
Angela Merkel: Europe must take ‘our fate’ into own hands - elsombrero
http://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-europe-cdu-must-take-its-fate-into-its-own-hands-elections-2017/
======
wuschel
For context:

Please take note that general elections (for the "Bundestag") will be held in
the end of September 2017. Everything that will be published now and in the
next months by the German media may very well be part of a campaign scheme.

------
hammock
Self-reliance? Fight for our own future and destiny? Europe First? Sounds
vaguely familiar.

~~~
cromwellian
Sounds to me like she's just saying Europe can no longer rely on the US (e.g.
NATO), and because of the unpredictable nature of US domestic politics at this
point, they need to plan as if Europe may not have reliable US backing.

Trump may very well get his wish to see some of the less rich NATO members
spend more money on defense, but it may come at the cost of US leadership.

~~~
dogma1138
Well if Europe have been keeping at least the minimum required commitments it
agreed to as far as NATO goes this wouldn't be an issue.

Trump's remarks are not new these are the same remarks that have been thrown
around since Busb senior was in office.

Heck Under Obama Sec Def Gates used much harsher words than Trump.

~~~
cromwellian
I don't think that's what is bothering NATO, it's Trump's failure to verbally
affirm Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

On the issue of defense spending, different members of NATO have different
economic hardships. Do we really expect Greece to crank up defense spending
while in a debt crisis and under heavy austerity already? These NATO
guidelines have to be somewhat contextual based on reality of economics.

~~~
dogma1138
Gates said the same thing, in fact he said that the US basically cannot not
afford another war unless it's attacked on its own soil and if NATO will not
pick up the slack the US will be forced to reconsider its part in the
partnership.

This was said in Brussels in front of all of NATO.

The EU have been skimping on its NATO commmitments since the end of the Cold
War this isn't a recent development.

Greece is actually meeting it's goals (likely because of its sick waving
contest with Turkey) while Germany, France, Italy and even the U.K. do not.

As for Article 5 there has been already blood in the water since Iraq. France
basically said that if the US uses Article 5 for Iraq it will ignore it,
Germany and Italy were also signaling the same sentiments.

~~~
cromwellian
Well, in the case of Iraq though, it seems a slam dunk, since Iraq had not
attacked any NATO member.

If the US wants other NATO members to step up, then they should reduce
payments. Either NATO members will make the determination that the new budget
constraints represents an unacceptable level of reduction in capability below
which they think is required, or they'll think NATO doesn't need as large a
budget.

Realistically, NATO's deterrence effect against Russia comes down to nuclear-
MAD. The conventional forces don't matter as much, if NATO is attacked by
Russia conventionally, and NATO goes to war, you have a direct hot war between
two nuclear equipped entities which is a bit too much risk, so there's little
chance of a Russian invasion of a NATO member regardless of NATO conventional
defense capabilities.

I think it's likely any conflicts with non-NATO states on the Eurasian
continents will likely be proxy conflicts, with NATO and Russia backing
different factions, like with the Korean War, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

------
justusw
Why is this article flagged?

~~~
majewsky
I'm under the impression that people are that fed up with politics these days
that every politics article gets flagged.

------
alacombe
The real question is: why should it be otherwise, and why is this newsworthy
at all ?

European countries all claim to be sovereign countries, but surprisingly, not
when it's time to pull the credit card out.

~~~
jpfr
Assume European countries were all spending 2% of GDP for military
capabilities within NATO. What exactly would that buy them?

More military interventions with more refugees arriving at European borders?

There is basically no real threat to European countries atm. Russia is
heckling a bit in Ukraine. Supplying Kalashnikovs to separatists and such. But
in general, Russia is retreating. With Montenegro joining NATO and things
going bad in Syria, Russia is losing access to the Mediterranean sea. And they
run out of money quickly!

If things go wrong, special forces (a few hundred men) and French atomic
missiles pose enough of a threat for rogue dictators. The large countries
can't afford a war, because economic ties are too strong.

Military spending in Europe is exactly where it needs to be. Low. Humanitarian
help throughout the world and keeping the inner stability of society (social
security, health-care, retirement, ...) gives a lot more bang for the buck.
(pun intended)

~~~
alacombe
Perfect, then they don't need US' $$ (or NATO) either, so... everybody's happy
?

~~~
jpfr
Nah, NATO is required for that to work. It's like a group ticket. The more you
are, the cheaper it gets for each individual. NATO only needs to collectively
have more capability than the biggest external threat. More than that is
overspending.

And the US are not paying $$ for anybodys army. And they know very well how to
use their own capabilities outside of NATO and for their own interests.

~~~
alacombe
Do you mean overspending as the US currently do, to compensate for European
countries are not paying their fair share, while getting most of the outcome ?

Because this is the bottom of it. European countries want the protection,
while not paying their share, and making fun on Uncle Sam spending so much on
their military, and not enough on their social program.

~~~
jpfr
The US spends more on military than the next 8 countries combined. A quarter
of that would be enough for NATO, which is for defense only, now that the Cold
War is over.

Europeans don't want the US playing global super power. They don't need it.
And they ain't paying for it.

~~~
alacombe
So, we do agree that NATO is a thing of the past and that the US, _as well_ ,
can lower their payment to the organisation ?

[the answer to this question is of course "no", European countries still want
the US to be paying for their "protection".]

