Macron.. Europe should build Army to protect itself from Russia, China & the USA ??

[Noradin]

And you have proof of cou- oh no, wait, it's just a bare assertion. Gotcha.

Just read the transcripts of her speeches in question.
Can you link the one where she supposedly "invited all refugees from Syria"? We have enough people here who speak German and can translate it.

[Blobfish]

In an update. Pres. Trump is threating to pull out of NATO after his recent trip to France .

President Donald Trump, upon returning home from a World War I memorial event in Paris, unloaded on the US’s European allies and appeared to threaten to pull out of NATO.

French President Emmanuel Macron was critical of Trump’s leadership and politics during the Paris trip and floated the idea of forming a European army that would in part defend the continent from the US.

Trump called the idea “very insulting” and returned to his old talking points challenging NATO.

Trump said he told US allies in Paris that US protectorship of European countries amid trade deficits could not continue.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...s-trip-2018-11

“I told them that this situation cannot continue,” Trump said of the military and trade relationships with some of the US’s closest allies. He described the situation as “ridiculously unfair.”

The US by far spends the most in NATO, both on its own defence budget and on programs to increase the readiness and capabilities of its European allies.

In 2014, NATO countries agreed to raise their defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product by 2024. So far, only five countries – mainly in eastern and central Europe where the threat of Russia looms large – have met that pledge.

Since his campaign days, Trump has demanded NATO countries meet that 2% figure, or even double it, immediately.
Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, has expressed little interest in hitting that benchmark.

The metric of percentage of GDP spent on the military can also be deceptive. Defence spending has broad and differing definitions around the globe.
Greece is one of the few NATO countries that meet the 2% spending mark, but it spends much of that on pensions.

“It is time that these very rich countries either pay the United States for its great military protection, or protect themselves…and Trade must be made FREE and FAIR!” Trump concluded, appearing to wave the idea of a US pullout from NATO.

[Deleted]

The USA .. Why does Europe need an army to protect it from one its NATO Allies ?

Because the US now apparently elects completely unhinged, basically clinically insane, demented looney toons as their presidents, who act exactly like every other dictator and strongman on this planet, and of whom you never know when they're going to go completely batshit crazy and start a war against their NATO allies?

Anyone in their right mind wants to protect themselves against that. Better safe than sorry.

[Skroe]

In an update. Pres. Trump is threating to pull out of NATO after his recent trip to France .

President Donald Trump, upon returning home from a World War I memorial event in Paris, unloaded on the US’s European allies and appeared to threaten to pull out of NATO.

French President Emmanuel Macron was critical of Trump’s leadership and politics during the Paris trip and floated the idea of forming a European army that would in part defend the continent from the US.

Trump called the idea “very insulting” and returned to his old talking points challenging NATO.

Trump said he told US allies in Paris that US protectorship of European countries amid trade deficits could not continue.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...s-trip-2018-11

“I told them that this situation cannot continue,” Trump said of the military and trade relationships with some of the US’s closest allies. He described the situation as “ridiculously unfair.”

The US by far spends the most in NATO, both on its own defence budget and on programs to increase the readiness and capabilities of its European allies.

In 2014, NATO countries agreed to raise their defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product by 2024. So far, only five countries – mainly in eastern and central Europe where the threat of Russia looms large – have met that pledge.

Since his campaign days, Trump has demanded NATO countries meet that 2% figure, or even double it, immediately.
Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, has expressed little interest in hitting that benchmark.

The metric of percentage of GDP spent on the military can also be deceptive. Defence spending has broad and differing definitions around the globe.
Greece is one of the few NATO countries that meet the 2% spending mark, but it spends much of that on pensions.

“It is time that these very rich countries either pay the United States for its great military protection, or protect themselves…and Trade must be made FREE and FAIR!” Trump concluded, appearing to wave the idea of a US pullout from NATO.

Trump threatening to pull out of NATO is a bunch of nonsense.

(A) He can't.
(B) Congress would move against it.
(C) He'd see a mass resignation of senior leaders at the Pentagon and State Department that would amount to an existential threat to his Presidency.
(D) Our allies would never respect a withdrawal instruction issued unilaterally by him. They already know he doesn't speak for America except in the most formal sense.

Donald J Trump, because he's a complete imbecile, shat away his power by wielding it with great ineptitude and recklessness.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the US now apparently elects completely unhinged, basically clinically insane, demented looney toons as their presidents, who act exactly like every other dictator and strongman on this planet, and of whom you never know when they're going to go completely batshit crazy and start a war against their NATO allies?

Anyone in their right mind wants to protect themselves against that. Better safe than sorry.

Really? Is Europe prepared to fully finance a continent wide nuclear deterrent that would be owned by the EU and on hair trigger alert and aimed at the US?

Answer: No. You're not. Not even close.

Hence, no, your justification is nonsense, because conventional forces alone don't deter against anything. Macron knows this too.

[Noradin]

Really? Is Europe prepared to fully finance a continent wide nuclear deterrent that would be owned by the EU and on hair trigger alert and aimed at the US?

A military to "Protect against the USA" does not necessarily mean a military designed to protect against a hostile military incursion by the USA.
Rather it is to be a means to protect against the perceived unrealibility of the US military caused by the political climate in the USA.
(Because ultiamtely nuclear deterrent is all about perception.)

When you ahve a support beam in you house that you aren't sure about anymore then you react by placing a backup next to it, not by battering it with said backup trying to see if it will break.

[Adolecent]

The USA .. Why does Europe need an army to protect it from one its NATO Allies ?

Pres. Trump has labelled it very insulting & suggests Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidizes greatly!”

Does Europe feel a bit threated by the USA now.. ??

Trump has been very insulting to Europe the 2 years he's president. The US is openly and frequently flirting with EU-exit movements, right-wing extremists and Putin and distancing itself from pro-EU forces. For 2 years now Trump's anti-EU stance has been dominating the front-pages in the EU. That message grew like cancer in the hearts and minds of the EU population making Trump an enemy of the European Union, exactly what Putin wanted to happen.

Macron is saying what we're all thinking: the US is unreliable, a bleached-out friend, we might need to protect us from in the future. The EU just gave Trump/USA a public warning. And even if we know that doesn't work well with Trump we just don't care anymore. Putin won, but he made the EU his eternal enemy.

[Skroe]

A military to "Protect against the USA" does not necessarily mean a military designed to protect against a hostile military incursion by the USA.
Rather it is to be a means to protect against the perceived unrealibility of the US military caused by the political climate in the USA.
(Because ultiamtely nuclear deterrent is all about perception.)

When you have a support beam in you house that you aren't sure about anymore then you react by placing a backup next to it, not by battering it with said backup trying to see if it will break.

In the context you're putting it, I agree. In the context of the quote, where it lumped the US with China and Russia, that interpretation is inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong, a growing and strengthening European capability is VERY much in US interests. America's President, who literally just shot Putin with "fuck me with your tiny Russian cock right here, right now" eyes in Paris, is an aberration. America's defense establishment knows it. Europes know it too. That is why the post-2014 build up is accelerating and expanding, as is long term cooperative defense planning.

Trump's rants about NATO are as useful and as relevant at this point as one of the local Trumpkin's clownish odes to Trump's greatness. In turn, this makes the manner of Macron's statement unhelpful.

The most frustrating thing about this dumb era is that Obama's words were music to Europe's ears, but his actions to Europe were mostly hollow promises, because he really, really wanted to keep America in the rather inexpensive fighting terrorism business and get it out of the very expensive great power warfare business. It was Congress on a bipartisan basis, working with a Pentagon that basically did everything short of open insubordination, that chartered the new American European defense initiative. Similarly Trump's words are cancer to everybody except its depraved and shrinking base, but Congress and the Pentagon have only one further on European defense reassurance and integration. And the years ahead promise even more, as the US buys a European frigate, and the F-35 floods the continent, and so forth.

Words absolutely matter. Trump's words are poison to the relationship, and the antagonism is entirely one sided (from him), that's for sure. But neither can we ignore that NATO is far more prepared to defend Europe in late 2018 than it was in early 2014, and will be even more prepared in 2022. That's not a credit to Trump. He played no role to that. But neither is he the guy who matters. In the end, all he has to do is sit down, shut the hell up and sign whats in front of him.

Which is what he does because he's barely literate. Like a good part of his base.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump has been very insulting to Europe the 2 years he's president. The US is openly and frequently flirting with EU-exit movements, right-wing extremists and Putin and distancing itself from pro-EU forces. For 2 years now Trump's anti-EU stance has been dominating the front-pages in the EU. That message grew like cancer in the hearts and minds of the EU population making Trump an enemy of the European Union, exactly what Putin wanted to happen.

Macron is saying what we're all thinking: the US is unreliable, a bleached-out friend, we might need to protect us from in the future. The EU just gave Trump/USA a public warning. And even if we know that doesn't work well with Trump we just don't care anymore. Putin won, but he made the EU his eternal enemy.

Trump stuff aside it is litterally the same stuff as the Iraq War period. The same nonsense. Bush's unilateralism was just put nicer. It was Donald Rumself that, ridiculously cast Europe as "New Europe" and "Old Europe". What a disgrace that was.


The EU and American relationship will endure long, long past Trump and this ridiculous era. Fundamentally it comes down to this: this relationships are not up to the European or American public. It's an issue which is not democratic in nature. That's a good thing. It insulates it from nonsense like this period. How many times over the last 70 years has one or a bunch of European countries made a big stink about some US military action or policy... from bombers and missiles in Europe to rendition flights to spying. It comes up about every five years.

How many consequential moves have been made to US-European defense relations in that time?

Zero.

A people elect an anti-US cooperation government here and there. And it goes away before they can take any substantive action (or they don't even try). Technology changes and the issue vanishes into thin air (hence, there will be no "Pershing Missile Controversy, Part 2... this time, the missiles are in subs).

For all the heartburn, the issues have never had legs. And now is no different, especially since the most consequential US security actions are all being targeted in the Indo Pacific region, and Europe has basically no role in that coming conflict.


In any event, the defense relationship is a two way street too. Lets say, implausibly, true and lasting alienation did occur. The US response would be to build up even more expediationary forces - more carriers, bombers, long range missiles - to make up for the lack of access, and Europe would have even less of a say in what the world's only superpower does in Eurasia.

Part of this is moot though, because while Europe certainly has, by right, a seat at the table when it comes to Russian-centric security concerns, the US's principal conflict in the years ahead with China sees Europe and most of our traditional allies with essentially no seat at the table due to lack of involvement on the other side of the world. Instead the seats will be taken by Japan, South Korea, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand and a few others. But for the most part, the US-China conflict is going to be a US-China thing, and everyone else is going to keep out of our way as we fight over the whole of the Earth.

- - - Updated - - -

Preach it, brother.

Alle Menschen werden Brüder.

This has stuck with me for days and I've been listening to it a few times a day. When Trump is out of office, Ode to Joy is going to be the first thing I listen to, and I'm going to blast it.

It's truly the greatest piece of music ever written. It is everything great and marvelous and beautiful about the human race.

And to see (in the video) the lyrics being sung in German by everyday people? Oh that's just something beyond amazing.

[Flarelaine]

This has stuck with me for days and I've been listening to it a few times a day. When Trump is out of office, Ode to Joy is going to be the first thing I listen to, and I'm going to blast it.

It's truly the greatest piece of music ever written. It is everything great and marvelous and beautiful about the human race.

And to see (in the video) the lyrics being sung in German by everyday people? Oh that's just something beyond amazing.

I believe some pieces of the shared heritage of mankind transcend (or at the very least, should transcend) linguistic boundaries. Ode to Joy is a principal example.

[Realitytrembles]

Trump threatening to pull out of NATO is a bunch of nonsense.

(A) He can't.
(B) Congress would move against it.
(C) He'd see a mass resignation of senior leaders at the Pentagon and State Department that would amount to an existential threat to his Presidency.
(D) Our allies would never respect a withdrawal instruction issued unilaterally by him. They already know he doesn't speak for America except in the most formal sense.

Donald J Trump, because he's a complete imbecile, shat away his power by wielding it with great ineptitude and recklessness.

NATO, being a treaty entered into by the US, can only be revoked by Congress of course.

But it occurs to me that (as C-N-C) Trump could order all US forces in Europe to leave. We'd still be in the treaty, but have no one on the ground.

Is my understanding wrong?

EDIT: Ode to Joy is awesome, but I have to say Chopin is my preference in Classical music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin

[josykay]

Call the EU an enemy, and then act suprised, if they see you as a potential threat. Who could have thought about that...

[Skroe]

NATO, being a treaty entered into by the US, can only be revoked by Congress of course.

Unclear. This issue was debate in the very first Congress. The Framers of the Constitution intentionally skipped this and argued it later, mostly because treaties in the late 18th century were thought of somewhat differently than they are today (in fact, the modern conception of treaties as we think of them is really a post-World War I creation that was built upon after World War II, as an effort to reform what led to the war in the first place).

The US has included within the subject of "treaty", and excluded other 'executive agreements" that were once also within the realm of what was considered treaties, mostly as a matter of domestic political convention.... a sort of decision by informal political consensus. All of this is a consequence of a constitution that has had to, frankly, be worked around to keep pace with the word as its changed since 1787.

With regards to withdrawing from treaties, the issue was never resolved in a definitive manner. The US has done so exceedingly rarely. And it only has done so when there was something approaching a political consensus here at home to do so.

Treaties themselves vary too. Some have formal structures for withdrawal which the US _must_ adhere to (such as when it left the ABM Treaty). Other times the US practices a practical "non-observance" and lieu of an actual withdrawal from a treaty, such as with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (which was rendered moot when Russia quit it).

One of the issues also is that Treaties are agreements that are ratified, but they are implemented and enforced under domestic law. Trump leaving NATO would mean the United States (as a legal entity) would be breaking its own laws that were written to support the NATO treaty as well. This is another reason why NATO has an exit clause (like many treaties). Because Congress would have to write repeals of those laws for withdrawal to be legal.

Would they? Not a chance in hell.

If Trump tried to leave NATO, he would find few allies in the Senate, and would be sued by the Senate Democrats. He would find zero support in the armed forces and state department, and face a legitimacy crisis when he is basically left without experienced military commanders and diplomats. NATO is the the cornerstone of US defense, which is probably why Putin's thrall attacks it so. It would be tied up in the courts for years.

The fact this is even being talked about by the idiot in chief is itself moronic because US commitment to NATO has been increasing over the past two years, not decreasing. It's completely detached from facts on the ground. The US literally just got done with it's largest Naval exercise since the 1980s with NATO, like, in the last two weeks, that saw a carrier operate north of the Arctic Circle for the first time in 28 years.

Trump's full of shit about everything he says. On this, it's especially pronounced.

But it occurs to me that (as C-N-C) Trump could order all US forces in Europe to leave. We'd still be in the treaty, but have no one on the ground.

Yes, you're wrong. Sort of. Because of agreements struck with our allies, a withdrawal of the type you're describing would be illegal, no matter if Trump ordered it or not. He'd be breaking domestic law implementing the agreements by ordering it.

Furthermore such a withdrawal would have to be paid for. Congress would never do that.

We have a sort of analog of this. Obama wanted to withdraw pretty much all US combat forces from Europe pre-Crimea, in 2013. It's why he made Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense... to put a Republican face on it. Even after Crimea in 2014, Obama tried to push this direction (he changed course in mid-2015) but Congress wasn't having any of it. They put funding into operations that was directed towards Eastern European operations. Basically how that came about is that the Pentagon and people under Hagel (who was out in favor of Ash Carter before long), ignored the President and made requests for money independent of the work of fiction that the executive branch called the Presidential Budget Request. It ended up with Obama getting money for operations in Europe he never asked for, by commanders who wanted to do things. And he signed the budget and issued the orders because the political capital going against them wasn't worth it.

There is also a reverse-analog when Congress cut off funding to the Vietnam War with the Case-Church Amendment in 1973 that ordered the ending of all military activities in South Vietnam by mid August. Nixon had no choice but to comply. Because after August 15th, there was to be no money spent on supporting operations in South Vietnam, including the South Vietnamese themselves.

The take away is, it's not up to Trump, no matter how much he'd like it to be. He could order a withdrawal of Europe, like Obama all but did, and Congress will just ignore it, just like they did with Obama.

Remember: Trump's the abberation. The US public, along with Congress, is profoundly Atlanticist in its disposition.




80% support. Seriously.

And most Americans want NATO to be more globally active, not less.


NATO is not going anywhere and it's a fucking farce for anyone to pretend otherwise. The opposite is true.

[AboikoS]

Because between Bush and Trump the US has proven it's not really a trustworthy ally anymore.

I just hope we don't have to rename french fries to freedom fries again.

I'd rather say western Europe in the past years has proven to not be trustworthy anymore.

[Skroe]

I'd rather say western Europe in the past years has proven to not be trustworthy anymore.

Exactly how many European Troops have to die fighting and how much money do they have to spend OUR Wars before they are trustworthy?

Remember: Article V was activated only once: to defense America after 9/11.

Europe has never not been true to their word to us. They've ALWAYS come through when it counted. Americans, being uneducated about the world, generally mistake disagreement, and occasional profound disappointment, with disloyalty.

America could never ask for a better friend than Europe. Where do we get off treating our friends in such a shoddy manner?

[Wyrt]

I'd rather say western Europe in the past years has proven to not be trustworthy anymore.

How? They all came to the aid of the US when the US invoked article 5. The first, and only, time it has been invoked.

[Xarkan]

I'd rather say western Europe in the past years has proven to not be trustworthy anymore.

Not only has western europe mostly come when the US have asked, the US citizens have also repeatedly spit in our face for the favor.

Trump is not the only issue here, a lot of american citizens are simply not worth having as allies.

[Slant]

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/e...union-military

STRASBOURG (REUTERS) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Tuesday (Nov 13) for an integrated European Union military, echoing language used by French President Emmanuel Macron last week which irritated US President Donald Trump.

Before anyone has any doubt, this is now a serious prospect. She held a speech in front of the EU parliament that resulted in broad applause, while some nationalists boo'd. This is getting serious now, if they pull through with it, it'll be decades before we see the fruits. But when they come to bear, I doubt the US will be able to lament our involvement much longer.
@<a href="https://www.mmo-champion.com/member.php?u=562259" target="_blank">Skroe</a> has pointed out the main flaw in the European defense construct many times, and he's right: Procurement. This is the main goal of such a consolidated military. Each member state will keep its own structure, but they will get a lot more bang for the buck. Deeper integration will also cement the Eastern Bloc as part of the EU and make sure they can stand firm against Russia... or as firm as a small country like Lithuania can, in any case. It'll give the EU legal authority to conduct border security along the eastern border.

[Realitytrembles]

Europe has never not been true to their word to us. They've ALWAYS come through when it counted. Americans, being uneducated about the world, generally mistake disagreement, and occasional profound disappointment, with disloyalty.

I've never been able to understand this attitude in anyone, not just you, Skroe.

I ask you: why the f should the US take into account what anyone else wants or says? Unless of course they decide to violently get in our way.

But that's never worked out very well for anyone, has it? Violently getting in the US's way I mean.

To put it bluntly: Europe (as it now stands) owes America its very existence.

Had we stayed out of ww1: A German empire from Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainian steppe, France in turmoil and probably revolution, Britain pushed off the continent. The brewing conflict of that day would have been a German empire fat and powerful on its conquests Vs a young USSR still finding its feet; so one day that German empire would have been from Alsace-Lorraine to the Urals, thus becoming the first power on earth.

Had we stayed out of ww2 (FDR couldnt have got the political capital to get us in without Pearl Harbor): Japan does the "Go North" strategy; the USSR gets squeezed from 2 sides, eventually Stalin gets a lead injection to the head from Beria/Molotov, a rump USSR survives between the German and Japanese conquests, Britain alone and friendless sues for peace after Churchill's government falls, Spain and Turkey join the Axis. thus the Nazi empire stretches from Gibraltar to the Urals, and the Japanese have mainland Asia ( with an independent and allied and very Anti-west India) and every Pacific island that the US doesn't own. Cue a 3 way cold war(US with a desperate Uk vs Nazis vs Japan)

Had we went back into isolation after ww2: Europe communist except Uk/Low Countries/France. Asia completely communist except for maybe Japan ( i dont see us letting them on their own so quick after the war). A thoroughly scared UK/France bristle with nuclear weapons in short order, threatening to burn Europe all the way to the Urals if the USSR comes any further west.

To sum up: when a continent of ungrateful, mostly hard-Left whiners wants to give their opinion, they can give it to themselves. Saving their neck 3 times in 100 years is a debt they can never repay. They would all be saluting the swastika or the hammer & sickle if not for American blood and treasure.

[Slant]

I've never been able to understand this attitude in anyone, not just you, Skroe.

I ask you: why the f should the US take into account what anyone else wants or says? Unless of course they decide to violently get in our way.

But that's never worked out very well for anyone, has it? Violently getting in the US's way I mean.

To put it bluntly: Europe (as it now stands) owes America its very existence.

Had we stayed out of ww1: A German empire from Alsace-Lorraine to the Ukrainian steppe, France in turmoil and probably revolution, Britain pushed off the continent. The brewing conflict of that day would have been a German empire fat and powerful on its conquests Vs a young USSR still finding its feet; so one day that German empire would have been from Alsace-Lorraine to the Urals, thus becoming the first power on earth.

Had we stayed out of ww2 (FDR couldnt have got the political capital to get us in without Pearl Harbor): Japan does the "Go North" strategy; the USSR gets squeezed from 2 sides, eventually Stalin gets a lead injection to the head from Beria/Molotov, a rump USSR survives between the German and Japanese conquests, Britain alone and friendless sues for peace after Churchill's government falls, Spain and Turkey join the Axis. thus the Nazi empire stretches from Gibraltar to the Urals, and the Japanese have mainland Asia ( with an independent and allied and very Anti-west India) and every Pacific island that the US doesn't own. Cue a 3 way cold war(US with a desperate Uk vs Nazis vs Japan)

Had we went back into isolation after ww2: Europe communist except Uk/Low Countries/France. Asia completely communist except for maybe Japan ( i dont see us letting them on their own so quick after the war). A thoroughly scared UK/France bristle with nuclear weapons in short order, threatening to burn Europe all the way to the Urals if the USSR comes any further west.

To sum up: when a continent of ungrateful, mostly hard-Left whiners wants to give their opinion, they can give it to themselves. Saving their neck 3 times in 100 years is a debt they can never repay. They would all be saluting the swastika or the hammer & sickle if not for American blood and treasure.

We're not your vassal. We don't owe you anything.

[Mayhem]

We're not your vassal. We don't owe you anything.

Not only that, he doesn't get how much the US got out of winning ww1 and ww2. It's like he's counting 1, 2, 3, done, that's all the numbers that exist while looking at his hand.

[Deleted]

The US liberating Europe in WW2 wasnt only europes best Intrest it was also in the best intrest of the US itself.

Liberating us gave you a good amount of allies to weather the cold war, we have Always stood beside the US since then saying that we are ungratefull bastards is absolutely disgusting.