In a nightmare scenario, where Putin invades Lituania, France and Germany would react defending this country. In all scenarios in the past, the US would have joined this European alliance. Under Trump,does anyone believe the US would join forces against Russia?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
Good luck sticking your head under the rug. There are naysayers all over Europe, people aren't happy. Not just Britain.
Orniletter
Banned
Gabriel is doing an excellent job so far, no thanks. We don't need Schulz's loudmouth.
Is this a joke? Gabriel is the way bigger loudmouth and beeing a diplomat was Schulz job at the EU
Alternative Facts.
The approval is way higher right now, thanks to britain
Pot, kettle, something ...
Raven117
Member
Sure there are people that aren't happy. The EU needs reforms. But most people are also able to gather enough brain to know that we cannot strive on our own and we need each other. Helps that no other people fell under that kind of mass delusion about self importance, too.
PdotMichael
Banned
It's truly time to build the aircraft carriers Germany would basically be forced to build to spend that 2%.
That is actually a problem. What would Germany even spend that money on?
No aircraft carriers, no nuclear weapons, no nuclears subs. None of that expensive stuff and Germany is actually not allowed to own (and produce etc) NBC weapons.
It would mostly be a giant landbased army. Really not sure if the rest of Europe would want that longterm.
I'd have to say that Germany does well beyond their fair share. Especially considering the refugee crisis. Building a bunch of tanks isn't going to do jack shit. They are spending money on actual people
No need to be facetious. There are many areas Germany can increase defense spending on that would benefit not only Germany, NATO, the EU and the West that aren't aircraft carriers. Increasing the number of active servicemen and women for one as troop strength is still low even though they have pledged to improve it, investing more in cyberwarfare and combating Russian, Chinese and even American infiltration, spending more on development of tanks, fighter jets, modernizing current equipment and then also creating greater export capacity and variants etc.
Germany needs to start taking a leading role in a future without the UK as part of the EU. Maybe an aircraft carrier would make sense, not as a counter to China or Russia or India, but to be used as a way to project German force beyond its borders again. If NATO is unreliable, and Trump won't support Article 5, Germany needs to think about how to secure their future in the long term. Contrast China. They cannot take on the US even in the next 50 years. But their South China Sea airstrips, ports and then string of pearls ports from Sri Lanka and Pakistan are means to allow them to safeguard their exports and imports along with oil and to decrease the ease of American interference.
The funny thing is that the government had accepted this way before Trump's election and was trying to ease the public into the fact. People outside have to understand how opposed the general public in Germany is against this. Now Trump kinda helps Angela push her agenda on so many issues, sometimes I am thinking it had been their plot all along.
PdotMichael
Banned
As someone who works in the shipbuilding industry which also includes stuff for various navies I will always lobby for a large shipbuilding program. The first one do we call Die Trump Die.
The better solution, of course, would be providing enough funding for the incoming Tornado and Leopard replacements for example. Though 2% isn't gonna happen.
ClosingADoor
Member
Yes, I think they would still. But the fact there is even a bit of doubt about it shows a large problem already.
I am thinking of bad ass robots that just eat weapons and poop care packages.
Muffin1611
Banned
My parents already asked me why I don't join the Cyber Armee when I'm done studying general computer science
What a time we live in
Without the potential recruits the draft brought in yearly, the Bundeswehr has enough trouble to fill the currently open spots. I do not see how we can possibly increase the number of soldiers without reintroducing the draft (which won't happen).
Cyberwarfare will happen (slowly), a new command was created a few months ago (to stand as a new pillar besides army, navy and airforce). But these things take time.
If Europe is smart they should start doing a lot more things together, but also use some necessities like a EU army as a way to swirl up the economy. For example, let countries like Spain and Greece get a piece of the pie in building these vehicles/ships that we need, build factories in those countries that could need a little boost. Order Eurofighter Typhoons instead of F16's. It's better than ordering these things in the US.
I know this is the same kind of protectionism Trump would apply, but in this case I'd say it's the best we can do. We would acquire know how, jobs and investments in regions that need it and strengthen the EU both ways. Make it ethical and forbid the export of these weapons and military material to countries outside of the EU in return for long term contracts.
I know this is the same kind of protectionism Trump would apply, but in this case I'd say it's the best we can do. We would acquire know how, jobs and investments in regions that need it and strengthen the EU both ways. Make it ethical and forbid the export of these weapons and military material to countries outside of the EU in return for long term contracts.
Compare this with how US politicians would react to an opponent during an election campaign. Lol.
Cyber man, cyber man, radioactive cyber man
They have learned from Schröder's refusal to join the Iraq war. There are few better pushes during campaigning than opposing an unloved US Presidency.
So you're saying we should sponsor an army of Spartans and raise some Roman legions? With guns?
He is talking about a EU-Army. With soldiers and vehicles from every country under a single command.
That wouldn't even be an issue. Defending the Baltic States isn't a military matter and it doesn't demand a military solution. What would happen is that the Baltic States would be overrun with 2-3 days and it'd be a fait d'accompli on the Russian side if they wanted to be serious. Any solution has to be a diplomatic one - basically to convince the Russians that they're better off not launching the attack.
On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense to be reluctant to go to war to protect the countries that can't be protected. But the bigger problem that the participation of the US in NATO matters is a major concern for the state of the alliance. I think that what will end up happening is that the adults in the room will sit Trump down and carefully explain that NATO does a lot more for the US than the US does for NATO. And that it'd be the US that loses in the long run by abandoning the alliance.
Ennosuke
Member
It's time.
Hell yes, let's do this. Merkel has my approval to start an Evangelion program.
Devil's advocate
Member
We shall call it Merkel Gear.
Greedings
Member
While the approval rating is indeed higher without the UK, there are still naysayers. The EU is not popular here in Slovakia.
Pandora012
Member
Don't they trap peoples souls? Seems a bit harsh.
Maybe we could buy a dozen of those F-35s to replace the aging Tornados, that ought to do it. Spend the leftovers on some replacement glass windows for the transport planes instead of welding metal plates over any broken windows.
For a defensive war you can use the installations of the ally you are defending, launching an attack would be a war of aggression which the German constitution forbids.
Oh please. As if our intelligence agencies had anything the others didn't have. Evidence going a decade back? Come on.
It is hard to discuss this properly due to Trump being an idiot, but funding of NATO and FTA's have been a big points of Bernie Sanders campaign and he has been saying the same thing. So lets forget about pink idiot in order to discuss things properly.
EU needs EU army to be able to protect its borders and react quicker to problems. Right now we are at hands of UK and US and this is why we need strong NATO.
So Trump being Trump and saying these things is a big wakeup call for EU if we want stay together in more than trade union in which we currently are.
In the meantime, we have US and UK which are willing to quickly react to any NATO issues. Unfortunately in past we know that some EU members are not willing to make quick decisions when it comes to their army and I dont think that will change quickly.
Not willing to defend undefendable is actually a big problem, that means that EU is just a paper trade union and nothing else. Lets hope it gets better.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
I would hope US honor the alliance.
The French army is arguably stronger than the UK army, so not quite sure why we would be at the hands of the UK, also considering that NATO or EU members haven't been attacked by foreign armies it is pretty hard to know how fast NATO or the EU would respond.
Also in Libya which wasn't really a NATO matter the French responded very quickly, same as when the Paris attack occurred, they attacked just 2 days later.
Not that it is super relevant when Merkel talks about Britain not being a reliable partner she isn't talking about Britain commitment to NATO.
The world would probably be a better place if NATO was dissolved and we had an EU army instead. In general, it's very unlikely for a foreign power to aggress on a European country, and the European countries are quite capable of defending one another. The exception to this are the Baltic States - their geography is terrible for defense so there isn't that much point to committing huge amount of resources to doing so. The same is true of similar territories like Kaliningrad.
PhantomThief
Banned
Haha genius post
Similar threads
- Locked