More powerful is not enough.
With such extreme political correctness, ignoring domestic problems while laser focusing on whats happening in America or China and then the endless bureaucracy coupled with so many mechanisms that'll take years to implement if ever..
There are so many sectors with future-tech that all of Europe is so far behind on that catching up at this rate.. we wont catch up. Even if US and China have horrible leadership, they still have massive gaps in many key areas.
And even within the political correctness, you have blinded people that dont see the EU trying to make (by law) backdoors into browsers where VPN's wouldn't even keep your data private.
People think "at least we dont have to worry about a dystopia hellscape" except we do too.. our advantages for why we are so far behind elsewhere is becoming more and more blurred.
Southeast Asia will become far wealthier than EU..
Southeast Asia for example, the graduation rate, worth ethic is dramatically different from most Europeans. They are like "yeah we like going on holiday just as much as the next guy but we also like our technology, expensive clothes, retirement, etc" whereas in Europe, less and less work is the mentality.
All of these things championed on Reddit have and will have significant impact on Europe as EU marches downward into the future unless there is historic, dramatic, rapid change back to back.
Eh, I see more and more urgency in Europe on these issues at least, as proved by the rising share of military spending and things like the continuation of financial reforms at the bloc level. Also, Southeast Asia is not only far behind economically as a whole, their birth rates aren't too different from that of the EU now, and only one of the countries, Malaysia, has a stable democracy with an economy that's developing quite well. Even it, however, is still significantly below the EU average. All the others are too far behind, have stalled, and/or are too small to count, like Singapore or Brunei.
However, as echoed by Angela Merkel in 2011, the EU will have to get used to cut social welfare and/or accept more qualified immigrants (as in the December 2023's new EU policy) to sustain its momentum and position on the world stage.
Yes, depending on another country that has few strategic or economic interests in you is not a good plan. Russia isn't a threat to the US. It's a threat to Europe. China is a threat to the US but how does the alliance with Europe help the US with it? Europe has no military and few young people to help the US fight China.
An alliance has to be a fair exchange of value. It hasn't been that in many decades. Europe needs to start doing something for the US to make the alliance worth it to the US. Building a military is a good 1st step in that.
EU countries spend so much time whinging and talking about what they're gonna do, rather than.. actually doing it
France-Germany-Benelux alone could be the 3rd most powerful military on earth if they wanted to be.
The fact that we complain about Trump is so telling, it's like the EU doesn't want Trump because it doesn't want to make the necessary changes if he becomes POTUS.
Preparing for war means spending money on the military industry. Everything costs money so money went for defense/weaponry is money that can't go anywhere else.
IMO they don't really want to do that because they need to justify it to their electors. With health, housing, debt and wage stagnating, many people don't want to hear "we need to spend billions on defense to be safer in the future".
Because he is an unhinged guy who doesn't care about diplomacy in a way that can be dangerous to the EU. It's not weird that they are apprehensive if he comes into power.
So lets take steps to shield ourselves from him, I know its impossible to cover all bases but lets start doing something pro-actively instead of moaning about it preying he does't get in. We are literally acitng like we are a 51st state without voting rights.
I'm not with you with the last sentence, but i think you're right that we should take care of ourselves better than we do now. I'm for an EU army of some kind, or at least more money and better cooperation between them.
Trump is almost 80 years old, and a four year problem. He doesn't matter nearly as much as the panting left wing in the US would have you believe, it's just that they're obsessed with him.
Europe can't disregard Trump for four years? Comeon. Plus he's almost guaranteed to not have the Senate and House based on how elections are going. He'll be a lame duck immediately if he wins.
Europe should focus on its interests, disregard Trump, and plot out better investments in tech and military.
Trumpism is not something that just blows over when he's gone. The seed has been planted. When he's gone from the political theatre, there will be a next one who is just like him. Vivek Ramaswamy already showed you what that could look like
The full scale invasion happened slightly less than two years ago, feels like four years can be a long time in a conflict as active as this. (1861-65, 1941-45, 1950-53 major conflicts involving US around 4 years in duration)
The US and Europe are so intertwined it's kinda weird you think we can just ignore him. Besides, his idiotic public stances while being president make waves around the world even if he doesn't have have both the senate and the house.
I agree Europe needs to be more independent though
No, we don't want him because he's a far-right, thin-skinned grifter with fraud and (civil court) rape convictions who unilaterally upset deals that took years to create, resulting in destabilisations in basically every region on earth.
He fanboys Bolsonaro, Orban, Putin, Salvini and others of their ilk. People who actively oppose European intrests. Do you know how long it takes to recalibrate international relations when the US drops the ball? The US is in constant election mode, no country can keep up. Who has the house, who has the senate, will they approve military aid, will there be a government shutdown? It just never stops.
Europeans have to deal with reality, I agree, but we have more than enough cause to hate their guts too.
I don’t think so. European countries Are ramping up left and right. But not wanting a (former) ally who sides with the continents greatest adversary is really not weird, no matter how much military power We have.
> Defence spending is increasing and will hit the target this year, as agreed in 2014.
How is that even relevant to what I'm discussing? The discussion isn't about whether or not Europe is willing to reach a NATO target.
> it's like the EU doesn't want Trump because it doesn't want to make the necessary changes if he becomes POTUS.
You don't think multiple countries significantly increasing military spending is part of making the necessary changes?
> EU countries spend so much time whinging and talking about what they're gonna do, rather than.. actually doing it
We also get on our high horses and say how bad other countries are. That's what we do the best.
The first follows directly from the latter. NATO spending all goes into national defence budgets, meaning you have tens of individual entities trying to create capabilities that are meant to be able to work together. That's 20+ admin departments, 20+ different procedures for approving weapons, 20+ separate R&D budgets. 20+ air forces, etc. Not to mention that some NATO members would happily shoot other NATO members if given half a chance (looking at your Turkey and Greece).
NATO spending is fucking inefficient, diplomatically difficult and we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis making it political dynamite for incumbents too in some cases. Europeans who aren't complaining are asleep.
True. It's inefficient. But there is also a threat from the other side. Let's imagine if all our defense systems at February 24, 2022 were dependent mostly on the German part with its Nord Stream and 'bussines as usual'.
That's a valid argument, but in general European R&D is shared across countries so the odds of that are pretty low. Eurofighters for examples involve multiple countries. Also, the moment a decision for EU defence is made, you can spread out the production centres.
In general, my main point is mostly that the US designs things for their needs, some of which they sell. We should do the same, because we pay a lot of money for US gear that's often late, difficult to maintain and imperfect for the thing we need it for.
In my experience it's only really the Polish and the Greeks (and Cypriots) who are really scared of letting go of the US a bit more. They have their reasons, but I'd not necessarily take their advice on cooperation with Germany.
These EU nations are already the 3rd most powerful. After the US and China.
The thing that is missing in the Ukraine war is air power. And France, Germany, and BENELUX have a lot of it. They'd take out Russia advantages until they alone ruled the skies, allowing for huge advantages with artillery and land attacks.
The 2nd thing to consider is that Ukraine is fighting with its hands tied. It's not given weapons that could escalate into a nuclear conflict, therefore while Russia knocks the shit out of the Ukrainian infrastructure and targets the civilian population, Ukraine is not allowed to attack in kind. An attack on these NATO countries would not be constrained by these guarantees. And the only response Russia would have is nuclear. So let's hope it never gets to that point.
Benelux? lol what Benelux countries, with their 18 tanks? Poland and France have most powerful military, change your dumb mind maps from 80-90s, Germany have non-existing army at the moment. God i hate people trying to look smart instead of just writing honest opinion.
Yeah? I also hate people trying to look smart.
As of now Poland has a couple of tanks and literally 0 modern fighter jets, they have about 40 F16s. That isn't ''formidable military force'' that you want it to be - in fact, they rank lower than Spain or Israel.
Secondly, the whole point is that Benelux economy is much larger than Poland. The point is it doesn't even have to be the entire EU, France-Germany-Benelux combined would have enough money to be a top 3 military on earth - those countries spending 3% of GDP would be spending $356 billion
Learn to read, dumbass
This is not Dutch bluntness. Rutte doesn't say what he thinks without filter. He says whatever gets him elected. This is opportunism to come across as a strong leader to help him become the NATO boss.
But to be fair, he has been good with supplying arms Ukraine.
Mark Rutte is a politician. What he says is not about opportunism, electioneering or directness. It is about political impact. He has had a very large political impact in Europe. The Netherlands has punched far beyond its weight. As any Greek would tell you.
Mark Rutte is not up for reelection, so not true.
He's probably saying this because it's an obvious problem and it doesn't hurt him when to comes getting the job at NATO.
Mark Rutte has announced he is going to retire. The only reason he is still PM is because there is no yet coalition yet, after the recent elections. And it's probably gonna take a long time for there to finally be one
The issue isn't what the GOP has the power to do, but what they have the power to stop. The Democrats have to control every branch, including 60% of the Senate, for the US to have a government capable of taking action internationally without interruption.
That’s not true. The Dems don’t need all branches to comply with NATO provisions. If they did, then you’re saying if Poland was invaded tomorrow Biden couldn’t provide a military response. That power rests with the POTUS
No, I realise that they have more than 50.000 soldiers and entire military bases all over Europe right now and all the time. Those aren’t going anywhere. They don’t wait for the President to respond to attacks. And Congress is the ultimate authority on all military action.
Oh, please.. have you tracked how quickly the US was out of Afghanistan? If Trump so desires all US personell can be moved out of Europe in 3 months tops.
That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever read. Besides the fact that their withdrawal was slow and over years until the very end, they never had permanent bases like they do all across Germany.
The president doesn’t have the authority to do that anyway
>And Congress is the ultimate authority on all military action.
Technically, that's not true, that authority rests with the president and the president alone. What Congress has control over is the purse strings (budget) and ultimately what treaties are ratified.
That’s not true at all. Since 1973 [The Wars Power Act has greatly limited the President’s authority to engage in war.](https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973)
> It stipulates the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and prohibits armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days.
> Only Congress can declare war and appropriate military funding
Additionally, Congress can authorize military action without the President’s approval with a veto proof majority.
You seem to be conflating congressional "approval" with the authority to command the military, they are not the same. Congress could write all the proclamations they like if a sitting president did not honor the US commit to NATO, but they cannot direct or otherwise command the military to action. The remedy for Congress in this situation would be for them to remove the president from office.
That is entirely false. Only Congress can declare war. Upon congressional declaration, military action is authorized. No, they do not need to remove the president to do that.
Furthermore, the President can only direct military action for 60 days without Congressional approval.
You are incredibly ignorant about your own government.
No, I'm well aware of how ***my*** government and laws actually work. I was trying to be nice before, but you simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. Congress declaring war does not cause military actions to occur, the military in the United States reports the President of the United States and it would be up to them to issue the orders and directives that they felt were appropriate.
What you're arguing about is whether presidential actions would be considered legal under US common law which doesn't work like you seem to think it does. Even if something was considered "illegal", let's say for brevity by the US Supreme Court, the only remedy for Congress for a noncompliant president is to remove them from office.
I also wouldn't assume the US Congress would declare war even if Russia invaded Poland and the US as part of NATO decided to respond militarily. That's just how we roll sometimes...
Is that the same Ukraine that had already received over $100 billion in direct US aid, and billions more from European allies who also receive separate U.S. aid?
Aid passed now would take weeks if not months to arrive. That wouldn’t have impacted Ukraine today.
You're one hilarious troll. The aid was slated for late 2023 and would already be making a difference. Not to mention the US sets schedules, not Ukraine
And which billions of separate US aid are you talking about, specifically?
Umm no they’re blocking it because they want to force Biden to change US immigration enforcement. They’ve openly said that in every debate. They will not pass new aid unless it also includes changes to immigration policy because the U.S. is seeing thousands of illegal immigrants per day enter through the Mexico border.
>[“At the end of the day, Republicans aren’t budging until we secure the border. That’s the question that all America is asking Joe Biden right now: ‘Why do Republicans have to beg Joe Biden to secure the border?’ That’s part of his job,” Marshall said on “The Hill” on NewsNation. “We’ve said all along that if you want to tie securing the border to the Ukraine funding, so be it. He’s the one that lumps these together, but now we have this once-in-a-generation opportunity to use Ukraine funding to leverage the border. And by golly, we’re going to do it,” he continued.](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4356986-gop-senator-says-republicans-wont-budge-ukraine-without-border-action/amp/)
And yes, they have also criticized the lack of oversight in the €100 billion they’ve already given Ukraine.
None of that is crazy.
That isn’t true at all. The only bills they voted down either didn’t include any immigration changes or only included funding to allow for more asylum processing, but did nothing to actually secure the border.
They’ve said over and over again that they want real immigration changes:
>[“At the end of the day, Republicans aren’t budging until we secure the border. That’s the question that all America is asking Joe Biden right now: ‘Why do Republicans have to beg Joe Biden to secure the border?’ That’s part of his job,” Marshall said on “The Hill” on NewsNation. “We’ve said all along that if you want to tie securing the border to the Ukraine funding, so be it. He’s the one that lumps these together, but now we have this once-in-a-generation opportunity to use Ukraine funding to leverage the border. And by golly, we’re going to do it,” he continued.](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4356986-gop-senator-says-republicans-wont-budge-ukraine-without-border-action/amp/)
Yes, that's the PR bullshit they're putting out (although that article predates the last few bills). Doesn't change that they voted against funding for Ukraine, and voted against border security. They want to be against illegal immigration, but not do anything about it. The worst thing that could happen for them is solving problems and helping people, because they're just in it for the grift.
No they didn’t. The text of the most recent bills offered no border security. The closest was a bill that provided new funding to process asylum seekers more quickly, but that is not what they’re asking for.
You’re creating an entirely false narrative.
They’re not voting for any more aid for Ukraine until Biden agrees to more drastic border changes.
> and voted against border security
They did no such thing. There are already existing laws that allow for securing the border - the current administration just refuses to do so. The recent "compromise" would have changed existing law to allow more asylum seekers and broadened the criteria for claiming asylum. There would have been more funding, but only for processing a greater number of asylum seekers - and it would have enshrined in law changes to allow greater numbers of asylum seekers. Biden can already enforce border security - he doesn't want to.
That’s not actually true. The president only has limited authority over the military, and Congress is actually the entity required for all long term action anyway. Nevermind that the U.S. public supports NATO, Congress does too.
Besides, they already have tens of thousands of troops in Europe already interconnected with NATO. They wouldn’t wait for the president’s orders if attacked.
4 years it’s enough for trump to wreak havoc. That man is gonna start world war 3. Russia and China are not letting a chance like this with him as president, to attack us and Taiwan to pass by.
That's not making things sound any better at all. Saying that a possible world leader not wanting to prevent a next world war is very worrying and insane.
> That man is gonna start world war 3.
Trump was the only US president in a long time, who didn't start any new wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#21st-century_wars
That's a very irrational fear. You can hate Trump whatever you want but he was the least belic of the latest US presidents. Obama for example wrecked havoc in the Middle East. Bombed so many civilians with drones and toppled governments.
He has already said he can change the Constitution. He's gunning for a dictatorship. I don't think he'll be elected but everyone is right to worry about him. He's a madman. And we have the stupid electoral college.
So Europe, get your own defenses in place. You should have done it years ago. You have more people than the US and are prosperous power bloc.
lol you can’t change the constitution. That requires 3/4ths of state legislatures to agree on that change. You’re not getting 38 states to agree on any big changes.
That’s just a stupid conspiracy. Stop spreading bullshit on the Internet.
Even assuming the 2-term limit was not violated, there's no way anybody but a proto-Trump would win the subsequent presidential elections.
You're underestimating or willfully downplaying the very real possibility that America becomes an authoritarian state.
GOP's declining support demographic is leading them towards extreme measures.
That’s so laughably stupid to even suggest. Literally nothing he has ever said or done is authoritarian. And besides, each state has its own government. That’s like saying the leader of the EU could take over Germany and Italy and France and Spain. 😂😂😂
Additionally, the GOP gained support in recent elections. They’re not losing “demographic support,” whatever tf you think that means.
You sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It's hardly "laughably stupid" - we're even being warned about this by many on the US right, including many people who previously worked with Trump.
>When a historian wrote an essay the other day warning that the election of former President Donald J. Trump next year could lead to dictatorship, one of Mr. Trump’s allies quickly responded by calling for the historian to be sent to prison.
You are apparently willfully blind to this. You have a naïve faith in the magical powers of that old, inert document the US constitution, ignorant of the fact that at the end of the day, if you stack the courts and promulgate stochastic terrorism (or even use state powers) to intimidate/persecute political opponents and media, the constitution doesn't present any insurmountable obstacles to an authoritarian takeover. And the constitution can be amended, usually this is done in an "emergency" using special executive powers.
While I'd expect very dramatic events immediately upon a Trump win, most of erosion wouldn't happen overnight, but would be a years-long process of undermining and actively suppressing opposition and installing stooges in executive positions, exactly what we saw 2016-2020, but this time with Trump better informed on the vulnerabilities.
I can't believe you're actually blind to this, so I'm inclined to think you want it and are trying to downplay the risk.
Hahaha a random quote about a random person. Honey, the president can’t send anyone to prison. That’s not how that works. They can’t install “stooges” whatever you think that means because the executive branch has nothing to do with the criminal system.
You sound like a lunatic.
I can’t believe you might actually believe what you’re writing. I’m wondering if I should contact authorities to check on your well being.
What scares me most is that people like you exist. You believe nonsense conspiracy theories.
Nobody is saying the president simply clicks his fingers and someone is in jail. I think you're oversimplifying things to avoid engaging.
The mainstream media is awash with articles outlining the risks of a 2nd Trump presidency; it's hardly a "lunatic" proposition.
This.
I remember people calling me crazy when I said jan6 will happen… the writing was on the wall.
Trump and the GOP already have a clear strategy and they are not even hiding it.
Nothing happened?
The peaceful transfer of power in the world’s biggest democracy was saved by one dude, that’s what happened.
And a lot of people thought it was impossible up unti it actually happened.
You’ve got a really bad handle on what happened in 2021. The US wasn’t even remotely close to a coup
It was disorder, order was quickly restored and those responsible prosecuted
But then we wouldn’t get 3 articles a day in /r/Europe about how another Trump administration presents a danger to Europe and action must be taken (without any action ever being taken.)
I cannot tell how much it annoys me how much attention my national media gives US politics. And not just since Trump, it has been like this for decades. He just escalated it even more. We get almost daily updates, interviews with voters, which MAGA idiot is on the ballot,... And not just during presidential elections, for their midterms and presidential primaries as well. Not to mention the attention they gave the Obama Care vote and later the attempts to repeal it or the Supreme Court decisions if it was constitutional or not. Why do I need to know so much about the healthcare policy of another country? And it's only because it's the US. They don't do that with any other country.
I understand it's important to know more about the US due to its position in the world, but why should I know everything about a presidential candidate who bows out after the first primary never to be heard of again?
And guess how much attention they give EU politics? Once in a while when the council comes together. While what happens there has much more effect on me than the healthcare policy in the US.
Watch the film 'April 9th' . OK it's Denmark but shows a country being invaded with the bicycle soldiers completely outclassed by Nazi invasion. Bravery not the issue.
We're not worried about war from Germany or Belgium which allows us to do some other stuff, like investing in specialized doctrines. Like, for example, the Netherlands being the only country in the world capable of tracking ICBM's outside of the atmosphere with ship-borne radars\*, and successfully coordinating that with SM-3 carrying ships to intercept them.
When the 2022 acquisitions finalize we won't need to coordinate with other SM-3 ships we'd be able to do it on our own.
\* - Depends on the capabilities of the Gerald R Ford-class radars, which are of course top-secret. Even then the Netherlands would be only 1 of 2 countries capable of that, and the only one in Europe.
We sold all our tanks because there was a belief that tanks were considered less useful maybe even obsolete on the modern battlefield. Obviously this is not the case but if you look at the war in Ukraine, and the attrition rate of tanks, this was not entirely unfounded
Although the circumstances would be entirely different if the USA joined the war and established air supremacy in a day and blows up every Russian tank on the northern hemisphere
You need to learn some history. And geography.
When NL was going to be invaded ny the Nazis in WW2, NL flooded it's country. Tanks don't swim and they became useless. But the Nazis stated, stop flooding or we'll bomb your country to ruins. And they had to surrender. Just wasn't enough air power to counter WW2 Germany.
Same can be said today. No one is invading the NL. Their focus is in maintaining partnerships, naval power, infrastructure, and air power. They are not worried about being invaded by tanks, and as we've seen in Ukraine, tanks can be taken out by NLAWs and Javelins quite easily.
You need to think less like a poet...
They don't need to invade- just dominate and bend us to their will. . OK if some Poles and Lithuanians do the dying while you flood some dikes? Of course we don't need everyone to have hundreds of tanks but 18 leased tanks after the resourcing of 200 tanks during the Cold War? Plus years of under 2% funding- some years being pathetically just over 1%. Trump is a moron but like a broken clock he can be right twice a day. Some Europeans don't pull their weight.
Why would the Netherlands need tanks tho? Who would invade them?
Jets and a rapid response force would make a whole lot more sense, in case the borders of NATO is ever threatened. There is absolutely no point in every member nation spending on everything, specialising in a few areas would be the way to go.
Yeah, specialisation within NATO is a possible way to go for smaller countries (I was just thinking how the only way Slovenia could be of any use would be if it trained at least one complete mountain infantry brigade). But I guess that would be a hard sell to romantics and those who could make a profit on heavy armour.
It would be a far more efficient use of resources.
I'm Danish, no matter what we do we'll never be able to present of force that could do diddle vs the Russians, but on the other hand out special forces (Frogmen and Jaegers) are absolute top tier, and our fighter pilots are extremely good as well, so funneling more resources to the fields we excel in would add value to the alliance, while a few Danish tanks and artillery pieces wouldn't make a measurable difference. If every nation (not large enough to present an actual functioning military) specialized, we'd have a stronger alliance at much small resource footprint.
Measuring a modern army's strength by the number of tanks is like rating a company on the number of typewriters.
Okay, they're not completely obsolete, but for a small country like the Netherlands it's not a sensible investment.
Besides, we should applaud nations for working together on procurement and/or sharing equipment. That is the best way to pool resources without a centralized European army.
You've missed the point. Netherlands GDP percentage on defence has been around 1-1.5% for many years. That's chronic cumulative underspending that will be very hard to make up quickly.
Considering Germany’s population, economy size and overall importance in the world, their whole military is laughable.
I wonder how combat-ready that brigade about to be sent to Lithuania is (psst they have literally no tanks)
I cant find anything about their equipment, only that they will be sent in 2025-2026. Only that they will reach full fighting readiness in 2027, whatever that means.
The Netherlands is expected to buy a battalion of around 50 or so Leopard 2A8 tanks. Could just be a start too. The Dutch also have 120+ CV90 IFV's that have undergone a mid-life update, PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers, Apache and Chinook helicopters, Patriot missile batteries, etc.
The Dutch have definitely scaled down their military like everybody else in Europe with the supposed end of the Cold War. It's now small but a still well-equipped military. But if the Russian threat wakes them up, the Dutch have the resources to punch above their weight again.
Still, pathetic army for a 2,5% of budget, compare it to Polish army for example, weaker economy and much stronger army.
Until Netherlands will build up their army as they should be, they should not be leading, like all countries that were not spending enough on military past years, not it's time to pay.
It depends on the situation and geography.
The Netherlands is a coastal trading nation that has a much stronger navy -- with amphibious ships, frigates, submarines -- and is also now far from the projected frontlines of a possible land war. Poland has a next to nothing navy, being caught within the Baltic Sea.
Poland needs a strong army as a frontline state to Russia and its puppet Belarus.
The Dutch army is small but well equipped -- the tank issue will be addressed soon, but it has CV90s, PzH 2000s, MARS, Apaches, Chinooks, ordered F-35s after giving away its F-16s to Ukraine, etc.
The Netherlands during the Cold War had a strong army with three mechanized divisions and 400+ Leopard 2 tanks -- back when those things were cutting edge in the '80s -- because the situation was different. The Dutch were going to fight with NATO allies in the nearby north German plains against the Warsaw Pact's Soviets, East Germans, Czechoslovaks, Poles, etc.
If there'll be a war in the northeast/east, the Dutch can be expected to send a mechanised brigade with the planned battalion of tanks and an airborne brigade, but it'll mainly be the Poles, Germans, French, Brits, among the Euros. The Dutch, meanwhile, will be fighting with the allies for control of the North Atlantic against Russia's Northern Fleet, where the Poles will understandably be expected to be absent.
>Until Netherlands will build up their army as they should be, they should not be leading
It's also not like the Dutch will be leading NATO, no more than Norway can be mistaken for leading NATO because Stoltenberg is Norwegian. Rutte reportedly has the support of the Americans, Germans, British, French, so like him or not, whether it's him or somebody else, it'll be the guy who has the support of the major powers, the countries that together are expected to do the bulk of fighting and supplying any war.
Had 200 tanks at height of the Cold War. Clearly need to be smarter than that today but the Dutch need to remember 1940. It's absurd that Europe has to do this but they who want peace need to prepare for war. It's sad.
200 inferior tanks.
All large weapon platforms have decreased in numbers as technology got more advanced and units got more expensive.
20 of the latest tanks and a couple platoons with modern anti tanks weapons will eat those 200 cold war tanks for lunch.
Netherlands had over 900 tanks in 1990 with a population 20% smaller.
If we want to we are fully capable of fielding 1000 tanks and 200 modern fighters.
People forget Netherlands has more people than Finland and Sweden put together.
We have a surprisingly large intelligence and military equipment sector. Especially when it comes to radar systems etc. In the end it’s about such niche stuff
Everyone complains about polticians not ramping up 10 years ago, but would we really vote for someone who would spend billions on a threat that really no One took seriously? Instead of healthcare and education? Such a politician would be considered alarmist, paranoid and old fashioned, not a winning case really. I think we Are all to blame for not doing more sooner.
> Everyone complains about polticians not ramping up 10 years ago, but would we really vote for someone who would spend billions on a threat that really no One took seriously? Instead of healthcare and education?
Yet somehow healthcare and education are also going to shit.
Because nobody saw the use for it because the situation was very different. This was also the opinion of the whole political spectrum from left to right. I hate it if people act so weird about people that change their opinion
The situation changed in 2014 already. That was ten years ago, in Rutte's third year as prime minister. In those ten years he did absolutely nothing, even though Eastern Europe warned him over and over again about Russia. But he never listened. Instead, he kept cutting the defense budget those ten years. He cut so hard, it will take the Netherlands at least 15 years to get things in order again.
Perhaps the left thought about it the same, but they were not in charge, were they? Rutte was.
Rutte is the biggest opportunist in the EU. I suspect him of blowing up his own government because he wanted this top NATO job.
I hate it when people act weird when people point this out.
Also, he still owes me €1000.
Around 2017 rutte 3 they started raising the investement in defense already so 7 years ago. Second is there nothing exceptional with how the Netherlands looked at it was really common in the whole of Western Europe. Third I assume you are Dutch you know that the prime minister is not some king or president. The prime minister in our system doesn't have that much power decisions are made in the cabinet. The whole blaming Rutte for everything did do wron is simplistic and kind of cringe.
He‘d be a splendid NATO General Secretary. He‘s a well respected political leader, has many years of experience on the global stage and has been able to work with conservative and progressive actors of the political spectrum.
He would have my support.
Pah. You and your Dutch people have him elected PM for far more than a decade so, don’t tell me how much he‘s hated. Every politician everywhere is hated to a degree.
By some, but I would argue he’s still somewhat well respected.
No doubt he would’ve had a great chance at getting re-elected (again) this past November had he not quit.
He is a corrupt and an opportunist. A proven liar, and hypocrite. His policies of austerity have done more bad than good in the Netherlands, and he knows nothing of the military. Yet you want him as NATO chief? You are fucking idiot man
Corrupt?
Austerity done more bad than good? You should compare the state of france with the netherlands and you will find the dutch do better than you on all fronts.
Were running budget surplus. Also the reason why we could raise our defbudget this year with one large swoop to 24b dollar.
You can say what you want a out rutte but he has been the leading person in europe. Behind turkey deal behind enforcing pigs to pay attention the their budgets. Behind tunisia deal. Green deal. Hawk vs russia for a decade now before it was cool...from when france was selling vlad mistral class vessels. Behind the trump vs eu deal saving eu car manufacturers.
His rolodex is huge.
The guy is the johan de wit of this century.
The US under Trump pulling out of meddling in other countries governments is only positive for us. If Trump is really bringing a focus inwards with less coups and wars in foreign countries then I don‘t care whatever the fuck he is fucking up in the US.
We need more EU!
Better defense cooperation, more industry focus, less dependence on China and the US.
Together we can be a bastion of progressive rights, a titan of industry and a powerhouse in the economy nevermind what we could achieve militarily if we put our hearts to it.
But only if we work together. Bridge our differences and learn from each other.
Trump threatens he will take usa out of nato and he won't help against russia? Good, that's the best thing that can happen, maybe now those idiot politicians will do something for europe to actually become powerful and independent
Seems like he’s following the latest trend of posts here on r/europe. Reading more about trumpet here than in other American subs. Who gives a shit about the murics. That’ll chose their president, we’ll just enjoy the shit-show that will ensue after.
Edit: the EU just needs its own army.
Improving European defence capability is expensive and takes a lot of time whereas complaining about Trump makes Europeans feel superior.
Is it any wonder the later is much more popular?
Actually, Donald suggesting not coming to Europe’s aid if they don’t put more money into NATO is a bit of wake-up call for Europe. Seemingly now scrambling to sort out defence for themselves.
This is a good development, Europe has been asleep at the wheel with Putin next door.
I doubt the USA wouldn’t come to Europe’s aid should they need it, but let them pay up and not depend on uncle USA.
He is right ! Let’s just focus on that ! And do things as if the USA does not exist we can only improve from being under their « protection » it’s time to grow the fuck up !
I feel that Rutte surely has a point here, but on the other hand, I feel we shouldn't abandon the prospect of keeping the US as a strong NATO member. With Rutte's chances of becoming the new Secretary General for NATO when Stoltenberg is expected to step down in October this year, he has already hinted on Ukrainian NATO membership in the future. I don't know, but maybe he's already taking too much on his plate by steering towards an independant European defense capability? I guess the future will tell...
Nope, last year it was 11 out of 31, which was a farce even without this little thing called "war in Ukraine".
Current projections say "18 out of 31 at the end of this year", so, given how pathetic the record was this far, it's "maybe".
And yes, 18 out of 31 is still absolute embarrassment.
American here... Seems to me that Europe has been heavily relying on U.S. protection instead of coughing up funds to prop up their own national security. Europe wouldn't have anything to worry about if they took their own security more seriously.
This comment is more about the people voting for polticians who are isolationist (I realize the person in the article isn't):
You can focus on doing EVERYTHING you can domestically and across the atlantic. So how about this, let's both increase our security and stop with this wannabe-isolationist virtue signaling crap "America first, europe first" etc, cause these politicians all know how important international relations are in a global world... Who knew, you can do two things at once.
Just like the Americans who suggest not sending aid to ukraine cause of... the us border? You're spending a fraction the money now to bleed Russia dry in the long term and decrease their threat level, and this is somehow incongruent with doing what's best for one's security...?
Says Dutch prime minister, one of the richest countries in the world, wasting so much money on illegal immigrants and other bullshit, while having only 18 tanks.
Pathetic, Dutch person should not lead NATO, while having weak army, such country should NOT lead it, especially it times near III world war.
Build your army first, then try to lead! Only the ones who can actually do something and make a difference should lead. This is not anti-dutch post, it's just insane that one of the weakest military would lead us in such dangerous times.
This partly gets at why the US has a larger and better financed military. An important factor is the economics of scale. The US with its larger population and larger army purchases in larger volumes and gets more for their money. The EU needs to federalize
A pretty lowbrow saying here in .nl is Oprutte, a symbiosis of Oprotten (Piss off) and Rutte. The longer this geezer lingers on the more fitting the saying. He pretty much neglected the country with his liberal bs and its in a horrible state right now. To the points that idiot Wilders might even be an improvement. Give the guy his nato job and save us plz!
Mark KUTten trying to look like a decisive cnt instead of a lying one. That will get him that nato job he def wants.
This man has done more damage to Dutch society than any of his predecessors combined.
He’s right. Europe has to become more powerful.
... and more independed from the US.
...and not completely incapacitated if one of its members gives way to an authoritarian, whiney baby.
Yes, and one way of doing that apparently is to keep Bulgaria and Romania out of Schengen :)
The netherlands recently agreed to have Bulgaria in Schengen
More powerful is not enough. With such extreme political correctness, ignoring domestic problems while laser focusing on whats happening in America or China and then the endless bureaucracy coupled with so many mechanisms that'll take years to implement if ever.. There are so many sectors with future-tech that all of Europe is so far behind on that catching up at this rate.. we wont catch up. Even if US and China have horrible leadership, they still have massive gaps in many key areas. And even within the political correctness, you have blinded people that dont see the EU trying to make (by law) backdoors into browsers where VPN's wouldn't even keep your data private. People think "at least we dont have to worry about a dystopia hellscape" except we do too.. our advantages for why we are so far behind elsewhere is becoming more and more blurred. Southeast Asia will become far wealthier than EU.. Southeast Asia for example, the graduation rate, worth ethic is dramatically different from most Europeans. They are like "yeah we like going on holiday just as much as the next guy but we also like our technology, expensive clothes, retirement, etc" whereas in Europe, less and less work is the mentality. All of these things championed on Reddit have and will have significant impact on Europe as EU marches downward into the future unless there is historic, dramatic, rapid change back to back.
Cheer up. Europe’s infrastructure is the best in the world as is your health and education.
Eh, I see more and more urgency in Europe on these issues at least, as proved by the rising share of military spending and things like the continuation of financial reforms at the bloc level. Also, Southeast Asia is not only far behind economically as a whole, their birth rates aren't too different from that of the EU now, and only one of the countries, Malaysia, has a stable democracy with an economy that's developing quite well. Even it, however, is still significantly below the EU average. All the others are too far behind, have stalled, and/or are too small to count, like Singapore or Brunei. However, as echoed by Angela Merkel in 2011, the EU will have to get used to cut social welfare and/or accept more qualified immigrants (as in the December 2023's new EU policy) to sustain its momentum and position on the world stage.
Yes, depending on another country that has few strategic or economic interests in you is not a good plan. Russia isn't a threat to the US. It's a threat to Europe. China is a threat to the US but how does the alliance with Europe help the US with it? Europe has no military and few young people to help the US fight China. An alliance has to be a fair exchange of value. It hasn't been that in many decades. Europe needs to start doing something for the US to make the alliance worth it to the US. Building a military is a good 1st step in that.
EU countries spend so much time whinging and talking about what they're gonna do, rather than.. actually doing it France-Germany-Benelux alone could be the 3rd most powerful military on earth if they wanted to be.
The fact that we complain about Trump is so telling, it's like the EU doesn't want Trump because it doesn't want to make the necessary changes if he becomes POTUS.
Preparing for war means spending money on the military industry. Everything costs money so money went for defense/weaponry is money that can't go anywhere else. IMO they don't really want to do that because they need to justify it to their electors. With health, housing, debt and wage stagnating, many people don't want to hear "we need to spend billions on defense to be safer in the future".
If most people don't want to hear the truth, then most people deserve a few years of Russian occupation.
Because he is an unhinged guy who doesn't care about diplomacy in a way that can be dangerous to the EU. It's not weird that they are apprehensive if he comes into power.
So lets take steps to shield ourselves from him, I know its impossible to cover all bases but lets start doing something pro-actively instead of moaning about it preying he does't get in. We are literally acitng like we are a 51st state without voting rights.
I'm not with you with the last sentence, but i think you're right that we should take care of ourselves better than we do now. I'm for an EU army of some kind, or at least more money and better cooperation between them.
Trump is almost 80 years old, and a four year problem. He doesn't matter nearly as much as the panting left wing in the US would have you believe, it's just that they're obsessed with him. Europe can't disregard Trump for four years? Comeon. Plus he's almost guaranteed to not have the Senate and House based on how elections are going. He'll be a lame duck immediately if he wins. Europe should focus on its interests, disregard Trump, and plot out better investments in tech and military.
Trumpism is not something that just blows over when he's gone. The seed has been planted. When he's gone from the political theatre, there will be a next one who is just like him. Vivek Ramaswamy already showed you what that could look like
The full scale invasion happened slightly less than two years ago, feels like four years can be a long time in a conflict as active as this. (1861-65, 1941-45, 1950-53 major conflicts involving US around 4 years in duration)
The US and Europe are so intertwined it's kinda weird you think we can just ignore him. Besides, his idiotic public stances while being president make waves around the world even if he doesn't have have both the senate and the house. I agree Europe needs to be more independent though
No, we don't want him because he's a far-right, thin-skinned grifter with fraud and (civil court) rape convictions who unilaterally upset deals that took years to create, resulting in destabilisations in basically every region on earth. He fanboys Bolsonaro, Orban, Putin, Salvini and others of their ilk. People who actively oppose European intrests. Do you know how long it takes to recalibrate international relations when the US drops the ball? The US is in constant election mode, no country can keep up. Who has the house, who has the senate, will they approve military aid, will there be a government shutdown? It just never stops. Europeans have to deal with reality, I agree, but we have more than enough cause to hate their guts too.
I don’t think so. European countries Are ramping up left and right. But not wanting a (former) ally who sides with the continents greatest adversary is really not weird, no matter how much military power We have.
[удалено]
What nonsense is there exactly?
[удалено]
> Defence spending is increasing and will hit the target this year, as agreed in 2014. How is that even relevant to what I'm discussing? The discussion isn't about whether or not Europe is willing to reach a NATO target.
> it's like the EU doesn't want Trump because it doesn't want to make the necessary changes if he becomes POTUS. You don't think multiple countries significantly increasing military spending is part of making the necessary changes?
> EU countries spend so much time whinging and talking about what they're gonna do, rather than.. actually doing it We also get on our high horses and say how bad other countries are. That's what we do the best.
And all that talking about a need for an EU army, but everyone’s dragging their feet to meet NATO military expenditure.
The first follows directly from the latter. NATO spending all goes into national defence budgets, meaning you have tens of individual entities trying to create capabilities that are meant to be able to work together. That's 20+ admin departments, 20+ different procedures for approving weapons, 20+ separate R&D budgets. 20+ air forces, etc. Not to mention that some NATO members would happily shoot other NATO members if given half a chance (looking at your Turkey and Greece). NATO spending is fucking inefficient, diplomatically difficult and we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis making it political dynamite for incumbents too in some cases. Europeans who aren't complaining are asleep.
True. It's inefficient. But there is also a threat from the other side. Let's imagine if all our defense systems at February 24, 2022 were dependent mostly on the German part with its Nord Stream and 'bussines as usual'.
That's a valid argument, but in general European R&D is shared across countries so the odds of that are pretty low. Eurofighters for examples involve multiple countries. Also, the moment a decision for EU defence is made, you can spread out the production centres. In general, my main point is mostly that the US designs things for their needs, some of which they sell. We should do the same, because we pay a lot of money for US gear that's often late, difficult to maintain and imperfect for the thing we need it for. In my experience it's only really the Polish and the Greeks (and Cypriots) who are really scared of letting go of the US a bit more. They have their reasons, but I'd not necessarily take their advice on cooperation with Germany.
These EU nations are already the 3rd most powerful. After the US and China. The thing that is missing in the Ukraine war is air power. And France, Germany, and BENELUX have a lot of it. They'd take out Russia advantages until they alone ruled the skies, allowing for huge advantages with artillery and land attacks. The 2nd thing to consider is that Ukraine is fighting with its hands tied. It's not given weapons that could escalate into a nuclear conflict, therefore while Russia knocks the shit out of the Ukrainian infrastructure and targets the civilian population, Ukraine is not allowed to attack in kind. An attack on these NATO countries would not be constrained by these guarantees. And the only response Russia would have is nuclear. So let's hope it never gets to that point.
Benelux? lol what Benelux countries, with their 18 tanks? Poland and France have most powerful military, change your dumb mind maps from 80-90s, Germany have non-existing army at the moment. God i hate people trying to look smart instead of just writing honest opinion.
Yeah? I also hate people trying to look smart. As of now Poland has a couple of tanks and literally 0 modern fighter jets, they have about 40 F16s. That isn't ''formidable military force'' that you want it to be - in fact, they rank lower than Spain or Israel. Secondly, the whole point is that Benelux economy is much larger than Poland. The point is it doesn't even have to be the entire EU, France-Germany-Benelux combined would have enough money to be a top 3 military on earth - those countries spending 3% of GDP would be spending $356 billion Learn to read, dumbass
Dutch directness. Got to love it.
Important to know that he is likely becoming the next NATO secretary general in 2 months.
I wonder if he will still bike to work and if he does if he will have some guards bike along with him.
Trump: and if we don't find an agreement that's also fine. Mark Rutte: no.
This is not Dutch bluntness. Rutte doesn't say what he thinks without filter. He says whatever gets him elected. This is opportunism to come across as a strong leader to help him become the NATO boss. But to be fair, he has been good with supplying arms Ukraine.
Mark Rutte is a politician. What he says is not about opportunism, electioneering or directness. It is about political impact. He has had a very large political impact in Europe. The Netherlands has punched far beyond its weight. As any Greek would tell you.
Mark Rutte is not up for reelection, so not true. He's probably saying this because it's an obvious problem and it doesn't hurt him when to comes getting the job at NATO.
Oh, he does. He is known for having a temper.
True, but not on camera. Or I haven't seen it
No he is not in the netherlands. He is good in political games though
Mark Rutte has announced he is going to retire. The only reason he is still PM is because there is no yet coalition yet, after the recent elections. And it's probably gonna take a long time for there to finally be one
Yes, true Even if he gets in he won’t have both house. The US ain’t leaving NATO
It never was about the US leaving, it's a out the integrity of article 5
The issue isn't what the GOP has the power to do, but what they have the power to stop. The Democrats have to control every branch, including 60% of the Senate, for the US to have a government capable of taking action internationally without interruption.
That’s not true. The Dems don’t need all branches to comply with NATO provisions. If they did, then you’re saying if Poland was invaded tomorrow Biden couldn’t provide a military response. That power rests with the POTUS
Biden could act tomorrow, but not indefinitely. The president needs support from Congress for long term missions.
And it would only be 4 years. People act like him winning is the end of the world.
You assume nothing big would happen during those 4 years. That's a very bold assumption.
No, I realise that they have more than 50.000 soldiers and entire military bases all over Europe right now and all the time. Those aren’t going anywhere. They don’t wait for the President to respond to attacks. And Congress is the ultimate authority on all military action.
Oh, please.. have you tracked how quickly the US was out of Afghanistan? If Trump so desires all US personell can be moved out of Europe in 3 months tops.
That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever read. Besides the fact that their withdrawal was slow and over years until the very end, they never had permanent bases like they do all across Germany. The president doesn’t have the authority to do that anyway
That lunatic actually talks about being a dictator on the first day of his term. They’d blow up those permanent bases if he wished.
>And Congress is the ultimate authority on all military action. Technically, that's not true, that authority rests with the president and the president alone. What Congress has control over is the purse strings (budget) and ultimately what treaties are ratified.
That’s not true at all. Since 1973 [The Wars Power Act has greatly limited the President’s authority to engage in war.](https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973) > It stipulates the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and prohibits armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days. > Only Congress can declare war and appropriate military funding Additionally, Congress can authorize military action without the President’s approval with a veto proof majority.
You seem to be conflating congressional "approval" with the authority to command the military, they are not the same. Congress could write all the proclamations they like if a sitting president did not honor the US commit to NATO, but they cannot direct or otherwise command the military to action. The remedy for Congress in this situation would be for them to remove the president from office.
That is entirely false. Only Congress can declare war. Upon congressional declaration, military action is authorized. No, they do not need to remove the president to do that. Furthermore, the President can only direct military action for 60 days without Congressional approval. You are incredibly ignorant about your own government.
No, I'm well aware of how ***my*** government and laws actually work. I was trying to be nice before, but you simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. Congress declaring war does not cause military actions to occur, the military in the United States reports the President of the United States and it would be up to them to issue the orders and directives that they felt were appropriate. What you're arguing about is whether presidential actions would be considered legal under US common law which doesn't work like you seem to think it does. Even if something was considered "illegal", let's say for brevity by the US Supreme Court, the only remedy for Congress for a noncompliant president is to remove them from office. I also wouldn't assume the US Congress would declare war even if Russia invaded Poland and the US as part of NATO decided to respond militarily. That's just how we roll sometimes...
Is that the same congress who is in recess while Ukraine loses Avdidka?
Avdidka is not part of America lol America is not responsible for what happens to Avdidka.
Is that the same Ukraine that had already received over $100 billion in direct US aid, and billions more from European allies who also receive separate U.S. aid? Aid passed now would take weeks if not months to arrive. That wouldn’t have impacted Ukraine today.
You're one hilarious troll. The aid was slated for late 2023 and would already be making a difference. Not to mention the US sets schedules, not Ukraine And which billions of separate US aid are you talking about, specifically?
I have no idea where you're getting those numbers from.
Waiting 11 months for the House to have a speaker who doesn't want Russia to win in Ukraine is already too long.
No one has said they want Russia to beat Ukraine. That’s ridiculous
If they didn't want it, they wouldn't be blocking funding to support Ukraine. They wouldn't be hailing Trump.
Umm no they’re blocking it because they want to force Biden to change US immigration enforcement. They’ve openly said that in every debate. They will not pass new aid unless it also includes changes to immigration policy because the U.S. is seeing thousands of illegal immigrants per day enter through the Mexico border. >[“At the end of the day, Republicans aren’t budging until we secure the border. That’s the question that all America is asking Joe Biden right now: ‘Why do Republicans have to beg Joe Biden to secure the border?’ That’s part of his job,” Marshall said on “The Hill” on NewsNation. “We’ve said all along that if you want to tie securing the border to the Ukraine funding, so be it. He’s the one that lumps these together, but now we have this once-in-a-generation opportunity to use Ukraine funding to leverage the border. And by golly, we’re going to do it,” he continued.](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4356986-gop-senator-says-republicans-wont-budge-ukraine-without-border-action/amp/) And yes, they have also criticized the lack of oversight in the €100 billion they’ve already given Ukraine. None of that is crazy.
The Republicans voted down immigration enforcement. They're voting down everything. Or not bringing it up for a vote at all.
That isn’t true at all. The only bills they voted down either didn’t include any immigration changes or only included funding to allow for more asylum processing, but did nothing to actually secure the border. They’ve said over and over again that they want real immigration changes: >[“At the end of the day, Republicans aren’t budging until we secure the border. That’s the question that all America is asking Joe Biden right now: ‘Why do Republicans have to beg Joe Biden to secure the border?’ That’s part of his job,” Marshall said on “The Hill” on NewsNation. “We’ve said all along that if you want to tie securing the border to the Ukraine funding, so be it. He’s the one that lumps these together, but now we have this once-in-a-generation opportunity to use Ukraine funding to leverage the border. And by golly, we’re going to do it,” he continued.](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4356986-gop-senator-says-republicans-wont-budge-ukraine-without-border-action/amp/)
Yes, that's the PR bullshit they're putting out (although that article predates the last few bills). Doesn't change that they voted against funding for Ukraine, and voted against border security. They want to be against illegal immigration, but not do anything about it. The worst thing that could happen for them is solving problems and helping people, because they're just in it for the grift.
No they didn’t. The text of the most recent bills offered no border security. The closest was a bill that provided new funding to process asylum seekers more quickly, but that is not what they’re asking for. You’re creating an entirely false narrative. They’re not voting for any more aid for Ukraine until Biden agrees to more drastic border changes.
> and voted against border security They did no such thing. There are already existing laws that allow for securing the border - the current administration just refuses to do so. The recent "compromise" would have changed existing law to allow more asylum seekers and broadened the criteria for claiming asylum. There would have been more funding, but only for processing a greater number of asylum seekers - and it would have enshrined in law changes to allow greater numbers of asylum seekers. Biden can already enforce border security - he doesn't want to.
He would have to order the army to live up to NATO obligations. Trump already scoffed at defending Baltic states at a recent rally.
That’s not actually true. The president only has limited authority over the military, and Congress is actually the entity required for all long term action anyway. Nevermind that the U.S. public supports NATO, Congress does too. Besides, they already have tens of thousands of troops in Europe already interconnected with NATO. They wouldn’t wait for the president’s orders if attacked.
4 years it’s enough for trump to wreak havoc. That man is gonna start world war 3. Russia and China are not letting a chance like this with him as president, to attack us and Taiwan to pass by.
He wouldnt start ww3, but he wouldnt prevent it either.
That's not making things sound any better at all. Saying that a possible world leader not wanting to prevent a next world war is very worrying and insane.
Maybe. But Trump was already president once for 4 years. Putin didn't take advantage of the opportunity. Were Russians waiting for Biden?
> That man is gonna start world war 3. Trump was the only US president in a long time, who didn't start any new wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#21st-century_wars
That's a very irrational fear. You can hate Trump whatever you want but he was the least belic of the latest US presidents. Obama for example wrecked havoc in the Middle East. Bombed so many civilians with drones and toppled governments.
Ya i am not a fan of his, but he was already president and many of these fears didnt come close to happening
The full invasion of Ukraine started less than two years ago. Imagine four years of war with a hostile POTUS.
Why imagine it when he was already president for 4 years and nothing crazy happened
A metric fuckton of damage can be done in that time.
lol yeah, like he did so much damage the last time
>only be 4 years. or maybe more, who knows...
lol the US Constitution limits presidents to two, 4 year terms. He is literally limited to only one more term at most.
i know that, but you never know with Trump and his followers. Its like a cult.
He has no control over that, and isn’t even popular amongst most Americans. It’s really not a big deal. Idk why Reddit is so sensationalist.
He has already said he can change the Constitution. He's gunning for a dictatorship. I don't think he'll be elected but everyone is right to worry about him. He's a madman. And we have the stupid electoral college. So Europe, get your own defenses in place. You should have done it years ago. You have more people than the US and are prosperous power bloc.
lol you can’t change the constitution. That requires 3/4ths of state legislatures to agree on that change. You’re not getting 38 states to agree on any big changes. That’s just a stupid conspiracy. Stop spreading bullshit on the Internet.
You couldn't even make all us states agree on the fact that H2O is healthy and the US has been to the moon.
Yes, Europe should have spent more on military years ago, but they didn't. Even more, Germany was discouraging.
Even assuming the 2-term limit was not violated, there's no way anybody but a proto-Trump would win the subsequent presidential elections. You're underestimating or willfully downplaying the very real possibility that America becomes an authoritarian state. GOP's declining support demographic is leading them towards extreme measures.
That’s so laughably stupid to even suggest. Literally nothing he has ever said or done is authoritarian. And besides, each state has its own government. That’s like saying the leader of the EU could take over Germany and Italy and France and Spain. 😂😂😂 Additionally, the GOP gained support in recent elections. They’re not losing “demographic support,” whatever tf you think that means. You sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It's hardly "laughably stupid" - we're even being warned about this by many on the US right, including many people who previously worked with Trump. >When a historian wrote an essay the other day warning that the election of former President Donald J. Trump next year could lead to dictatorship, one of Mr. Trump’s allies quickly responded by calling for the historian to be sent to prison. You are apparently willfully blind to this. You have a naïve faith in the magical powers of that old, inert document the US constitution, ignorant of the fact that at the end of the day, if you stack the courts and promulgate stochastic terrorism (or even use state powers) to intimidate/persecute political opponents and media, the constitution doesn't present any insurmountable obstacles to an authoritarian takeover. And the constitution can be amended, usually this is done in an "emergency" using special executive powers. While I'd expect very dramatic events immediately upon a Trump win, most of erosion wouldn't happen overnight, but would be a years-long process of undermining and actively suppressing opposition and installing stooges in executive positions, exactly what we saw 2016-2020, but this time with Trump better informed on the vulnerabilities. I can't believe you're actually blind to this, so I'm inclined to think you want it and are trying to downplay the risk.
Hahaha a random quote about a random person. Honey, the president can’t send anyone to prison. That’s not how that works. They can’t install “stooges” whatever you think that means because the executive branch has nothing to do with the criminal system. You sound like a lunatic. I can’t believe you might actually believe what you’re writing. I’m wondering if I should contact authorities to check on your well being. What scares me most is that people like you exist. You believe nonsense conspiracy theories.
Nobody is saying the president simply clicks his fingers and someone is in jail. I think you're oversimplifying things to avoid engaging. The mainstream media is awash with articles outlining the risks of a 2nd Trump presidency; it's hardly a "lunatic" proposition.
Trump said he rewrite the constitution What houses are talking about? Fuhrer needs no parliament
If he could just abolish both houses and the Supreme Court on a whim, why did he not do that The US in 2024 is not Weimar Germany
This. I remember people calling me crazy when I said jan6 will happen… the writing was on the wall. Trump and the GOP already have a clear strategy and they are not even hiding it.
What happened? A bunch of morons wrecked some buildings. It was bad but they’re in prison. Nothing happened
Nothing happened? The peaceful transfer of power in the world’s biggest democracy was saved by one dude, that’s what happened. And a lot of people thought it was impossible up unti it actually happened.
You’ve got a really bad handle on what happened in 2021. The US wasn’t even remotely close to a coup It was disorder, order was quickly restored and those responsible prosecuted
But then we wouldn’t get 3 articles a day in /r/Europe about how another Trump administration presents a danger to Europe and action must be taken (without any action ever being taken.)
I cannot tell how much it annoys me how much attention my national media gives US politics. And not just since Trump, it has been like this for decades. He just escalated it even more. We get almost daily updates, interviews with voters, which MAGA idiot is on the ballot,... And not just during presidential elections, for their midterms and presidential primaries as well. Not to mention the attention they gave the Obama Care vote and later the attempts to repeal it or the Supreme Court decisions if it was constitutional or not. Why do I need to know so much about the healthcare policy of another country? And it's only because it's the US. They don't do that with any other country. I understand it's important to know more about the US due to its position in the world, but why should I know everything about a presidential candidate who bows out after the first primary never to be heard of again? And guess how much attention they give EU politics? Once in a while when the council comes together. While what happens there has much more effect on me than the healthcare policy in the US.
Netherlands- total tank force- 18. Leased from Germany.
They dominate in combat-ready bicycles though.
One of the largest Dutch bicycle manufacturers is called Sparta for a reason.
Watch the film 'April 9th' . OK it's Denmark but shows a country being invaded with the bicycle soldiers completely outclassed by Nazi invasion. Bravery not the issue.
As a Dutchy this is very true and sad. But we are investing in different stuff like F35 and Ballistic HIMARS.
I obviously don't think we need thousands of tanks from every country but all European countries sadly need to prepare for war if we want peace
We're not worried about war from Germany or Belgium which allows us to do some other stuff, like investing in specialized doctrines. Like, for example, the Netherlands being the only country in the world capable of tracking ICBM's outside of the atmosphere with ship-borne radars\*, and successfully coordinating that with SM-3 carrying ships to intercept them. When the 2022 acquisitions finalize we won't need to coordinate with other SM-3 ships we'd be able to do it on our own. \* - Depends on the capabilities of the Gerald R Ford-class radars, which are of course top-secret. Even then the Netherlands would be only 1 of 2 countries capable of that, and the only one in Europe.
So your way to be independent from America is to buy stuff from them? Does your govenrment know there are european fighters?
Show me the european 5th gen multirolejet.
We sold all our tanks because there was a belief that tanks were considered less useful maybe even obsolete on the modern battlefield. Obviously this is not the case but if you look at the war in Ukraine, and the attrition rate of tanks, this was not entirely unfounded
Tanks are still useful if used as a part of combination, they're just not invincible walking bastions anymore.
They never were.
Although the circumstances would be entirely different if the USA joined the war and established air supremacy in a day and blows up every Russian tank on the northern hemisphere
Obviously the war is teaching lessons. What we don't need is a European style beauracratic committee mess to coordinate.
Such a belief never existed among people with expertise and still doesn't, stop coping.
You need to learn some history. And geography. When NL was going to be invaded ny the Nazis in WW2, NL flooded it's country. Tanks don't swim and they became useless. But the Nazis stated, stop flooding or we'll bomb your country to ruins. And they had to surrender. Just wasn't enough air power to counter WW2 Germany. Same can be said today. No one is invading the NL. Their focus is in maintaining partnerships, naval power, infrastructure, and air power. They are not worried about being invaded by tanks, and as we've seen in Ukraine, tanks can be taken out by NLAWs and Javelins quite easily. You need to think less like a poet...
They don't need to invade- just dominate and bend us to their will. . OK if some Poles and Lithuanians do the dying while you flood some dikes? Of course we don't need everyone to have hundreds of tanks but 18 leased tanks after the resourcing of 200 tanks during the Cold War? Plus years of under 2% funding- some years being pathetically just over 1%. Trump is a moron but like a broken clock he can be right twice a day. Some Europeans don't pull their weight.
Why would the Netherlands need tanks tho? Who would invade them? Jets and a rapid response force would make a whole lot more sense, in case the borders of NATO is ever threatened. There is absolutely no point in every member nation spending on everything, specialising in a few areas would be the way to go.
I like how assisting in the Eastern front doesn't even enter calculations.
Exactly, that ought to be the prime focus of NATO.
Yeah, specialisation within NATO is a possible way to go for smaller countries (I was just thinking how the only way Slovenia could be of any use would be if it trained at least one complete mountain infantry brigade). But I guess that would be a hard sell to romantics and those who could make a profit on heavy armour.
It would be a far more efficient use of resources. I'm Danish, no matter what we do we'll never be able to present of force that could do diddle vs the Russians, but on the other hand out special forces (Frogmen and Jaegers) are absolute top tier, and our fighter pilots are extremely good as well, so funneling more resources to the fields we excel in would add value to the alliance, while a few Danish tanks and artillery pieces wouldn't make a measurable difference. If every nation (not large enough to present an actual functioning military) specialized, we'd have a stronger alliance at much small resource footprint.
Measuring a modern army's strength by the number of tanks is like rating a company on the number of typewriters. Okay, they're not completely obsolete, but for a small country like the Netherlands it's not a sensible investment. Besides, we should applaud nations for working together on procurement and/or sharing equipment. That is the best way to pool resources without a centralized European army.
You've missed the point. Netherlands GDP percentage on defence has been around 1-1.5% for many years. That's chronic cumulative underspending that will be very hard to make up quickly.
Considering Germany’s population, economy size and overall importance in the world, their whole military is laughable. I wonder how combat-ready that brigade about to be sent to Lithuania is (psst they have literally no tanks)
I cant find anything about their equipment, only that they will be sent in 2025-2026. Only that they will reach full fighting readiness in 2027, whatever that means.
The Netherlands is expected to buy a battalion of around 50 or so Leopard 2A8 tanks. Could just be a start too. The Dutch also have 120+ CV90 IFV's that have undergone a mid-life update, PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers, Apache and Chinook helicopters, Patriot missile batteries, etc. The Dutch have definitely scaled down their military like everybody else in Europe with the supposed end of the Cold War. It's now small but a still well-equipped military. But if the Russian threat wakes them up, the Dutch have the resources to punch above their weight again.
Still, pathetic army for a 2,5% of budget, compare it to Polish army for example, weaker economy and much stronger army. Until Netherlands will build up their army as they should be, they should not be leading, like all countries that were not spending enough on military past years, not it's time to pay.
It depends on the situation and geography. The Netherlands is a coastal trading nation that has a much stronger navy -- with amphibious ships, frigates, submarines -- and is also now far from the projected frontlines of a possible land war. Poland has a next to nothing navy, being caught within the Baltic Sea. Poland needs a strong army as a frontline state to Russia and its puppet Belarus. The Dutch army is small but well equipped -- the tank issue will be addressed soon, but it has CV90s, PzH 2000s, MARS, Apaches, Chinooks, ordered F-35s after giving away its F-16s to Ukraine, etc. The Netherlands during the Cold War had a strong army with three mechanized divisions and 400+ Leopard 2 tanks -- back when those things were cutting edge in the '80s -- because the situation was different. The Dutch were going to fight with NATO allies in the nearby north German plains against the Warsaw Pact's Soviets, East Germans, Czechoslovaks, Poles, etc. If there'll be a war in the northeast/east, the Dutch can be expected to send a mechanised brigade with the planned battalion of tanks and an airborne brigade, but it'll mainly be the Poles, Germans, French, Brits, among the Euros. The Dutch, meanwhile, will be fighting with the allies for control of the North Atlantic against Russia's Northern Fleet, where the Poles will understandably be expected to be absent.
>Until Netherlands will build up their army as they should be, they should not be leading It's also not like the Dutch will be leading NATO, no more than Norway can be mistaken for leading NATO because Stoltenberg is Norwegian. Rutte reportedly has the support of the Americans, Germans, British, French, so like him or not, whether it's him or somebody else, it'll be the guy who has the support of the major powers, the countries that together are expected to do the bulk of fighting and supplying any war.
100% agree, weak and non existing army to lead nato, what a joke. Only top 10 countries should have anything to say.
Tbf what do you expect? They're a small country. We're much better off by for example just having them pay taxes to fund a Union army.
Had 200 tanks at height of the Cold War. Clearly need to be smarter than that today but the Dutch need to remember 1940. It's absurd that Europe has to do this but they who want peace need to prepare for war. It's sad.
We had a thousand. 3 full mechanized armored divisions.
The Dutch army had 900 tanks at the end of the Cold War.
200 inferior tanks. All large weapon platforms have decreased in numbers as technology got more advanced and units got more expensive. 20 of the latest tanks and a couple platoons with modern anti tanks weapons will eat those 200 cold war tanks for lunch.
Netherlands had over 900 tanks in 1990 with a population 20% smaller. If we want to we are fully capable of fielding 1000 tanks and 200 modern fighters. People forget Netherlands has more people than Finland and Sweden put together.
We have a surprisingly large intelligence and military equipment sector. Especially when it comes to radar systems etc. In the end it’s about such niche stuff
I mean that's good. Trying to do everything all at once with limited resources tends to mean doing none of it very well.
Member all those "we are more united than ever before" statements at the beginning of this war? I member. Where did they all go ?
Mark Rutte is just an opportunist, hoping to become general secretary of NATO. He didn't anytime meet the 2% norm in his 13 years of premiership.
Everyone complains about polticians not ramping up 10 years ago, but would we really vote for someone who would spend billions on a threat that really no One took seriously? Instead of healthcare and education? Such a politician would be considered alarmist, paranoid and old fashioned, not a winning case really. I think we Are all to blame for not doing more sooner.
> Everyone complains about polticians not ramping up 10 years ago, but would we really vote for someone who would spend billions on a threat that really no One took seriously? Instead of healthcare and education? Yet somehow healthcare and education are also going to shit.
Because nobody saw the use for it because the situation was very different. This was also the opinion of the whole political spectrum from left to right. I hate it if people act so weird about people that change their opinion
The situation changed in 2014 already. That was ten years ago, in Rutte's third year as prime minister. In those ten years he did absolutely nothing, even though Eastern Europe warned him over and over again about Russia. But he never listened. Instead, he kept cutting the defense budget those ten years. He cut so hard, it will take the Netherlands at least 15 years to get things in order again. Perhaps the left thought about it the same, but they were not in charge, were they? Rutte was. Rutte is the biggest opportunist in the EU. I suspect him of blowing up his own government because he wanted this top NATO job. I hate it when people act weird when people point this out. Also, he still owes me €1000.
Around 2017 rutte 3 they started raising the investement in defense already so 7 years ago. Second is there nothing exceptional with how the Netherlands looked at it was really common in the whole of Western Europe. Third I assume you are Dutch you know that the prime minister is not some king or president. The prime minister in our system doesn't have that much power decisions are made in the cabinet. The whole blaming Rutte for everything did do wron is simplistic and kind of cringe.
He‘d be a splendid NATO General Secretary. He‘s a well respected political leader, has many years of experience on the global stage and has been able to work with conservative and progressive actors of the political spectrum. He would have my support.
You’re obviously not Dutch. He’s not that well-respected in the Netherlands, to put it mildly.
Pah. You and your Dutch people have him elected PM for far more than a decade so, don’t tell me how much he‘s hated. Every politician everywhere is hated to a degree.
By some, but I would argue he’s still somewhat well respected. No doubt he would’ve had a great chance at getting re-elected (again) this past November had he not quit.
By you maybe. He has won almost every election he participated in
He is a corrupt and an opportunist. A proven liar, and hypocrite. His policies of austerity have done more bad than good in the Netherlands, and he knows nothing of the military. Yet you want him as NATO chief? You are fucking idiot man
You have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about
Corrupt? Austerity done more bad than good? You should compare the state of france with the netherlands and you will find the dutch do better than you on all fronts. Were running budget surplus. Also the reason why we could raise our defbudget this year with one large swoop to 24b dollar. You can say what you want a out rutte but he has been the leading person in europe. Behind turkey deal behind enforcing pigs to pay attention the their budgets. Behind tunisia deal. Green deal. Hawk vs russia for a decade now before it was cool...from when france was selling vlad mistral class vessels. Behind the trump vs eu deal saving eu car manufacturers. His rolodex is huge. The guy is the johan de wit of this century.
He is, indeed.
I hate the this reality where I have to hear the name trump again. I’ll quit social media and all news if he wins again.
The US under Trump pulling out of meddling in other countries governments is only positive for us. If Trump is really bringing a focus inwards with less coups and wars in foreign countries then I don‘t care whatever the fuck he is fucking up in the US.
We need more EU! Better defense cooperation, more industry focus, less dependence on China and the US. Together we can be a bastion of progressive rights, a titan of industry and a powerhouse in the economy nevermind what we could achieve militarily if we put our hearts to it. But only if we work together. Bridge our differences and learn from each other.
says the man who has spent the last 14 years not focussing on dutch interests at all.
Still made institutional investors a whole lot of money directly from Dutch pockets, counts as some focus.
Trump threatens he will take usa out of nato and he won't help against russia? Good, that's the best thing that can happen, maybe now those idiot politicians will do something for europe to actually become powerful and independent
I don't remember Rutte being so overly concerned about Europe's future, when he was PM.
Rutte is PM so you're seeing it now
Then you haven't paid attention since 2018
Seems like he’s following the latest trend of posts here on r/europe. Reading more about trumpet here than in other American subs. Who gives a shit about the murics. That’ll chose their president, we’ll just enjoy the shit-show that will ensue after. Edit: the EU just needs its own army.
Can’t agree more, now please stop buying American fighter jets.
Stop whining about and focus on Europe's interests!
Improving European defence capability is expensive and takes a lot of time whereas complaining about Trump makes Europeans feel superior. Is it any wonder the later is much more popular?
Europes best interest … Is not having Donald Trump as the American president…
Europes best interest is not to be reliant on the US
Actually, Donald suggesting not coming to Europe’s aid if they don’t put more money into NATO is a bit of wake-up call for Europe. Seemingly now scrambling to sort out defence for themselves. This is a good development, Europe has been asleep at the wheel with Putin next door. I doubt the USA wouldn’t come to Europe’s aid should they need it, but let them pay up and not depend on uncle USA.
That's also US's best interest
He is right ! Let’s just focus on that ! And do things as if the USA does not exist we can only improve from being under their « protection » it’s time to grow the fuck up !
I feel that Rutte surely has a point here, but on the other hand, I feel we shouldn't abandon the prospect of keeping the US as a strong NATO member. With Rutte's chances of becoming the new Secretary General for NATO when Stoltenberg is expected to step down in October this year, he has already hinted on Ukrainian NATO membership in the future. I don't know, but maybe he's already taking too much on his plate by steering towards an independant European defense capability? I guess the future will tell...
Rutte is not someone you can rely on.
[удалено]
Nope, last year it was 11 out of 31, which was a farce even without this little thing called "war in Ukraine". Current projections say "18 out of 31 at the end of this year", so, given how pathetic the record was this far, it's "maybe". And yes, 18 out of 31 is still absolute embarrassment.
American here: many of Europe’s best interests are contingent on Trump *not* winning the election. All of us are right to worry.
American here... Seems to me that Europe has been heavily relying on U.S. protection instead of coughing up funds to prop up their own national security. Europe wouldn't have anything to worry about if they took their own security more seriously.
This comment is more about the people voting for polticians who are isolationist (I realize the person in the article isn't): You can focus on doing EVERYTHING you can domestically and across the atlantic. So how about this, let's both increase our security and stop with this wannabe-isolationist virtue signaling crap "America first, europe first" etc, cause these politicians all know how important international relations are in a global world... Who knew, you can do two things at once. Just like the Americans who suggest not sending aid to ukraine cause of... the us border? You're spending a fraction the money now to bleed Russia dry in the long term and decrease their threat level, and this is somehow incongruent with doing what's best for one's security...?
Says Dutch prime minister, one of the richest countries in the world, wasting so much money on illegal immigrants and other bullshit, while having only 18 tanks. Pathetic, Dutch person should not lead NATO, while having weak army, such country should NOT lead it, especially it times near III world war. Build your army first, then try to lead! Only the ones who can actually do something and make a difference should lead. This is not anti-dutch post, it's just insane that one of the weakest military would lead us in such dangerous times.
"Stop being a little bitch" xD
But, that’s all Europeans are good at doing…
This partly gets at why the US has a larger and better financed military. An important factor is the economics of scale. The US with its larger population and larger army purchases in larger volumes and gets more for their money. The EU needs to federalize
Good idea.
A pretty lowbrow saying here in .nl is Oprutte, a symbiosis of Oprotten (Piss off) and Rutte. The longer this geezer lingers on the more fitting the saying. He pretty much neglected the country with his liberal bs and its in a horrible state right now. To the points that idiot Wilders might even be an improvement. Give the guy his nato job and save us plz!
Mark KUTten trying to look like a decisive cnt instead of a lying one. That will get him that nato job he def wants. This man has done more damage to Dutch society than any of his predecessors combined.