Posted on 01/13/2025 8:53:34 AM PST by John Semmens
German Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck called "incoming President Donald Trump's expectation that we will devote 5% of our GDP to our own national defense is unrealistic. Look, prior to 1945 we spent far more than 5% on our defense, but were still battered into submission by the combined might of Russia and the US. For the next 45 years Germany was occupied by foreign troops--Russia because it hoped to eventually dominate us and the Americans because they didn't want Germany to be absorbed into a communist empire."
"So, why should we spend anything on our own defense?" Habeck asked. "America will have to continue to defend us lest all of Europe be absorbed by a resurgent Russia. Even if America won't defend us French President Macron has offered to guarantee our security from foreign invaders. Why pay for something we can get for free?"
"Well, I wish them luck," Trump said. "We saw how effective France's guarantee of the sovereignty of Poland was in 1939. Seeing how difficult Russia's attempted conquest of Ukraine has been maybe they won't need protection from invasion by Russia. On the other hand, it seems like most of the flabby NATO member nations will be converted into hellholes in the not too distant future by the swarms of terrorists they've been allowing into their countries. How can they expect us to defend them if they won't make a decent effort to defend themselves? At least in World War II they fought for their own liberation. I guess times have changed."
NATO suddenly gets Deer in the headlight look...
It’s remarkable today that there is even a country referred to as Germany.
all Germany really needs is a bookwriting artist that has a grand political idea for the German people to wrest control from the weak wienies that run the place now. May be a few fires involved but, you know...
“So, why should we spend anything on our own defense?”
These people deserve nothing from us. They are suicidal.
Interesting question...
NATO is actually very good business for America.
Here is what I found:
While the United States has not explicitly acted to prevent Europe from establishing its own army, it has pursued policies and actions that have prevented the trajectory of autonomous European defense cooperation. Here’s a list of notable factors and events:
1. Economic Influence
Pressure on Defense Spending: The U.S. has historically pressured European nations to increase their contributions to NATO rather than investing in separate, EU-specific defense initiatives.
IMPORTANT:
Arms Industry Influence: The U.S. has promoted its own defense contractors in Europe, creating economic ties that discourage the EU from fully developing its own defense industrial base.
2. Promotion of NATO
Dependence on NATO: Since its founding in 1949, NATO has served as the primary security framework for Europe, with the U.S. as the dominant military power. This reliance on NATO reduces incentives for the EU to develop its own independent army.
3. Cold War Strategy
Military Integration under U.S. Leadership: During the Cold War, the U.S. encouraged European nations to integrate their militaries under the NATO umbrella rather than develop independent forces, framing it as essential for collective security against the Soviet Union.
4. Opposition to Strategic Autonomy
Criticism of EU Defense Initiatives: The U.S. has expressed skepticism or outright criticism of EU-led defense initiatives, such as the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), fearing they might undermine NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IMPORTANT!:
Resistance to European Defense Fund (EDF): The U.S. has raised concerns about the EDF, arguing it could exclude American companies from the European defense market.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
5. Diplomatic Pressure
Discouraging Strategic Rivalry: The U.S. has diplomatically emphasized NATO’s role and discouraged efforts that might lead to a European defense capability perceived as duplicative or competitive with NATO.
Influence through Bilateral Relations: By maintaining strong bilateral defense agreements with key European nations (e.g., the UK, Germany, and Poland), the U.S. has diluted momentum for collective European military autonomy.
6. Reinforcement of Transatlantic Security
Deployment of U.S. Troops in Europe: The U.S. has stationed significant military forces in Europe since World War II, which has been both a reassurance and a means of maintaining influence.
Nuclear Umbrella: The U.S. provides a nuclear deterrent for NATO allies, reducing the need for Europe to develop its own strategic deterrent capabilities.
7. War on Terror: Post-9/11, the U.S. involved European allies in its global military campaigns, further anchoring European militaries within a U.S.-led framework.
8. Recent Challenges
Criticism of EU Military Autonomy Post-Brexit: The U.S. has been wary of increased EU defense cooperation after Brexit, particularly regarding moves by France and Germany to lead independent defense initiatives.
Pressure on Non-NATO EU Members: The U.S. has encouraged closer NATO alignment even among EU countries not in NATO, such as Sweden and Finland (the latter of which recently joined).
Conclusion
While the U.S. has not outright blocked the creation of a European army, it has shaped the strategic environment in ways that have delayed or strongly complicated its development. By promoting NATO as the primary security mechanism and leveraging economic and diplomatic influence, the U.S. has maintained a strong role in European defense, at the expense of European strategic autonomy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.