Mark Rutte belongs to Verhofstadt’s Renew Europe, which favors a European Defense Union, including a common army. The right man at the right time, especially if Trump wins. A strong European pillar would bolster NATO and even revitalize it.
sapitonmix on
Good luck when Trump will be at the wheel
defcon_penguin on
I believe NATO should go further than its original scope and unite all willing nations in a defense alliance that encompasses the whole world. Europe, the Middle East, and the southeast Asia are one single war.
OldWar6125 on
Not as long as there is a chance that Amerika elects Trump.
eragonas5 on
Wasn’t Rutte one of the deniers of Romania and Bulgaria entering Schengen for no reason? I don’t think he can build any bridge within Europe alone.
heatrealist on
Still only 2/3 of NATO are expected to meet the bare minimum 2% of gdp on defense spending. This is with a major war waging in europe about to enter its 4th year.
Giraffed7 on
Well, it depends what they mean by alliance. If they mean continuing the trend of more and more reliance, one could say dependence, on the US by buying more and more of their military equipment and following more and more their diplomatic stances, then it isn’t really an alliance, is it ?
On the contrary, if they mean more European defence industry integration, more European geopolitical power so as to be, if not an equal partner, but at least a partner of the US, then we should go for it.
History has proven time and time again that the US would always prioritise their interests over ours, as is their right and as they should do and as we would also do. The restrictions of American made European owned military equipment to Ukraine is the latest example of this dependence. A stronger alliance shouldn’t be made at the cost of our own sovereignty. The US will always be our closest ally but we shouldn’t jump into a junior partner relationship because of it.
yabn5 on
NATO was conceived when both Europe and America shared the same existential threat: the Soviet Union. Today Russia is a geopolitical threat but it isn’t an existential one, like China is, to America. Yet Europeans wish to stay out of any US-Chinese conflicts, as if a US military loss in the pacific wouldn’t mean a catastrophic collapse in European security. Macron’s trip to China, declaring a desire for a third way on Taiwan in the midst of the Ukraine war was a slap to the face of Washington. Coming at a time when America was far ahead of all others in terms of Ukraine support, it called into question European reciprocity to a Ukraine-like situation else where.
Without a firm commitment from Europe on China, NATO will simply stagnate. Still existing, but becoming deprioritized. You simply cannot have a one way street where only one party’s existential threat is treated seriously.
8 Comments
Mark Rutte belongs to Verhofstadt’s Renew Europe, which favors a European Defense Union, including a common army. The right man at the right time, especially if Trump wins. A strong European pillar would bolster NATO and even revitalize it.
Good luck when Trump will be at the wheel
I believe NATO should go further than its original scope and unite all willing nations in a defense alliance that encompasses the whole world. Europe, the Middle East, and the southeast Asia are one single war.
Not as long as there is a chance that Amerika elects Trump.
Wasn’t Rutte one of the deniers of Romania and Bulgaria entering Schengen for no reason? I don’t think he can build any bridge within Europe alone.
Still only 2/3 of NATO are expected to meet the bare minimum 2% of gdp on defense spending. This is with a major war waging in europe about to enter its 4th year.
Well, it depends what they mean by alliance. If they mean continuing the trend of more and more reliance, one could say dependence, on the US by buying more and more of their military equipment and following more and more their diplomatic stances, then it isn’t really an alliance, is it ?
On the contrary, if they mean more European defence industry integration, more European geopolitical power so as to be, if not an equal partner, but at least a partner of the US, then we should go for it.
History has proven time and time again that the US would always prioritise their interests over ours, as is their right and as they should do and as we would also do. The restrictions of American made European owned military equipment to Ukraine is the latest example of this dependence. A stronger alliance shouldn’t be made at the cost of our own sovereignty. The US will always be our closest ally but we shouldn’t jump into a junior partner relationship because of it.
NATO was conceived when both Europe and America shared the same existential threat: the Soviet Union. Today Russia is a geopolitical threat but it isn’t an existential one, like China is, to America. Yet Europeans wish to stay out of any US-Chinese conflicts, as if a US military loss in the pacific wouldn’t mean a catastrophic collapse in European security. Macron’s trip to China, declaring a desire for a third way on Taiwan in the midst of the Ukraine war was a slap to the face of Washington. Coming at a time when America was far ahead of all others in terms of Ukraine support, it called into question European reciprocity to a Ukraine-like situation else where.
Without a firm commitment from Europe on China, NATO will simply stagnate. Still existing, but becoming deprioritized. You simply cannot have a one way street where only one party’s existential threat is treated seriously.