Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:31 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666

NATO 'brain dead'...what should Europe do?


It's been in the news quite a bit lately. The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, has called NATO basically 'brain dead'. What he seems to mean by that (beside the obvious dig at the US and, specifically Trump) is that NATO has no over arching political will these days. It's just kind of going through the motions. According to CNN:

Quote:
"From the point of view of military cooperation, NATO functions well, but there is no political vision and no strategic vision," de Montbrial continued, in what has become a common criticism of NATO's lack of clear mission since the Cold War ended.
"The armies are always at the service of politics and not the reverse, and that's the way you have to interpret the vision of Macron."
I want to quote some other things from CNN that will tie the OP together, at least what I'm wanting to discuss and think about:

Quote:
While Macron's provocation was pointedly directed at NATO, it reflected a broader sense of urgency in the hallways of his presidential palace over more diverse geopolitical changes on the horizon. With the world rapidly dividing into two superpower blocks -- American and Chinese -- Macron does not want Europe to be forced into choosing one or the other.

As the President himself laid out in a rhetorical question to the French diplomatic corps last August, "Do we decide to become junior allies of one party or the other, or a bit of one and a bit of the other, or do we decide to be part of the game and exert our influence?"
Quote:
"We are in a Europe where we left the arms issue under the control of treaties that predated the end of the Cold War between the United States and Russia. Is that a Europe that thinks about its destiny and builds?" Macron said.
Quote:
"He is not looking eastward as an alternative," observed Francois Heisbourg, a special adviser for the Foundation for Strategic Research, told CNN, "But the Macron advisers are saying they want to revisit the relations with Russia. Note they are saying 'revisit' and not 'reset,' there is a difference."
So, to condense that somewhat, France (and Europe) need to keep their options open with respect to Russia and, specifically, China, so that they can have closer relations with those countries instead of having to pick a side. The EU has already had a lot of inroads made to it from China. Russia is and has been more problematic, and Macron is pretty cautious about that himself in the article, saying he is waiting to see what, if anything Putin puts on the table in the up coming summit with the Ukraine, France, Germany and of course Russia.

Lastly there is this:

Quote:
His condescension has not gone unnoticed by his neighbors, who angrily point out that for all of Macron's rhetoric he has presented very few concrete practical suggestions for how to move forward on NATO or anything else.
That's the key piece that I think we can debate, as well as just generally about NATO. So, for debate. Is NATO 'brain dead'? If so, what should the Europeans do about it? Should they do it collectively or individually? If individually, what should specifically France do? Is it wise to keep their options open and perhaps distance themselves from the US and form closer ties with Russia and China? Perhaps because a 3rd (or 4th I guess) major player and break with the US completely? Is there still any value in NATO at this point? And what concrete things can and should be done (individually or collectively) to make this happen? What will/would it take for Europe too do anything concrete about this?

Bottom line...do you agree with Macron? If so, what do you think is the next step? If not, what should Europe be doing to strengthen NATO and bring the US back into the fold? Or SHOULD Europe be bothering with the US at all, and instead be looking for closer ties to Russia and China, perhaps in a NATO that doesn't include the US?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #2  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:55 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
What Macron said was short sighted, if not in fact "brain dead". It's foolish to risk a traditionally close and stable economic and strategic relationship with the US in order to hedge a bet with authoritarian states like Russia and China. The US economy still dwarfs that of Russia and remains much greater than that of China. Trump's presidency is unlikely to last another 12 months. But even if re-elected, Trump is demonstrably easier to manipulate for another 4 years than Putin or Xi Jinping.

It's unclear to me what Macron's game is. He has not struck me as being particularly foolish on an international scale. I realize that a threat of 100% tariff on French goods into the US would be a hard hit on France's economy, but he could have tried to finesse this more diplomatically. He is choosing not to. I'm not quite sure why yet. Perhaps he thinks that using the Chinese hard nosed approach to Trump's aggressive trade policies is a winning strategy. Let's see.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #3  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:37 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,734
NATO is a relic. It was created to keep the USSR out, the US in, and Germany down. Now the USSR is gone and Russia is in decline, Germany has taken over Europe via the EU and a military alliance with the US has no applicability to that situation, the US is going to inevitably shrink military spending as healthcare spending soars.

European nations are going to have to decide who their enemies are and what their interests are. As the US withdraws around the world regional hegemons will arise. Each European country will either need to come to an agreement with the hegemons or outsource their foreign policy to Germany via the EU.
  #4  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Macron pulled the classic mom-to-toddler reverse psychology trick. And it worked! He got Trump to defend and praise NATO!

EDIT: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2...mpression=true

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 12-03-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #5  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:20 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,439
Europe as a whole needs to upgrade their military to the point that they have a credible threat of force in international affairs. Europe, either within the NATO framework or in some other structure, should be able to deal with situations like Serbia and Syria without relying on US help - but in both cases, it was quite clear that non-US NATO could not act effectively. They also need to provide a credible threat of force against Russian ventures, and again it's pretty clear that without the US there isn't much ability to respond to Russia. The present situation isn't good for anyone, the US is essentially funding Europe's defense, Europe has limited ability to define their own foreign policy, and now the US is proving to be extremely unstable. While Trump is making a royal mess of things as is his way, Obama, W. Bush, and Clinton have all said variants on that theme, this isn't a recent development (before Clinton was still the Cold War era so Bush, Reagan, etc. were not dealing with the same strategic reality). And this doesn't even mean the end of NATO, just the end of Europe relying on the US for defense and force projection capability.

The idea of cozying up to Russia is foolish, but I think it's just attention getting rhetoric. Europe having the ability to decide on policy with respect to Russia instead of relying on the US, a country that has shown itself to be completely unreliable with regards to Russia (Trump could not be doing all that he is without Republican support) should be an important goal for them. And scaling back US military spending should be a goal for the US, especially as domestic spending skyrockets.
  #6  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:34 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Macron pulled the classic mom-to-toddler reverse psychology trick. And it worked! He got Trump to defend and praise NATO!

EDIT: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2...mpression=true
Trump may not read newspapers but he has people drawing him pictures of what's written about him. This reverse psychology trick might play for a day but not much longer. So I sincerely doubt Macron would be playing this sort of got-your-nose game with the orange toddler. Much as we could all use a good laugh, I just don't believe the NATO summit has turned into a giant episode of, "Punked: Trump Season".
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #7  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:23 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
What Macron said was short sighted, if not in fact "brain dead".
Among other things, because NATO is a military alliance, not a political organization. It was born of a specific political situation, but that doesn't mean its nature is itself political.

Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer military organizations that stay the hell away from politics. I was going to write "until the politicians tell them to jump in", but I must admit I'd rather live in a world where the military spend a lot of time being bored.
__________________
Some people knew how to kill a conversation. Cura, on the other hand, could make it wish it had never been born.
  #8  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Trump may not read newspapers but he has people drawing him pictures of what's written about him. This reverse psychology trick might play for a day but not much longer. So I sincerely doubt Macron would be playing this sort of got-your-nose game with the orange toddler. Much as we could all use a good laugh, I just don't believe the NATO summit has turned into a giant episode of, "Punked: Trump Season".
Seems as likely to me as the alternative (that Macron was speaking off the cuff about his true feelings on NATO).
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #9  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:07 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
So, to condense that somewhat, France (and Europe) need to keep their options open with respect to Russia and, specifically, China, so that they can have closer relations with those countries instead of having to pick a side. The EU has already had a lot of inroads made to it from China. Russia is and has been more problematic, and Macron is pretty cautious about that himself in the article, saying he is waiting to see what, if anything Putin puts on the table in the up coming summit with the Ukraine, France, Germany and of course Russia.

The Eurozone should be looking to exit the Nato framework in a decade, just to put a time frame out there and decide what their common defense commitments look like. Russia should be re-engaged so that it finds its proper place once Putin steps down, as a strictly European partner.

They currently have no relevent mission, no real enemy threat and their main partner being a continent away with Nato being one mission among many and its hard to come up with a reason to reach out to Euros to spend their tax dollars. Mac is probably only saying what everyone else is thinking.

We, as in everyone in the Alliance need to start thinking about what a post Alliance world looks like.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #10  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:06 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,403
I think Macron is simply trying to ape Charles de Gaulle.

Unfortunately for him, he's not Charles de Gaulle. de Gaulle had the gravitas, the street cred, and the guts to actually pull off (albeit with difficulty) the whole "Great and Glorious France stands apart and has its own destiny" myth. Macron doesn't have a quarter of what de Gaulle had.
  #11  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:52 AM
UY Scuti's Avatar
UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,008
There are politicians in Europe who disagree with the manner in which the U.S. has handled various international problems since the end of the Cold War, especially those situations where instead of acting within NATO's organizational framework the U.S. chose to create ad hoc coalitions and ignore the opinions of its NATO allies in Europe. It looked like the U.S. preferred to put NATO on hold as long as it did not serve its purposes 100%, and it was due to this approach of the U.S. and the cold relationships within the alliance resulting from this strategy that Russia and China managed to boost their international influence and candidate Donald Trump obtained a political platform to claim that "NATO is obsolete."

When Macron states that "NATO is brain-dead" on the one hand he is voicing the frustration of the European politicians mentioned above and on the other hand he feels he has an obligation to do so because (1) he wants to point out the responsibility that the U.S. has in the leadership crisis within NATO, and (2) he is expressing his doubts that this issue will be properly deal with under Donald Trump's leadership.
  #12  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:25 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,325
It is all groups with different interests. NATO is a defensive alliance, it is not supposed to have "political vision". Expecting a military alliance to have a political vision groups it with the Warzaw Pact, which was fundamentally a Russian imperial project. "Strategic vision" is a different story.

The French never really accepted their demotion to the second tier of powers. In that respect, they are much like the Russians. With the US declining, Marcon wants France (and Europe incidentally) to regain prominence. NATO would be a great toll for that, if it can be shaped the way he wants. Expressing doubts about NATO is a way to gain more control, because with the UK Brexiting, France will be the biggest military power that is both in the EU and NATO. And the EU drive for their own armed forces will accelerate without the British to impede it. (I sometimes think that was a big part of why they joined in the first place)

To most of the smaller NATO nations, many of which borders Russia, NATO absolutely has a mission and a strategic vision and it is just as important today as it ever was. Russias military power is often overestimated, but they are still a great power and far stronger than most of the nations on their borders. These nations may well agree to let Marcon use NATO more actively to keep a big ally.

Russias behavior is peculiar and does not seem to align with their long-time strategic needs. I believe it is indicative of power struggles under the surface, and that Putins control is not as strong as it appears.
  #13  
Old 12-04-2019, 05:54 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,119
Macron is right. The key nation of the alliance is currently led by a doofus who canít wake up in the morning without doing something to benefit Putin, and the southern flank is protected by a country that has abandoned democracy and now sees the rest of the alliance as a hindrance.

And meanwhile, the alliance is faced with a Russian threat thatís greater than any time in the last 30 years, and growing substantially. And most absurd, Trump is probably ready to throw the Baltic states and Poland to the wolf because he has a vague feeling based on his horrible business sense that the US is being ripped off, when in fact NATO is our greatest military advantage.

Yep. The main NATO stakeholder has no brains, and thatís impacting the alliance. What Macron said isnít controversial, itís a stone-cold fact.
  #14  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:09 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman
The key nation of the alliance is currently led by a doofus who canít wake up in the morning without doing something to benefit Putin
The UK?

Quote:
the southern flank is protected by a country that has abandoned democracy and now sees the rest of the alliance as a hindrance.
Hungary?


Saying stupid things about NATO is basically a Gallic Tradition. No need to read to much into Monsieur le Prťsident Oedipe's rantings.

Last edited by AK84; 12-04-2019 at 06:12 AM.
  #15  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:16 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
It is all groups with different interests. NATO is a defensive alliance, it is not supposed to have "political vision". Expecting a military alliance to have a political vision groups it with the Warzaw Pact, which was fundamentally a Russian imperial project. "Strategic vision" is a different story.
Von Clausewitz is spinning in his grave.
  #16  
Old 12-04-2019, 07:49 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The UK?


Hungary?


Saying stupid things about NATO is basically a Gallic Tradition. No need to read to much into Monsieur le Prťsident Oedipe's rantings.
I see the Erdogan Brigade has arrived. Yay.
  #17  
Old 12-04-2019, 09:30 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I see the Erdogan Brigade has arrived. Yay.
Whoosh.
  #18  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:27 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Bottom line...do you agree with Macron? If so, what do you think is the next step? If not, what should Europe be doing to strengthen NATO and bring the US back into the fold? Or SHOULD Europe be bothering with the US at all, and instead be looking for closer ties to Russia and China, perhaps in a NATO that doesn't include the US?
I do agree with Macron in that NATO is sort of strategically rudderless, in that the Russians aren't the threat they once were, and most, if not all of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO nations. NATO's role in the world is kind of weird now in that clearly the Baltics need NATO to keep the Russians honest, but for say... the Netherlands, what exactly do they get out of it?

I'd think that going forward it might make sense to transform NATO into more of an EU-centric alliance, and not a US-dominated one, and then negotiate a separate alliance with the US. That way, you'd have the structure that would allow the EU to act as a pan-European military power if necessary, without reinventing the wheel in terms of standards, etc... and you'd also have the alliance with the US, without the US being involved in all the solely European aspects.
  #19  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:46 AM
the_bing is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SE England, UK
Posts: 8
My suspicion is that the EU project is a long-term-state-building exercise of the 'United States of Europe'. There is currently free movement of people across state borders, a unified currency that a lot of member states use... one of the obvious next steps would be a European army; something that has been mooted a number of times over previous years.

I believe that Macron is a pro-EU guy; why not slag off the current multi-state defence strategy organisation if you would want to promote an EU Army?
  #20  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:00 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bing View Post
My suspicion is that the EU project is a long-term-state-building exercise of the 'United States of Europe'. There is currently free movement of people across state borders, a unified currency that a lot of member states use... one of the obvious next steps would be a European army; something that has been mooted a number of times over previous years.

I believe that Macron is a pro-EU guy; why not slag off the current multi-state defence strategy organisation if you would want to promote an EU Army?
How would an EU Army be different from the current NATO Military Committee? Is it simply the absence of non-european nations?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #21  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:46 PM
the_bing is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SE England, UK
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
How would an EU Army be different from the current NATO Military Committee? Is it simply the absence of non-european nations?
well, that might be part of it.

I won't pretend to be an expert in these matters but I'll give an example that I think might explain why I think that this may a reason for Macron's comments.

The UK is a country that is, in reality, made up of a union between four countries. However, if military action is being taken by the UK there is no 'committee' with the leaders of the 3 other countries. (indeed, looking at the Brexit situation, one of the SNP's complaints is that the majority of Scottish constituencies voted to remain in the EU but the overall, the UK voted to leave).

So fundamentally, if the EU was intending on becoming a country as a union of states, then they could act the same way. And without the US being as much an influence.

It seems like a reasonable possibility to me.
  #22  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:07 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by UY Scuti View Post
There are politicians in Europe who disagree with the manner in which the U.S. has handled various international problems since the end of the Cold War, especially those situations where instead of acting within NATO's organizational framework the U.S. chose to create ad hoc coalitions and ignore the opinions of its NATO allies in Europe. It looked like the U.S. preferred to put NATO on hold as long as it did not serve its purposes 100%,
I think it's hilariously unrealistic for politicians in Europe to expect the US to fund a large military and then use it only in ways that benefit the interests of said non-US politicians instead of US interests. There is zero reason to expect the US to act as a subordinate to European countries when it is the largest and strongest member of NATO, it just doesn't make political sense. Even before Trump it's been clear that the US doesn't consider itself subordinate to NATO, and expecting the US to do something it hasn't done during the 70 years since the start of the cold war and has no reason to do is pure wishful thinking (and post-Trump it's even worse, as US policy is now much less directed).
  #23  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:24 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
How would an EU Army be different from the current NATO Military Committee? Is it simply the absence of non-european nations?
The NATO Military Committee is specifically about NATO objectives, is dominated by the US, and works based on unanimous agreement rather than majority. A European focused alliance would have a completely different structure that wouldn't include the US at all and might well use a voting process that isn't effectively 'everyone has a veto'. An EU army would be an actual military force that is under direct control of the EU and not simply troops from various member states under a temporary commander, would also not include the US, and would likely use a different decision making process.
  #24  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:48 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bing View Post
well, that might be part of it.

I won't pretend to be an expert in these matters but I'll give an example that I think might explain why I think that this may a reason for Macron's comments.

The UK is a country that is, in reality, made up of a union between four countries. However, if military action is being taken by the UK there is no 'committee' with the leaders of the 3 other countries. (indeed, looking at the Brexit situation, one of the SNP's complaints is that the majority of Scottish constituencies voted to remain in the EU but the overall, the UK voted to leave).

So fundamentally, if the EU was intending on becoming a country as a union of states, then they could act the same way. And without the US being as much an influence.

It seems like a reasonable possibility to me.
EU nations relied heavily on NATO infrastructure and agreements for their defense against Russian aggression, primarily. In doing so, US geo/eco-political positions on Russia have figured prominently.

Exiting such a formal structure would likely result in America's withdrawal of military bases, defense infrastructure (missile defense systems?) and perhaps restriction on certain American made military arms. Russia and China would happily offer theirs, of course . It would not be surprising if poorer EU countries would opt for non US arms (see Turkey). So it could all fragment rather quickly.

Which leads me to think that Macron's comments, whether serious or meant only to troll Trump, were rash and ill considered, no matter the intent.

I know it sounds like an argument for maintaining America's hegemony in the world stage. But I think the alternatives of China or Russia would be far worse.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #25  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:53 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
How would an EU Army be different from the current NATO Military Committee? Is it simply the absence of non-european nations?
I think fundamentally, instead of answering to the North Atlantic Council, it would answer to (and take orders from) the European Commission/President of the EC.

So it would be a military organization that's composed of EU member states, taking orders from the EU civilian authority, instead of today's oddness, which is where you have the EU acting as a supra-national government over the individual member nations in pretty much every sense EXCEPT defense. That's still the province of the individual member nations, and NATO.

I can see why the EU as an entity might want to consolidate all that, and I can see why member states might really NOT like that idea as well.
  #26  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:45 PM
casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,376
Macrons comments and the idea of a EU controlled military is one of the reasons why UK needs Brexit.

You have to imagine the acceptability of a EU military council having direct control of UK armed forces - UK public just will not go for it.

EU having a military wing is a nonsense anyway - trying to get any sort of strategy agreed and then implemented in any useful timeframe during some sort of armed crisis is incredibly unlikely.

The only reason Euros have ever got involved actively is because US and UK tend to commit anyway and so it drags them in - think of Kosovo, and even then at Srebrenica and other crises the Euros rules of engagement left populations woefully unprotected - 'fraid any Euro controlled military force is simply a commitment to inaction which might suit other Euro nations however it also completely undermines any deterrent effect they might have, its more of an open invitation to try it on.
  #27  
Old 12-04-2019, 05:03 PM
the_bing is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SE England, UK
Posts: 8
I can also imagine (as others have said in this thread) that Macron might've been trying to goad Trump to try a raise a more supportive attitude toward NATO from the US.
World leaders can sometimes make some ill-considered remarks (even when they're actually aware of a microphone in the vicinity...)
  #28  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:35 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I know it sounds like an argument for maintaining America's hegemony in the world stage. But I think the alternatives of China or Russia would be far worse.
Indeed, it would be worse because China and Russia would see opportunities to influence and control individual European states far beyond merely supplying them with weapons. Russia, for its part, isn't just anti-NATO but anti-EU. There can be no friend found in any nation that actively promotes democracy and things like the Magnitsky Act. Russia and China pretty clearly intend to attack loud democracies from within.

Trump is a Russian asset, not just in terms of disrupting America's domestic politics, but even more so, their international politics.

Last edited by asahi; 12-04-2019 at 06:36 PM.
  #29  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:53 PM
UY Scuti's Avatar
UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I think it's hilariously unrealistic for politicians in Europe to expect the US to fund a large military and then use it only in ways that benefit the interests of said non-US politicians instead of US interests. There is zero reason to expect the US to act as a subordinate to European countries when it is the largest and strongest member of NATO, it just doesn't make political sense. Even before Trump it's been clear that the US doesn't consider itself subordinate to NATO, and expecting the US to do something it hasn't done during the 70 years since the start of the cold war and has no reason to do is pure wishful thinking (and post-Trump it's even worse, as US policy is now much less directed).
I think a cause and effect analysis will show that the U.S. strategy to circumvent its partners has undermined the haleness of the alliance, and Macron's statement simply points out NATO's present infirmity.
  #30  
Old 12-05-2019, 01:20 AM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
I think Macron is simply trying to ape Charles de Gaulle.

Unfortunately for him, he's not Charles de Gaulle. de Gaulle had the gravitas, the street cred, and the guts to actually pull off (albeit with difficulty) the whole "Great and Glorious France stands apart and has its own destiny" myth. Macron doesn't have a quarter of what de Gaulle had.
Yeah a country that needed Britain and US to keep their country (since their own military surrendered) and then demand US to withdraw our troops not included our dead from Normandy!!) for 2 wars!
  #31  
Old 12-05-2019, 12:06 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
No need to read to much into Monsieur le Prťsident Oedipe's rantings.
Donald Trump is 24 years older than Melania, and we don't even have a term for that.

It ain't funny any more.
  #32  
Old 12-05-2019, 01:39 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Donald Trump is 24 years older than Melania, and we don't even have a term for that.

It ain't funny any more.
Yes we do. It's: Pathetic old fool. It's pretty funny if you say it with a Slovanian accent.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #33  
Old 12-05-2019, 01:50 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,558
Hhhhow many yearz iss he older dan hiz wife? One! One year! Ah HAH HAH HAH HAH!

Two! Two yearss older! Ah HAH HAH HAH HAH!
  #34  
Old Yesterday, 10:01 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by casdave View Post
Macrons comments and the idea of a EU controlled military is one of the reasons why UK needs Brexit.

You have to imagine the acceptability of a EU military council having direct control of UK armed forces - UK public just will not go for it.

EU having a military wing is a nonsense anyway - trying to get any sort of strategy agreed and then implemented in any useful timeframe during some sort of armed crisis is incredibly unlikely.
I'd think it's a bad idea because the EU goes from being a fundamentally peaceful supranational government to becoming one with actual teeth, that can compel member states to comply with force. That's got to frighten a lot of smaller EU states- it's a de-facto loss of sovereignty if you can't outmatch the EU's military.

Of course, if the EU really wants their own military, they ought to just spin one up of their own instead of trying to do it by committee via the militaries of the member states. That way, if the President of the EC wants to send the 3rd EU Infantry Brigade on a peacekeeping mission, you don't have the trouble of say... Germany refusing to send troops overseas, or countries who habitually underfund their military not having capable forces or the support structure to get them where they need to be. Nor would you have issues with member nations unilaterally deciding to pull their own troops out when they start taking casualties.
  #35  
Old Yesterday, 10:30 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Of course, if the EU really wants their own military, they ought to just spin one up of their own instead of trying to do it by committee via the militaries of the member states.
But the EU is the member states. Unanimity among member state governments would be required to authorise and fund the creation of a separate and discrete EU force, and what personnel and technical resources could it call on other than those already existing in member states? The idea of a European Army has been batted about for 65 years at least, and it all comes back to whether member states are, in the end, willing to cede enough authority and resources to a nascent EU superstate, be it in terms of creating a common fiscal authority, or a military force, or any of the other attributes of an independent state. As different Commission Presidents have had to to learn.
  #36  
Old Yesterday, 03:01 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Macron is right. The key nation of the alliance is currently led by a doofus who canít wake up in the morning without doing something to benefit Putin, and the southern flank is protected by a country that has abandoned democracy and now sees the rest of the alliance as a hindrance.

And meanwhile, the alliance is faced with a Russian threat thatís greater than any time in the last 30 years, and growing substantially. And most absurd, Trump is probably ready to throw the Baltic states and Poland to the wolf because he has a vague feeling based on his horrible business sense that the US is being ripped off, when in fact NATO is our greatest military advantage.

Yep. The main NATO stakeholder has no brains, and thatís impacting the alliance. What Macron said isnít controversial, itís a stone-cold fact.
This pretty much sums it right up.

Russia's threat isn't just its the future (if not present) potential to invade Ukraine and Baltic states at will; it's the ability to destabilize Western democracies with information warfare. Russia is a serious, serious threat in this regard, and there's no sign they're going to back off; they're going right for the jugular. They have every reason to now.
  #37  
Old Yesterday, 03:13 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
But the EU is the member states. Unanimity among member state governments would be required to authorise and fund the creation of a separate and discrete EU force, and what personnel and technical resources could it call on other than those already existing in member states? The idea of a European Army has been batted about for 65 years at least, and it all comes back to whether member states are, in the end, willing to cede enough authority and resources to a nascent EU superstate, be it in terms of creating a common fiscal authority, or a military force, or any of the other attributes of an independent state. As different Commission Presidents have had to to learn.
Oh, I know. I was just opining that a formal EU military would make more sense than some sort of formalized NATO-style coalition in terms of actually using the military forces themselves.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017