Europe should create their own European Forces

[paxmao]

The US by means of Trump is considering not supporting Europe - even, in Trumps words, encouraging Ruzzia to do "all they can" to Europe.

Given this situation, Europe should consider becoming militarily independent from the US. There is no reason to keep the US bases in Europe nor to allow their forces to be stationed in Europe. I think that Europe will have to effectively spend that money in weapons and military production given the situation we are observing in Ukraine, but there is no reason why that should be spent buying US weapons.

Republicans will put "America First" meaning US first, so EU should think about Europe first policies in defence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/donald-trump-says-he-would-encourage-russia-to-attack-nato-countries-who-dont-pay-bills

Donald Trump has said he would “encourage” Russia to attack any of the US’s Nato allies whom he considers to have not met their financial obligations.

The Joe Biden White House immediately rebuked the former president’s comments, saying in a statement: “Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home.”

Jens Stoltenberg in Washington DC, Nato chief says Trump remarks may put US and EU lives at risk. Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary-general, also lambasted Trump’s comments. “Nato remains ready and able to defend all allies,” Stoltenberg said in a statement.

“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the US will remain a strong and committed Nato ally.”

This is like "paying from protection" from Trumps narrow view of the world.

[Hispo]

The US by means of Trump is considering not supporting Europe - even, in Trumps words, encouraging Ruzzia to do "all they can" to Europe.

Given this situation, Europe should consider becoming militarily independent from the US. There is no reason to keep the US bases in Europe nor to allow their forces to be stationed in Europe. I think that Europe will have to effectively spend that money in weapons and military production given the situation we are observing in Ukraine, but there is no reason why that should be spent buying US weapons.

Republicans will put "America First" meaning US first, so EU should think about Europe first policies in defence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/donald-trump-says-he-would-encourage-russia-to-attack-nato-countries-who-dont-pay-bills

Donald Trump has said he would “encourage” Russia to attack any of the US’s Nato allies whom he considers to have not met their financial obligations.

The Joe Biden White House immediately rebuked the former president’s comments, saying in a statement: “Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home.”

Jens Stoltenberg in Washington DC, Nato chief says Trump remarks may put US and EU lives at risk. Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary-general, also lambasted Trump’s comments. “Nato remains ready and able to defend all allies,” Stoltenberg said in a statement.

“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the US will remain a strong and committed Nato ally.”

This is like "paying from protection" from Trumps narrow view of the world.

To me it was obvious from the beginning that Trump was not very fond of the idea of NATO. I don't know why, some will say Putin has managed to blackmail him with very sensitive material, that is a rumor though.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know most of the European Countries, specially those in Weast Europe, Germany has their own army, for example. Also, membership in NATO itself requires for the countries to have military capabilities, otherwise it would not make sense for it to be a military alliance, Europe is not a protectorade of the United States, but much of the funding and logical support come from there, so it would be possible for Putin to feel ressured about his advantage with Trump as a president of the United States.
Keeping in mind the United States has one of the biggest military budgets on the planet, I am not sure the European Union would be in the position to spend an important fraction of it to defend themselves.
It is quite a messy situation, but we are not supposed to be pessimistic either and assume Putin is going to invade Poland as soon as Trump steps into the White House.

[coolcoinz]

IMO even without the US Europe would be able to protect itself from Russia with ease and it's not like the US would sit this one out if Russia attacked. They are helping Ukraine and they would help if it was Finland or some other country. They'd use this opportunity to weaken Russia.

Lets face the numbers though. The EU without any help from the US has nuclear strike capabilities that Ukraine does nowt, so Ukraine was an easy target for Russia, but EU countries are not. Furthermore, combined forces of the EU have both more modern ground and air forces than Russia, even if Russia had full support of Belarus, which it won't have because the citizens of Belarus do not support this war and would be against any aggression towards the EU, unlike Russians who largely support the war.

In case of a RF-EU conflict Putin would be on his own, with maybe North Korea at his side. China would not jeopardize its good relations with so many countries, so it would not help and the only way Russia could have a chance against the EU or NATO is with full support from China, or if it used its nukes because that's the only thing Russia has more than the EU.

[paxmao]

IMO even without the US Europe would be able to protect itself from Russia with ease and it's not like the US would sit this one out if Russia attacked. They are helping Ukraine and they would help if it was Finland or some other country. They'd use this opportunity to weaken Russia.

Lets face the numbers though. The EU without any help from the US has nuclear strike capabilities that Ukraine does nowt, so Ukraine was an easy target for Russia, but EU countries are not. Furthermore, combined forces of the EU have both more modern ground and air forces than Russia, even if Russia had full support of Belarus, which it won't have because the citizens of Belarus do not support this war and would be against any aggression towards the EU, unlike Russians who largely support the war.

In case of a RF-EU conflict Putin would be on his own, with maybe North Korea at his side. China would not jeopardize its good relations with so many countries, so it would not help and the only way Russia could have a chance against the EU or NATO is with full support from China, or if it used its nukes because that's the only thing Russia has more than the EU.

I agree. The point is that Trump is saying "you have to pay into NATO" but then the US has the strongest political hold on NATO so US would naturally be leading on NATO decisions. It seems to me that by spending 2%, Europe would be able to deploy a sufficiently dissuasive force and power projection ability.

Trump is trying to extort money from Europe for his own US weapons production, and frankly he is not a trustable ally, so perhaps that money is better spent putting "Europe First".

[Ucy]

I think it's a wise talk by Trump who tend to say reasonable things in controversial manners that may end up being true.
It's his way of telling the NATO allies to take responsibility and help fund their own security (if it's really important to them) to keep the organization sustainable, help them have more say, become somewhat independent of US for their own good, and more importantly to help lessen the financial burden on US. I believe the other party who prefer others to be dependent on US think that will help US have greater say in NATO. Or even have strong control over other members.


Trump also thinks far ahead:
"If others have equal say for example, It will become hard for the "entity in control" (the bad guy) of USA to make unilateral decisions that will endanger regional security like wrongly/easily attacking nations like Russia in the future."

[paxmao]

I think it's a wise talk by Trump who tend to say reasonable things in controversial manners that may end up being true.
It's his way of telling the NATO allies to take responsibility and help fund their own security (if it's really important to them) to keep the organization sustainable, help them have more say, become somewhat independent of US for their own good, and more importantly to help lessen the financial burden on US. I believe the other party who prefer others to be dependent on US think that will help US have greater say in NATO. Or even have strong control over other members.


Trump also thinks far ahead:
"If others have equal say for example, It will become hard for the "entity in control" (the bad guy) of USA to make unilateral decisions that will endanger regional security like wrongly/easily attacking nations like Russia in the future."

Sure... balanced statements that create consensus and show his perfect understanding of international diplomacy such as:

"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said: 'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said.

In my book this is paying for protection, so the best solution for Europe is to get rid of the intermediary. Make no mistake, Europe can perfectly develop a range of weapons that can successfully replace all the US produced with a similar level of technology and characteristics and this means that they will also become a competitor of the US in the international weapons market - even more than now.

do you think this is a good deal?

[Kelward]

I believe that NATO must have terms of agreement for it's member nations, if they have standard requirements that they abide by, then I wonder why this issue will come up in the first place. If it's the US that have been carrying the burden of funding NATO, then I can't really blame Trump, for making such statements, other member nations must also show financial commitments to their cause.

Although in an election year politicians will make comments to shake up political opponents, just to increase their chances of winning in the election, so I wouldn't bother too much about the trump, comments, because both the US and EU are technologically advanced nations and I believe that they can work out any differences that they might have.

[paxmao]

I believe that NATO must have terms of agreement for it's member nations, if they have standard requirements that they abide by, then I wonder why this issue will come up in the first place. If it's the US that have been carrying the burden of funding NATO, then I can't really blame Trump, for making such statements, other member nations must also show financial commitments to their cause.

Although in an election year politicians will make comments to shake up political opponents, just to increase their chances of winning in the election, so I wouldn't bother too much about the trump, comments, because both the US and EU are technologically advanced nations and I believe that they can work out any differences that they might have.

NATO does have terms of course but a candidate for POTUS should be extremely careful in the type of declarations that are made. Some people are used to see Trump say anything unfiltered and be ok with his base, but the rest of the world are not Trump supporters and do take seriously diplomacy, international treaties and the power dynamics that keep the world from WW III.

International relations are simply not treated in such a manner and words do have consequences.

Now Europe is no longer sure that Trump would honour article 5, so it is time to take defence into its own hands. Why pay the US controlled NATO and have the risk of having Trump or any other deciding not to honour the agreement? Why having US bases in Europe? Why not investing money into the EU local production instead of subsidizing US weapons industry? Why not generate al the r&d locally and compete selling weapons?

Europe can actually use this opportunity to generate its own growth and defend its interests independently.

[Synchronice]

Trump is mentally ill, it's really pitiful that Americans have to choose between Trump and Biden, it's fkng America and comes with such a poor leaders but on another hand, when were leaders deciding things? They are puppets, managed behind the scene.

Trump was suggesting Germany to increase military expenditure, then Scholz decided to increase it when the Russia - Ukraine war started, then Trump comes up in youtubers' podcasts and says 'be careful what you wish for'. He made it look like Scholz and German people are going to start a world war 3. This man is not sane.

[o48o]

-cut-
To me it was obvious from the beginning that Trump was not very fond of the idea of NATO. I don't know why, some will say Putin has managed to blackmail him with very sensitive material, that is a rumor though.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know most of the European Countries, specially those in Weast Europe, Germany has their own army, for example. Also, membership in NATO itself requires for the countries to have military capabilities, otherwise it would not make sense for it to be a military alliance, Europe is not a protectorade of the United States, but much of the funding and logical support come from there, so it would be possible for Putin to feel ressured about his advantage with Trump as a president of the United States.
Keeping in mind the United States has one of the biggest military budgets on the planet, I am not sure the European Union would be in the position to spend an important fraction of it to defend themselves.
It is quite a messy situation, but we are not supposed to be pessimistic either and assume Putin is going to invade Poland as soon as Trump steps into the White House.

Also every nato country that has a border with Russia, is meeting the required 2% of GDP on their own militarie. Poland almost doubly so (3.90%). So either Trump can't read map, or he is just talking to his own voters, who can't read map. But this situation might actually lead to European armed forces, as popularity of patriotism is rising everywhere, that used to be far right thing, but i am glad that people are taking that stigma away from it. And distrust in US stability is growing as well, making us more prepared. And our country has been building defence and security of supply since 1944.

I always wondered how patriotism rised in the past, but after seeing left and right, every party and even old anarchists agreeing on the thread of Putin, and because of that, many other things related to values and nation security as well. That's really interesting to witness.

[Hispo]

-cut-
To me it was obvious from the beginning that Trump was not very fond of the idea of NATO. I don't know why, some will say Putin has managed to blackmail him with very sensitive material, that is a rumor though.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know most of the European Countries, specially those in Weast Europe, Germany has their own army, for example. Also, membership in NATO itself requires for the countries to have military capabilities, otherwise it would not make sense for it to be a military alliance, Europe is not a protectorade of the United States, but much of the funding and logical support come from there, so it would be possible for Putin to feel ressured about his advantage with Trump as a president of the United States.
Keeping in mind the United States has one of the biggest military budgets on the planet, I am not sure the European Union would be in the position to spend an important fraction of it to defend themselves.
It is quite a messy situation, but we are not supposed to be pessimistic either and assume Putin is going to invade Poland as soon as Trump steps into the White House.

Also every nato country that has a border with Russia, is meeting the required 2% of GDP on their own militarie. Poland almost doubly so (3.90%). So either Trump can't read map, or he is just talking to his own voters, who can't read map. But this situation might actually lead to European armed forces, as popularity of patriotism is rising everywhere, that used to be far right thing, but i am glad that people are taking that stigma away from it. And distrust in US stability is growing as well, making us more prepared. And our country has been building defence and security of supply since 1944.

I always wondered how patriotism rised in the past, but after seeing left and right, every party and even old anarchists agreeing on the thread of Putin, and because of that, many other things related to values and nation security as well. That's really interesting to witness.

Trump may not be even aware of the percentage NATO countries' GDP which are put intoe their own defense budget, it is mostly about propaganda and talking points used by him to rally up his base, nothing new, he has done the same with the amounts of people entering the nation through the Southern Border, the inflation, the green deals which are supposed to help the environment not to get destroyed by outlrselves. Etc.
Of course, the fact most of Trump supporters are not even aware where those countries are how their names helps much for Trumps ideas to stick in the minds of his base.
In the end, as members continue to comply with the rules of the alliance, the worst case scenario would be the exit of the United States from NATO, as soon as Trump is over it would get back in, then people recover some of their sanity.

[uneng]

I agree. The point is that Trump is saying "you have to pay into NATO" but then the US has the strongest political hold on NATO so US would naturally be leading on NATO decisions. It seems to me that by spending 2%, Europe would be able to deploy a sufficiently dissuasive force and power projection ability.

I don't like Trump's instance of blackmailing European allies in public like this, as it's only going to be useful to fuels Putin's thirst for new territories, while showing how cracked and splitted the West is. On the other hand, isn't it common agreement every NATO's countries should destinate 2% of their GDP to the alliance management's costs? USA and Germany are proportionally financing most expenses, so it's natural they demand other countries to contribute with more money, although blackmailling allies in front of the eyes of the common enemy isn't the ethical way to do so.

Trump is trying to extort money from Europe for his own US weapons production, and frankly he is not a trustable ally, so perhaps that money is better spent putting "Europe First".

Well, if European countries think it's more advantageous for them to take care their own security by themselves when analyzing the costs involved, then they should go for it... For me it still seems more logical to give the 2% USA is asking for to NATO. If they are going to get independent from US, costs involved to be invested on national defense must be much higher.