Macron: Europe needs its own sovereignty in defence, even with new U.S. government

 

FILE PHOTO: French President Emmanuel Macron gestures as he speaks during The Paris Peace Forum at The Elysee Palace in Paris, France November 12, 2020. Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS

 

PARIS (Reuters) - Europe still needs its own independent and sovereign defence strategy, even if it is dealing with a new U.S. government which may result in friendlier ties, French President Emmanuel Macron told the "Revue Grand Continent" publication.

 

In an interview with the publication, Macron rebuffed comments from German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer to Politico on Nov. 2, in which the German minister said Europe would have to remain dependent on U.S. military protection for the near future.

 

"I am in complete disagreement with the opinion article published in Politico by the German defence minister," said Macron, adding he believed German Chancellor Angela Merkel shared his position on this issue.

 

"The United States will only respect us as allies if we are serious about our own position, and if we have our own sovereignty regarding our defence," said Macron.

 

"We need to continue to build up our own autonomy, just as the United States does for itself, and just as China does for itself," added Macron.

 

Macron spoke to U.S. President-elect Joe Biden on Nov 10, and told Biden he was ready to work with him on issues such as the climate, health, and the fight against terrorism.

 

(Reporting by Sudip Kar-Gupta; editing by Diane Craft)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-11-16

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

36 minutes ago, webfact said:

Europe still needs its own independent and sovereign defence strategy, even if it is dealing with a new U.S. government which may result in friendlier ties, French President Emmanuel Macron told the "Revue Grand Continent" publication.

Yes you do, so stop depending on the US taxpayer and spend the money to build your own military to the point it can defend France.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes you do, so stop depending on the US taxpayer and spend the money to build your own military to the point it can defend France.

I think you'll find the problem is to defend Europe rather than just France. On which the Baltic states and Ukraine and Poland would have strong opinions.

56 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

I think you'll find the problem is to defend Europe rather than just France. On which the Baltic states and Ukraine and Poland would have strong opinions.

The worst option IMO would be a "European" military force.

I referred to France because Macron was speaking. Obviously each state should build it's own effective military force, to work as allies in the event of a threat, but not being under the control of Brussels ( ergo France and Germany ).

Ah this old chestnut again. A European Army under the control of Brussels.

 

Remainers/Rejoiners always deny that this is in the pipeline and then the EU 'leaders' always come back and confirm that they do in fact want it. It's only a matter of time unfortunately. Thankfully the UK won't have to participate in this project.

 

Signing up to work as allies is of course sufficient, but that would never be enough for the extreme EU federalists. Coming soon, an EU Army of 27 'states' controlled exclusively by France and Germany. 

"Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?" Carter asked. "None. And we have stayed at war." The U.S., he noted, has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history, making the country "the most warlike nation in the history of the world," Carter said. This is, he said, because of America's tendency to force other nations to "adopt our American principles."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jimmy-carter-china-war-infrastructure-economy-trade-war-church-1396086

2 minutes ago, Opl said:

"Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?" Carter asked. "None. And we have stayed at war." The U.S., he noted, has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history, making the country "the most warlike nation in the history of the world," Carter said. This is, he said, because of America's tendency to force other nations to "adopt our American principles."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jimmy-carter-china-war-infrastructure-economy-trade-war-church-1396086

That is true but these days we're seeing a much more aggressive and assertive China, with obvious geopolitical ambitions and territorial expansion plans. I would like to see the West together meet both the challenge of a resurgent China and a Russia that is controlled by a president-for-life strongman. Wrt the US that is now hopefully possible with trump out but Europe also need to chip in to a much higher degree. I would like to see each member of NATO pledge 3% of their annual budget for defense purposes, that would be a good start.

It's a mean old world out there and if we're not prepared and stand together (one of the many reasons I detest trump so much is the America alone BS) the foxes will come for the chickens.

Macron might wish to ensure France meets it's NATO obligations before going down this road.

1 hour ago, Opl said:

"Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?" Carter asked. "None. And we have stayed at war." The U.S., he noted, has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history, making the country "the most warlike nation in the history of the world," Carter said. This is, he said, because of America's tendency to force other nations to "adopt our American principles."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jimmy-carter-china-war-infrastructure-economy-trade-war-church-1396086

 

Yeah, because since 1979, the Chinese haven't spent so much as a penny on their military. 

2 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

That is true but these days we're seeing a much more aggressive and assertive China, with obvious geopolitical ambitions and territorial expansion plans. I would like to see the West together meet both the challenge of a resurgent China and a Russia that is controlled by a president-for-life strongman. Wrt the US that is now hopefully possible with trump out but Europe also need to chip in to a much higher degree. I would like to see each member of NATO pledge 3% of their annual budget for defense purposes, that would be a good start.

It's a mean old world out there and if we're not prepared and stand together (one of the many reasons I detest trump so much is the America alone BS) the foxes will come for the chickens.

 

France's  main and immediate threat doesn''t come from China,  but from Turkey, in addition to MENA and domestic terrorism, while other Eastern European nations consider Russia a major threat.

If China tries to take over Taiwan, what happens, who do you think will say " their region, their problem"?   Trumpism isn"t dead.

 

Edited November 16, 20205 yr by Opl

2 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

That is true but these days we're seeing a much more aggressive and assertive China, with obvious geopolitical ambitions and territorial expansion plans. I would like to see the West together meet both the challenge of a resurgent China and a Russia that is controlled by a president-for-life strongman. Wrt the US that is now hopefully possible with trump out but Europe also need to chip in to a much higher degree. I would like to see each member of NATO pledge 3% of their annual budget for defense purposes, that would be a good start.

It's a mean old world out there and if we're not prepared and stand together (one of the many reasons I detest trump so much is the America alone BS) the foxes will come for the chickens.

It's not so much an issue of budget, than of coordination of spending. The money spent in Europe for defense purpose is much higher than in Russia, for example. The problem is the structure of budget. The same miliary resources are multiplicated in each countries without a global view, so there is no optimisation at the European level.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Ah this old chestnut again. A European Army under the control of Brussels.

 

Remainers/Rejoiners always deny that this is in the pipeline and then the EU 'leaders' always come back and confirm that they do in fact want it. It's only a matter of time unfortunately. Thankfully the UK won't have to participate in this project.

 

Signing up to work as allies is of course sufficient, but that would never be enough for the extreme EU federalists. Coming soon, an EU Army of 27 'states' controlled exclusively by France and Germany. 

It is not a current project (in the way you imagine it) and it will never happen, beyond a strong coordination.

Even just a common foreign policy is a long way to go

The likely outcome would be a kind of NATO without the US, or a strong coordination between a few big countries. Countries such as France would never accept their army being dependent on votes by Poland or Greece.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Coming soon, an EU Army of 27 'states' controlled exclusively by France and Germany. 

Controlled exclusively by France & Germany is a possibility, but remain to be seen.

The other 25 states would have to be agree with it.

 

The USA can't be trusted.

The last nutter-in-charge concentrated on boosting his country from within, one with similar attitudes but an expansionist bent can't be ruled out.

 

The average American seems fairly sane, but they do elect some prizes.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Ah this old chestnut again. A European Army under the control of Brussels.

 

Remainers/Rejoiners always deny that this is in the pipeline and then the EU 'leaders' always come back and confirm that they do in fact want it. It's only a matter of time unfortunately. Thankfully the UK won't have to participate in this project.

 

Signing up to work as allies is of course sufficient, but that would never be enough for the extreme EU federalists. Coming soon, an EU Army of 27 'states' controlled exclusively by France and Germany. 

But in practice isn't NATO under the control of the USA?

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The worst option IMO would be a "European" military force.

I referred to France because Macron was speaking. Obviously each state should build it's own effective military force, to work as allies in the event of a threat, but not being under the control of Brussels ( ergo France and Germany ).

Instead of having an European defense force under US command, better to have this under European command.  Maybe one of the few good results of the Trump administration.

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes you do, so stop depending on the US taxpayer and spend the money to build your own military to the point it can defend France.

Europe is a lot bigger than just France, and Europe is not crazy enough to spend more than 50% on the stupid military! Besides that, as an European I don't care at all that the us taxpayer is spending all its money to the military instead of useful projects as education, healthcare and social welfare. Up to them ????

1 hour ago, JulesMad said:

Europe is a lot bigger than just France, and Europe is not crazy enough to spend more than 50% on the stupid military! Besides that, as an European I don't care at all that the us taxpayer is spending all its money to the military instead of useful projects as education, healthcare and social welfare. Up to them ????

 

The point is many European nations have not met the spend pledged to NATO on their defense spend. Instead, relying on a strong US military presence funded by US tax payers to protect them. 

 

Macron likes sabre rattling and pretending he's more influential in the world than reality. It panders to the French people whilst diverting them from the mess he's in at home. The reality is France wants to keep French as it's military's language, therefore struggles in NATO operations where English is the common language; wants to use only French equipment and thinks any EU military would be commanded by French officers. Germany, for one, will never accept this.

 

China and Russia would love NATO to fall apart or weaken. They know the EU can't compete militarily. France is now the only nuclear power in the EU. And probably has less warheads than Israel, India and Pakistan!

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

controlled exclusively by France and Germany.

What a B.S.

There are 27 states for control. 

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes you do, so stop depending on the US taxpayer and spend the money to build your own military to the point it can defend France.

US military planning for war with its main adversary since WWII has been to fight in Europe.

 

US military spending in the ‘defense’ of Europe has been an investment in not fighting any wars on US territory.

 

US tax payers have had a bargain deal out of it.

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The worst option IMO would be a "European" military force.

I referred to France because Macron was speaking. Obviously each state should build it's own effective military force, to work as allies in the event of a threat, but not being under the control of Brussels ( ergo France and Germany ).

British troops under US command in Afghanistan wasn’t a problem?!

Edited November 16, 20205 yr by Chomper Higgot

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The point is many European nations have not met the spend pledged to NATO on their defense spend. Instead, relying on a strong US military presence funded by US tax payers to protect them. 

 

Macron likes sabre rattling and pretending he's more influential in the world than reality. It panders to the French people whilst diverting them from the mess he's in at home. The reality is France wants to keep French as it's military's language, therefore struggles in NATO operations where English is the common language; wants to use only French equipment and thinks any EU military would be commanded by French officers. Germany, for one, will never accept this.

 

China and Russia would love NATO to fall apart or weaken. They know the EU can't compete militarily. France is now the only nuclear power in the EU. And probably has less warheads than Israel, India and Pakistan!

 

yes it's "the weak containing the strong" 

but against  jihadists in France, using knives, warheads are useless. 

1 hour ago, sawadee1947 said:

What a B.S.

There are 27 states for control. 

I agree. That's why there will never be a true European army. No country will accept that other countries make decisions about its own army, in particular the largest ones (ex. France).

1 hour ago, candide said:

I agree. That's why there will never be a true European army. No country will accept that other countries make decisions about its own army, in particular the largest ones (ex. France).

Even you'll repeat your nonsense it won't be true ????

2 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

Even you'll repeat your nonsense it won't be true ????

Why nonsense?