It is clear that in Europe we need to increase the military budget and establish a common army.
After that, it would also be fair to free ourselves from American bases on European soil.
I may be wrong, but I think a cross-EU military alliance is a good, and an EU army at the current time is a bad idea, and the reason I think it is a bad idea is because the EU is an economic union, not yet a political union, and so it way well yet fail, and if it fails, an army based on the EU will necessarily renationalize (as happened in the Soviet Union - soldiers go back to the country they have a passport for).
The other problem with an EU military is the ongoing and I think enormous Russian funding of political instability.
Exactly. Also stop being a US patsy and cats paw. Maybe even develop friendly relations with our neighbour Russia and buy energy from them etc.
How about that for a crazy idea?
The coming years will be a long war for global dominance between you and China. Since you are letting us go, we have no choice but to find our own position of balance among the remaining power blocs. It seems to me that you are making a clear long-term choice with Trump. Am I wrong?
* Remove support they are ideologically opposed to irregardless of merit. USAID is the most obvious example where many of the things it does/did are opposed to the political and religious beliefs of those involved in scrapping it.
* With the 'America First' agenda it reduces the scope of what 'national interest' is in terms of foreign policy so they want to force regional partners to take more of role. This is clearest at the moment in Europe but they'll be doing the same to everyone else (e.g. Korea with China/North Korea).
Broadly the administration is continuing along the Project 2025 path. So the end goal is a more distant America waiving nukes at China.
They're going on vibes - a general feeling of "I'm not paying for that!" International aid is in the expenses category, and it's not a payment to me, so it must be cancelled! It helps that Putin makes big "donations".
Never mind that just a few years ago we were talking about how China's belt and road initiative would help it take over the road and now we are cancelling the American belt and road initiative.
Never mind that America is only rich because of its worldwide influence.
a handful of oligarchs get unfettered control to the US in exchange for a withdrawal from international agreements. simple overlap with some libertarian ideology.
heavily funded by Russia, and to a lesser extent China.
May be it unifies Europe a little more.. European Defense org that has a mandate to build out capacity for defense equipment production in the EU member countries.. spend 5% GDP that employs EU citizens in turn. Just like the US does.. May be it grants the wish of the Americans to stop relaying on them(also stop/reduce buying American defense systems).
America has a weird stance on this. They have consistently opposed European efforts to develop independent military tech - see what they did to British nuclear and missile programs, and how they have fought against the French desire to maintain their own defense programs. Now they seem to want to abandon Europe and blame them for not having their own military hardware.
We should be clear here, who "they" are. Trump is Trump, he is a populist, so he'll just do whatever. The question is, is the support for his type of populism embedded in the US now, or not. I don't think it is, I think the US will see through his type of populism at some point.
So I don't think the US will be abandoning Europe in the medium or longer term, and mostly only making noises about it in the short term. I think it is worthwhile for Europe to mitigate the short term, strengthen its military, but we should be aiming to keep the medium term alliance with the US going.
Nobody is expected to take the 5% goal seriously. Even the US has not reached that level since 1992, with the current defense spending at 3.4%.
If the US decided to leave NATO completely, European military spending might stabilize somewhere around 3%, with lower spending in the west and higher in the east. At that level, the overall spending would be a bit below US figures in absolute terms and higher than the US in PPP terms.
If the US decided to leave NATO, given much of the hostility to it is because it's seen by countries like Russia to extend US influence and troops, I wouldn't be surprised if European countries could spend less on defence.
How can you say that? People have consistently said not to take Trump seriously. But he does seem serious about imposing tariffs, abandoning allies, annexing random parts of the world, and about drastically cutting the government. Why shouldn't we take the 5% thing seriously? What can be more serious than this anyway?
Because 3% would already be enough to make the US irrelevant for European security. At that level of spending, the combined military power of European NATO member states would eventually be comparable to the US. If Trump kept insisting for more, European leaders would just call his bluff. And maybe even secretly hope that the unreliable partner would leave NATO.
We have in fact nearly every major technology except 5th generation jets (less observable, SOTA radar and communication technology) and the most advanced microelectronics.
Check out the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Russia, USA and UK all agreed to preserve Ukraine’s borders in return for them giving their nukes to Russia.
> European leaders were already uncertain whether Mr Trump would honour the alliance’s Article 5 clause – which states that a military attack on one ally is considered an attack on all – and come to their aid.
Article 5 has only ever been invoked once in NATO history. It was invoked by America. NATO allies came to America's aid:
The US president has also tabled demands that would see Nato military spending targets more than doubled to 5 per cent of GDP in a bid to end Europe’s reliance on Washington.
Isn't the whole goal of Trump's 2% demand to buy more American-made weapons?
If the US does not back NATO countries, and demand 2-5% spending, what's the point of NATO countries even buying American weapons?
Lastly, is it really fair for NATO countries to spend at least 2% on their military if much of that budget goes to American companies?
Is it fair that the US has to keep subsidizing Europe, a collection of countries that constantly complain about the US? That tax and fine our companies while criticizing the US for its lack of a welfare state?
This is the populist rhetoric to sell it to the base rather than the actual state of things. The US taking a more isolationist position does nothing but hurt the US.
They don't subsidise Europe. They keep Europe on a leash.
That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.
There has been no free defense through NATO, because a great part of the military spending of the NATO countries has always gone to US companies, even in cases when alternative better deals had existed.
The only benefit that USA can claim is that without being allied to USA many countries would have been forced to spend more for their defense. However most of that spending would not have gone to US companies, so USA has benefited from the alliance at least as much as the other members.
USA has practically acted exactly like an insurance company. For now, until a war would involve NATO and USA would be forced to pay for it, during all the 3 quarters of a century during which USA never had to pay for a NATO war, USA has received yearly payments from the allies for military equipment, exactly like receiving insurance fees, so the balance for USA from the effects of the alliance is hugely positive.
(Of course, like for most things done by the US government in international relations, the positive balance for USA is not felt by simple citizens, because all profits have been grabbed by the shareholders or managers of some big companies, e.g. those producing military equipment.)
The claims about USA "subsidizing" allies are completely stupid, when frequently the "allies" have been blackmailed to accept contracts paying billions to US companies, not only for defense acquisitions, but also for some non-related infrastructure projects.
Especially in the case of the more recent NATO members from Eastern Europe, they have been forced to pay dearly for their admission into NATO by accepting various very expensive and onerous contracts with some US companies (e.g. Bechtel), besides buying expensive US aircraft or the like.
European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America.
(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective Liberal Democracy. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for their economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.
