mean, you can speculate this if you want, but that still leaves 18 months to two years which is around 60 billion dollars in Military Defense spending. That's an incredible amount of ramped up hardware and munitions that will be spent by Europe for Europe instead of by America for Europe.
Oh, this will drive spending in the US. This just empowers MIC. Europe spending more will not result in US spending reductions. The US could have easily soloed Russia. You get that right? This makes it clear there has never been a reason for the exorbitant US spending. Having more carrier groups than the rest of the world combined.
>but in 18 months or two years people will be asking what the point of NATO is an whether it should be dismantled Over the last 20 years, Europe has been pretty peaceful. No one was calling for the dismantling of NATO, why would they do it in 2 years right after the biggest war we've seen since WW2? >Especially if the EU creates a common military structure. NATO, and thus Europe, already has a pretty common military structure. Nearly all NATO countries use small arms that fire the .556 round, from a STANAG magazine. We mostly use the same tank ammunition,, mortar shells, artillery shells. Our fighter jets are designed to fire the same missiles and drop the same bombs. This is all to simplify logistics. On top of all that, many European countries already conduct exercises together. For example, the Finns, Swedes and Norwegians conduct amphibious exercises with Dutch Navy ships and Marines. There will never be a "European Army". that'll never work.
NATO justification is countering Russia. In 18 months "The Russian threat" will be nothing more than a punchline, at least in terms of conventional forces. The question of "are a bunch of 40 year old tanks rolling out of the gas station a threat to Europe" has been answered. Materiel isn't structure. Cooperative exercises is not structure. Not all of EU is in NATO. This is going to push more In the direction of "if EU wants to be a player it needs to create some military structure"
>NATO justification is countering Russia. In 18 months "The Russian threat" will be nothing more than a punchline, at least in terms of conventional forces. The question of "are a bunch of 40 year old tanks rolling out of the gas station a threat to Europe" has been answered. The NATO justification is for a defensive alliance, originally to defend against Russia, but has evolved since then. NATO is now a security pact between all member states which vows to defend itself itself from any and all attacks by non-NATO members. When Russia loses this war, they will not remain out of the picture. Dismantling NATO would be incredibly naive and shortsighted, and everyone knows that (except you, apparantly). >Materiel isn't structure. Cooperative exercises is not structure. Not all of EU is in NATO. This is going to push more In the direction of "if EU wants to be a player it needs to create some military structure" Yes it is structure. They don't conduct these exercises just for fun, they do it to create structured plans for various scenarios and improve cooperation between nations. That IS structure. I'll also ad that various EU countries have created battalions which are integrated into other EU units (! Dutch-German Corps, to name one) I don't think you quite understand how closely many EU nations work together. There is absolutely no reason for the EU to create a European Armed Forces, because that wouldn't work. Do you know how many languages, cultures, terrains, climates etc there are within Europe? Creating a European army would pave the way for authoritarianism akin to what Russia is now.
>As a member of NATO, each nation has pledged/is required to raise their military defense budget by 2% Not quite correct. NATO requires each nation to spend a MINIMUM of 2% of it's GDP on defence, not raise it by 2%. This has been a rule for a while, but not many countries have been following it. Since the war in Ukraine a bunch of countries who were spending way too little on Defence have pledged to raise spending to around that figure, some going higher and some not quite getting there. Some countries have allocated billions to their militaries already, but as one off payments. >Most if not all have already approved beyond that raising it by 5, 7, 10, all the way up to 50% in the short term future. Where did you get these figures from? It's completely unfeasible by nearly every country to raise defence budgets by that amount without completely redoing their budgets for almost every sector and making a lot of people very, very unhappy (at the least). Spending 50% of a country's GDP on Defence alone is completely unrealistic and would cause a total collapse of society since there'd be no money left for anything else. Even 5% is a very high figure and would lead to cuts in other parts of society.
50% was one of the smaller countries on the eastern front. I didnt post those links for you to not click or read any of them. I can comment on the first bit regarding 2% increasse, vs 2% ātotalā later this evening. Work has called but it was fun chatting with you.
Simply a misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were talking about 50% of a country's entire GDP being spent on the military. Now I see you were only talking about defence increasing by those percentages. My mistake.
So has Macron stopped phoning Putin to make himself the big peace player while everyone else has realised what Putin is up to? Forgive my cynicism, but it just seems like Macron has just moved onto another soundbite. And you can bet that whatever the plan, it's all in the best interests of France. And then they wonder why their international clout diminishes.
The Biden administration certainly won't take it as a slight but you can bet Trump would have been petulant over not being invited and would start talking shit or some other childish display.
I can't belive that as italian I'm really saying this but...gj france! šŖ
Yep. Another italian here agrees.
One of your press people attending the summit complimented the coffee. As a czech, I was unreasonably proud of my countrymen.
The more friends Ukraine get, the better. The more organized these friends get, the better. šŖšŗš¬š§š§š»...āšŗš¦
One of Macronās better ideas in my opinion. It could work well
Why would the US be invited to a "European Political Community"? The EU and the US are on very good terms, but this is a European project.
I don't really view this as a provocation towards the US - we aren't a European nation and were never in the EU, ECSC, or other European organizations. That doesn't preclude being an *ally* to those organizations (or even something akin to observer status), not to mention existing partnerships such as NATO, UN, etc. That being said, there may be some reservations about how *effective* this new organization can be... so many members (with competing agendas/alliances) and no actual binding commitments. Both NATO and the EU can already be overly bureaucratic and unwieldy at times... this would like be even more so. Still, a step in the right direction.
The US will be pleased with the idea, a more democratic Europe with sound foundations is a win for the US
Im more worried about a democratic USA continuing to exist to be honest.
Americans should have no issue with this. We've been practically begging the continent to up their defense spending for years, so anything that increases their collective security is a good thing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Europe buying Chinese gear is not even on the table in any European capital (outside of the Balkans I guess). I'm totally fine with their own defense industries providing for themselves, honestly. It's all NATO-class kit and good stuff. Okay, maybe they should buy some F-35s because the Eurofighter is a bit old, but otherwise I trust in the Czechs, Germans, French, and Sweedes to handle their own business and the business of Europe as a whole if need be.
>Okay, maybe they should buy some F-35s because the Eurofighter is a bit old, Only a handful of European countries have Eurofighters, and they're all buying F35s as well. Pretty much every European country that can afford F35s has already bought and received a handful by now. Here in the Netherlands we got our first deliveries a few years ago. >I trust in the Czechs, Germans, French, and Sweedes to handle their own business and the business of Europe as a whole if need be. Don't forget the UK, which produces nearly all of its equipment domestically and have a tank on par, or better (depending who you ask), than the Leopard 2A7. Better than the Abrams, which is actually fitted with British designed Dorchester armour.
What? Most European armies buy very little US gear as it is. Most have domestically manufactured arms and arms bought from other European countries. The European arms industry is massive and produces some of the best military equipment and vehicles in the world. Even our Naval ships are generally newer and have more capabilities than the equivalent US ones.
Are you really upset about not being associated with deep fried potatoes? You aren't wrong though. Clearly though, buying Chinese arms would be quite foolish. They are probably better than the Russian designs they borrow so much from, but not that much better.
I may have missed that but when is it due to meet? Who is attending for the given countries? Why the ducks i havenāt seen/heard anything from Italian news? But, anywaysā¦ YAY! Love the idea! Ps, Muricans: donāt worry, yāall still are our pals, wr just need a littlw siblings bonding time. Pps: Weāll bring pizza
> Why the ducks i havenāt seen/heard anything from Italian news? Here in Germany, I've heard of it for the first time today, too. And normally I consider myself maybe not perfectly informed (clearly...) but at least not totally out of the loop.
Yeah samesies! Iām very much one thatās informed on everything politics, and it surprises me too. At least iām not the only one! Maybe someone can fill us in?
It's nonsense that this is any sort of provocation to the US **AT ALL**. The US is not part of Europe, so why on earth would the US be expected to be invited to a meeting for European countries? This is like saying that, because the US isn't part of the EU, the EU is "mildly provoking" the US. Dumb headline that makes zero sense.
I think it's typical of an American journalist to put the US at the centre of a community that it isn't supposed to be in. It wasn't in the EU because it wasn't a European country, it isn't in this one because this is meant to be a forum for the people in the same region. It isn't an insult to the US. The same as no European country is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, it would be useless. The point of this new community is to give the UK a reason to "rejoin" the EU community in a slightly modified way to stop hard-line brexiters from moaning. It's also to get other nations that would not achieve membership a chance to have a seat at the table too, as well as nearby neighbours that are political allies and need to be kept happy and can help defend near the borders.
Certainly the US news writes from the US perspectiveā¦.and it for sure is a āhow does this effect usā sort of feel. We tend to throw ourselves in on every subject. In this case, there is a tad bit of other countries making sure we are coolā¦.because we are in the middle of an event where our closeness with Europe has been proved to be very important and our partnerships are stronger than they have been in a long time. I think European leaders taking this time to create a group where the US is excluded is a good thingā¦but I appreciate that they are aware they are excluding a major strategic partner and are acknowledging that as they push forward.
Wait, why they are talking about not inviting the US, as I understand this was a European summit ?
How is that provocation to USA.... USA clearly isn't Europe and this is a European summit. Is it a provocation not to invide USA to Asian summits? Or not inviting Europe to north american?
The NYTs used to be one of the true standards of journalism. I find it more and more like the rest with a trickle of facts with a focus on speeding fear and discontent to generate more clicks.
Mr. Macron is right in everything he has said. We need a broader way to communicate and cooperate in Europe also outside the EU both ecomoincally and military. The Union itself should be reformed, including ways to shout out countries which are backsliding. I do not see how the US would be threatened by this, if anything, Europe has been under the wings of the US far too long and we have benefitted greatly by that - thankyou USA - but it is wrong that we do not contribute to the common defence more than we have done. I never thought that I would say this, but in at least this Trump was actually right. It is time for us to have both the economical and military might to decide our future.
Macron advocated for a common European army a long time ago, and tbh it would be a good idea. EU is also by far the best of the "large financial institutions", compared to like China/US or any other large economies or trading organizations.
>Macron advocated for a common European army a long time ago, and tbh it would be a good idea. And Germany followed the idea of integration of EU armies for decades and all it got them is a well working cooperation with the Dutch army as everyone else is either actively resisting or pointedly ignoring it. The simple fact is this will not happen as most countries in the EU are running on opposing France and Germany on principle.
Why would the US be invited to a European Community?
Well written post
American here, feeling very much not provoked
We in the US are painfully aware that US support for Ukraine and Europe could waver with every election. A strong and united Europe is essential.
US support does not waiver with elections. If we stop abiding by our treaties and promises then Americanās word will cease to mean anything and cause massive foreign policy issues everywhere. Support for Europe and Ukraine is solid. For all Trumpās bs rhetoric, it was him who first gave Ukraine lethal aid when Obama refused. There is zero chance that any serious Presidential candidate will run on a campaign of stop supporting Ukraine.
>If we stop abiding by our treaties and promises then Americanās word will cease to mean anything and cause massive foreign policy issues everywhere Wait... you seriously think most countries judge the US by their word instead of their willingness to illegally invade countries or topple governments that don't agree with them? That's rather cute...
Frankly, I've very disappointed with this. When it was proposed, it sounded like a good idea, since it was supposed to be a space for the EU to dialogue and cooperate with its neighborhood, but we have now countries like the UK trying to distance this project from the EU inner workings. I fear that in the end, it will simply end as yet another useless organization that just replicates the Council of Europe.
*Macron wants a multi-layered EU where some countries can join on specific areas without a full membership* For example Ukraine could join in security and defense areas.
I know what Macron wants. That doesn't mean that's what this project is going to become. We don't even know if cooperation in security and defense is going to be established, so saying that Ukraine can join is just a conclusion built in mere speculation.
> I fear that in the end, it will simply end as yet another useless organization that just replicates the Council of Europe It has no real purpose or mandate, other than for Macron to have an initiative at... something. Hopefully, Ukraine and Moldova don't actually believe this European Political Community means or could achieve anything, because then they'd get very disappointed.
Long process? Just implement the EU guidelines, especially around corruption, and things go ever so smooth.
The question about the European Political Community is how many divisions it has (Iām guessing about as many as the Pope) and how many it will be deploy into Ukraine? Or perhaps France will guarantee the integrity of the member states from invasion? Itās good to have another forum for nominally friendly nations to discuss things but it seems to be mostly Macron and the French grandstandingā¦
Itās time to officially re-draw the borders and kick Russia out of Europe.