Europe must resist pressure to become ‘America’s followers,’ says Macron
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Europe must resist pressure to become ‘America’s followers,’ says Macron
The ‘great risk’ Europe faces is getting ‘caught up in crises that are not ours,’ French president says in interview.www.politico.eu
Too late. And a world war is a world event. France and Europe cannot escape it.
“Europe is more willing to accept a world in which China becomes a regional hegemon,” said Yanmei Xie, a geopolitics analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics. “Some of its leaders even believe such a world order may be more advantageous to Europe.”
China wants to become a global net security provider, that means Chinese carriers off European coasts. I don't know how that's more advantageous to Europe.
Has Europe prepared for the possibility of major US sanctions on China a la Russia style?
“If the tensions between the two superpowers heat up … we won’t have the time nor the resources to finance our strategic autonomy and we will become vassals,” he said.
You are already there, President Macron.
I was expecting this from Germany, not France.
We'll see where this goes.
We'll see where this goes.
Grossman trolls and mocks and scorns France because it is the Anglosphere's favourite game (if you need convincing, look at the contributions of some forumers here).
Oh boy
But Grossman is off-topic, because Macron, as a convinced Europeanist, never mentions anything but the theme of "European sovereignty".
And a sovereign Europe, free of its dependencies on the US and others, yes that would make a hell of a difference.
But I am very sceptical about the European project, I have already had the opportunity to explain this.
Anglo-saxons wanted to destroy EU and for that it was important that industrial Giant like Germany is ruined and just to ensure this, They blew up Nord-2 pipeline. This ensured that even if Germany wanted to reopen gas supplies from Russia, they are not abe to do it. Many industries within the EU member states actually depend on German Indutries for survival. Kill Germany and you kill all others as well.
That is the best projection, I have seen for quite some time. French are a unique breed. No other nation or platform, has as many trolls. They just can't accept that the Rafale is old tech and have to try and convince others that it is the best.
It reminds me of
Right now France & Germany are playing an extremely weak hand & more than France I'd blame Germany . They tried to hunt with the hound & run with the hare. Without securing Russia's interests & unwilling to invest in European security INDEPENDENT of the US , it struck energy deals with Russia & was party to the US plans to gradually isolate Russia , while being dependent on the security umbrella provided by the US & energy from Russia .
I mean what exactly were they thinking ? France may have had original ideas & genuine intentions to assert European sovereignty INDEPENDENT of the Anglos especially the US but was let down by its chosen partner - Germany .
The US , of course , took advantage of the situation & how ?!! I don't think either France or Germany expected the US to behave as cynically as it has what with the massive subsidies program for it's industries extending it to anyone willing to set up shop in the US targeting it explicitly at the EU .
To add to it are the energy policies the EU has formulated where it has no choice but to walk a tightrope balancing the need to provide cheap energy with the need to punish Russia - am impossible task & the presence of the eastern bloc of NATO essentially comprising of Poland & the Baltic States who're taking their paranoia & hatred of Russia to another level merrily egged on by the US & it's agent in Europe - the UK.
It's too late in the day to be assertive. France is merely sending a message that it holds enormous nuisance value should it choose to exercise it . That's about as far as France can go .
The US along with it's minion - the perfidious Albion in alliance with the eastern bloc has rendered EU impotent as an economic entity - a long standing wish & reimposed it's imprimatur on NATO.
I mean what exactly were they thinking ? France may have had original ideas & genuine intentions to assert European sovereignty INDEPENDENT of the Anglos especially the US but was let down by its chosen partner - Germany .
The US , of course , took advantage of the situation & how ?!! I don't think either France or Germany expected the US to behave as cynically as it has what with the massive subsidies program for it's industries extending it to anyone willing to set up shop in the US targeting it explicitly at the EU .
To add to it are the energy policies the EU has formulated where it has no choice but to walk a tightrope balancing the need to provide cheap energy with the need to punish Russia - am impossible task & the presence of the eastern bloc of NATO essentially comprising of Poland & the Baltic States who're taking their paranoia & hatred of Russia to another level merrily egged on by the US & it's agent in Europe - the UK.
It's too late in the day to be assertive. France is merely sending a message that it holds enormous nuisance value should it choose to exercise it . That's about as far as France can go .
The US along with it's minion - the perfidious Albion in alliance with the eastern bloc has rendered EU impotent as an economic entity - a long standing wish & reimposed it's imprimatur on NATO.
Mardi gras pride parade in Sydney pops ?
Is that you in the middle ?
Mighty fine caricature too capturing the quintessential Foster Aussie beer belly perfectly.
In general, French politicians are very bad communicators when it comes to China: I remember a presidential candidate, Segolene Royal (centre-left), praising Chinese justice (!)
(in France, justice is reputed to be very slow)
That said, Macron's words are consistent with his conception of France//Europe as a balancing power. But bad communication.
Much more interesting while less clickbait than the truncated sentence fragments (yes, pleonasm) from Politico."eu" : the Macron's interview in China with Les Echos (published on 10 April)
"For too long Europe has not built this strategic autonomy. Today, the ideological battle has been won," said Emmanuel Macron in an interview with Les Echos. But it is now necessary to implement this strategy. "The trap for Europe would be that at the moment when it achieves a clarification of its strategic position, it is caught up in a disruption of the world and crises that are not ours.
For the French President, strategic autonomy was crucial to avoid European states becoming "vassals" when Europe could be "the third pole" in the face of the United States and China. "We do not want to enter into a logic of bloc to bloc", added the Head of State, who also spoke out against "the extraterritoriality of the dollar". "History is speeding up, we need in parallel an acceleration of the European war economy", insists the French President.
After your dialogue with President Xi Jinping, what can we really expect from China on Ukraine?
I think that China is making the same observation as we are, namely that today, the time is military. The Ukrainians are resisting and we are helping them. This is not the time for negotiations, even if we prepare them and, if necessary, set the stage. This is the purpose of this dialogue with China: to consolidate common approaches. One: support for the principles of the UN Charter. Two: a clear reminder on nuclear power, and it is up to China to draw the consequences of the fact that President Putin deployed nuclear weapons in Belarus a few days after he had pledged not to do so. Three: a clear reminder of humanitarian law and the protection of children. And four: a commitment to a negotiated and lasting peace.
I note that President Xi Jinping spoke of a European security architecture. But there can be no European security architecture as long as there are invaded countries in Europe or frozen conflicts. So you can see that there is a common matrix emerging from all this. Is Ukraine a priority for Chinese diplomacy? Perhaps not. But this dialogue allows us to temper the comments we have heard about a form of complacency on the part of China towards Russia.
Since the Chinese are obsessed with their confrontation with the United States, particularly on the issue of Taiwan, don't they tend to see Europe as a pawn between the two blocs?
As Europeans, our concern is our unity. This has always been my concern. We show China that we are united and that is the meaning of this joint visit with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The Chinese are also concerned about their unity and Taiwan, from their point of view, is a part of it. It is important to understand how they reason.
The question for us Europeans is: do we have an interest in accelerating the Taiwan issue? No. The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans should be followers on this issue and adapt to the American pace and to a Chinese overreaction. Why should we go at the pace chosen by others? At some point, we have to ask ourselves what is in our interest. What is the pace that China itself wants to go at? Does it want to have an offensive and aggressive approach? The risk is that of a self-fulfilling strategy of number one and number two on this issue. We Europeans must wake up. Our priority is not to adapt to the agenda of others in all regions of the world.
The trap for Europe would be that, at a time when it is clarifying its strategic position, when it is more strategically autonomous than it was before Covid, it would be caught up in a disruption of the world and crises that would not be ours. If there is an acceleration of the duopoly, we will not have the time nor the means to finance our strategic autonomy and will become vassals whereas we can be the third pole if we have a few years to build it.
With more and more European countries looking to the United States for their security, does European strategic autonomy still make sense?
Of course it does! But that is the great paradox of the current situation. Since the Sorbonne speech on this subject five years ago, almost everything has been done. We have won the ideological battle, from a Gramscian point of view if I may say so. Five years ago, it was said that European sovereignty did not exist. When I mentioned the subject of telecommunications components, who cared? At the time, we were already telling countries outside Europe that we considered this to be a major issue of sovereignty and that we were going to adopt texts to regulate it, which we did in 2018. I note that the market share of non-European telecommunication equipment suppliers in France has been significantly reduced, which is not the case for all our neighbours.
We have also installed the idea of a European defence, a more united Europe that issues debt together at the time of Covid. Five years ago, strategic autonomy was a pipe dream. Today, everyone is talking about it. It is a major change. We have equipped ourselves with instruments on defence and industrial policy. There has been a lot of progress: the Chips Act, the Net Zero Industry Act and the Critical Raw Material Act, these European texts are the building blocks of our strategic autonomy. We have started to set up battery, hydrogen component and electronics factories. And we have equipped ourselves with defensive instruments that were completely contrary to European ideology only three or four years ago! We now have very effective protection instruments.
The issue on which we must be particularly vigilant is that the war in Ukraine is accelerating the demand for defence equipment. However, the European defence industry does not meet all the needs and remains very fragmented, which leads some countries to turn to American or even Asian suppliers on a temporary basis. Faced with this reality, we need to step up our game.
Strategic autonomy must be Europe's fight. We do not want to be dependent on others on critical issues. The day you no longer have a choice on energy, on how to defend yourself, on social networks, on artificial intelligence because we no longer have the infrastructure on these subjects, you are out of history for a while.
Some might say today in Europe that there is more Franco-German and less Polish...
I wouldn't say that. I would not say that. We have created a European fund for missiles and munitions with 2 billion euros, but it is strictly European and closed. But it is clear that we need a European industry that produces faster. We have saturated our supply. As history is accelerating, we need a parallel acceleration of the European war economy. We are not producing fast enough. Moreover, look at what is happening to deal with the current situation as a matter of urgency: the Poles are going to buy Korean equipment...
But from a doctrinal, legal and political point of view, I think that there has never been such an acceleration of the Europe-power. We laid the groundwork before the crisis and there was tremendous Franco-German leverage during the pandemic, with very strong advances in financial and budgetary solidarity. And we have reactivated the Weimar format with Germany and Poland. Today, we need to speed up implementation in the military, technological, energy and financial fields to accelerate our effective autonomy.
The paradox is that the American hold on Europe is stronger than ever...
It is true that we have increased our dependence on the United States in the field of energy, but in a logic of diversification because we were far too dependent on Russian gas. Today, it is a fact that we are more dependent on the United States, Qatar and others. But this diversification was necessary.
For the rest, we must take into account the after-effects. For too long Europe has not built this strategic autonomy for which I am fighting. Today, the ideological battle has been won and the groundwork has been laid. This has a cost, which is normal. It's like for the reindustrialisation of France: we have won the ideological battle, we have carried out the reforms, they are hard, we are beginning to see the results, but at the same time, we are paying the price for what we have not done in twenty years. That's politics! You have to last. You have to hold on. But that's the price of changing mentalities.
The fact remains that the United States is pursuing a policy with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that you even described as aggressive...
When I went to Washington last December, I got my foot in the door, I was even criticised for doing so aggressively. But Europe reacted and before the end of the first quarter of 2023, in three months, we had a response with three European texts. We will have our European IRA. To act so quickly is a small revolution.
The key to being less dependent on the Americans is to strengthen our defence industry and agree on common standards. We are all putting in a lot of money but we cannot have ten times as many standards as the Americans! Secondly, we need to speed up the battle for nuclear and renewable energy in Europe. Our continent does not produce fossil fuels. There is a coherence between reindustrialisation, climate and sovereignty. It is the same battle. It is the battle of nuclear power, of renewable energy and of European energy sobriety. It will be the battle of the next ten to fifteen years.
Strategic autonomy means having convergent views with the United States but, whether it is on Ukraine, the relationship with China or sanctions, we have a European strategy. We do not want to enter into a logic of block to block. On the contrary, we must "de-risk" our model, not depend on the other, while maintaining a strong integration of our value chains wherever possible.
The paradox would be that, at a time when we are putting in place the elements of a true European strategic autonomy, we start to follow American policy, by a sort of panic reflex. On the contrary, the battles to be fought today consist on the one hand in accelerating our strategic autonomy and on the other hand in ensuring the financing of our economies. I would like to take this opportunity to stress one point: we must not depend on the extraterritoriality of the dollar.
Is Joe Biden a more polite Donald Trump?
He is committed to democracy, to fundamental principles, to international logic, and he knows and loves Europe, all of which is essential. On the other hand, he is part of an American transparent logic that defines the American interest as priority number one and China as priority number two. The rest is less important. Is this open to criticism? No. But we have to integrate it.
Isn't China the power that replaces us wherever Europe is retreating, in Africa, in the Middle East...
I don't think so. We have been going backwards for twenty years. I decided three years ago to increase our official development assistance, but after fifteen years of retreat. When Europe disengages, we should not be surprised that others move forward. When the United States turns more towards itself, as it has done since the 2010s, or towards the Pacific, and Europe suffers a financial crisis, China naturally steps forward. This is why it is important to ensure that it remains within a common framework, that it participates in the reform of the World Bank, that it engages with us as it intends to do at the next summit in Paris in June on the financing of developing economies. /deepl
Emmanuel Macron: "Strategic autonomy must be Europe's fight"
Without strategic autonomy, Europe risks "going out of history", warns the President of the Republic in an interview during his state visit to China."For too long Europe has not built this strategic autonomy. Today, the ideological battle has been won," said Emmanuel Macron in an interview with Les Echos. But it is now necessary to implement this strategy. "The trap for Europe would be that at the moment when it achieves a clarification of its strategic position, it is caught up in a disruption of the world and crises that are not ours.
For the French President, strategic autonomy was crucial to avoid European states becoming "vassals" when Europe could be "the third pole" in the face of the United States and China. "We do not want to enter into a logic of bloc to bloc", added the Head of State, who also spoke out against "the extraterritoriality of the dollar". "History is speeding up, we need in parallel an acceleration of the European war economy", insists the French President.
After your dialogue with President Xi Jinping, what can we really expect from China on Ukraine?
I think that China is making the same observation as we are, namely that today, the time is military. The Ukrainians are resisting and we are helping them. This is not the time for negotiations, even if we prepare them and, if necessary, set the stage. This is the purpose of this dialogue with China: to consolidate common approaches. One: support for the principles of the UN Charter. Two: a clear reminder on nuclear power, and it is up to China to draw the consequences of the fact that President Putin deployed nuclear weapons in Belarus a few days after he had pledged not to do so. Three: a clear reminder of humanitarian law and the protection of children. And four: a commitment to a negotiated and lasting peace.
I note that President Xi Jinping spoke of a European security architecture. But there can be no European security architecture as long as there are invaded countries in Europe or frozen conflicts. So you can see that there is a common matrix emerging from all this. Is Ukraine a priority for Chinese diplomacy? Perhaps not. But this dialogue allows us to temper the comments we have heard about a form of complacency on the part of China towards Russia.
Since the Chinese are obsessed with their confrontation with the United States, particularly on the issue of Taiwan, don't they tend to see Europe as a pawn between the two blocs?
As Europeans, our concern is our unity. This has always been my concern. We show China that we are united and that is the meaning of this joint visit with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The Chinese are also concerned about their unity and Taiwan, from their point of view, is a part of it. It is important to understand how they reason.
The question for us Europeans is: do we have an interest in accelerating the Taiwan issue? No. The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans should be followers on this issue and adapt to the American pace and to a Chinese overreaction. Why should we go at the pace chosen by others? At some point, we have to ask ourselves what is in our interest. What is the pace that China itself wants to go at? Does it want to have an offensive and aggressive approach? The risk is that of a self-fulfilling strategy of number one and number two on this issue. We Europeans must wake up. Our priority is not to adapt to the agenda of others in all regions of the world.
The trap for Europe would be that, at a time when it is clarifying its strategic position, when it is more strategically autonomous than it was before Covid, it would be caught up in a disruption of the world and crises that would not be ours. If there is an acceleration of the duopoly, we will not have the time nor the means to finance our strategic autonomy and will become vassals whereas we can be the third pole if we have a few years to build it.
With more and more European countries looking to the United States for their security, does European strategic autonomy still make sense?
Of course it does! But that is the great paradox of the current situation. Since the Sorbonne speech on this subject five years ago, almost everything has been done. We have won the ideological battle, from a Gramscian point of view if I may say so. Five years ago, it was said that European sovereignty did not exist. When I mentioned the subject of telecommunications components, who cared? At the time, we were already telling countries outside Europe that we considered this to be a major issue of sovereignty and that we were going to adopt texts to regulate it, which we did in 2018. I note that the market share of non-European telecommunication equipment suppliers in France has been significantly reduced, which is not the case for all our neighbours.
We have also installed the idea of a European defence, a more united Europe that issues debt together at the time of Covid. Five years ago, strategic autonomy was a pipe dream. Today, everyone is talking about it. It is a major change. We have equipped ourselves with instruments on defence and industrial policy. There has been a lot of progress: the Chips Act, the Net Zero Industry Act and the Critical Raw Material Act, these European texts are the building blocks of our strategic autonomy. We have started to set up battery, hydrogen component and electronics factories. And we have equipped ourselves with defensive instruments that were completely contrary to European ideology only three or four years ago! We now have very effective protection instruments.
The issue on which we must be particularly vigilant is that the war in Ukraine is accelerating the demand for defence equipment. However, the European defence industry does not meet all the needs and remains very fragmented, which leads some countries to turn to American or even Asian suppliers on a temporary basis. Faced with this reality, we need to step up our game.
Strategic autonomy must be Europe's fight. We do not want to be dependent on others on critical issues. The day you no longer have a choice on energy, on how to defend yourself, on social networks, on artificial intelligence because we no longer have the infrastructure on these subjects, you are out of history for a while.
Some might say today in Europe that there is more Franco-German and less Polish...
I wouldn't say that. I would not say that. We have created a European fund for missiles and munitions with 2 billion euros, but it is strictly European and closed. But it is clear that we need a European industry that produces faster. We have saturated our supply. As history is accelerating, we need a parallel acceleration of the European war economy. We are not producing fast enough. Moreover, look at what is happening to deal with the current situation as a matter of urgency: the Poles are going to buy Korean equipment...
But from a doctrinal, legal and political point of view, I think that there has never been such an acceleration of the Europe-power. We laid the groundwork before the crisis and there was tremendous Franco-German leverage during the pandemic, with very strong advances in financial and budgetary solidarity. And we have reactivated the Weimar format with Germany and Poland. Today, we need to speed up implementation in the military, technological, energy and financial fields to accelerate our effective autonomy.
The paradox is that the American hold on Europe is stronger than ever...
It is true that we have increased our dependence on the United States in the field of energy, but in a logic of diversification because we were far too dependent on Russian gas. Today, it is a fact that we are more dependent on the United States, Qatar and others. But this diversification was necessary.
For the rest, we must take into account the after-effects. For too long Europe has not built this strategic autonomy for which I am fighting. Today, the ideological battle has been won and the groundwork has been laid. This has a cost, which is normal. It's like for the reindustrialisation of France: we have won the ideological battle, we have carried out the reforms, they are hard, we are beginning to see the results, but at the same time, we are paying the price for what we have not done in twenty years. That's politics! You have to last. You have to hold on. But that's the price of changing mentalities.
The fact remains that the United States is pursuing a policy with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that you even described as aggressive...
When I went to Washington last December, I got my foot in the door, I was even criticised for doing so aggressively. But Europe reacted and before the end of the first quarter of 2023, in three months, we had a response with three European texts. We will have our European IRA. To act so quickly is a small revolution.
The key to being less dependent on the Americans is to strengthen our defence industry and agree on common standards. We are all putting in a lot of money but we cannot have ten times as many standards as the Americans! Secondly, we need to speed up the battle for nuclear and renewable energy in Europe. Our continent does not produce fossil fuels. There is a coherence between reindustrialisation, climate and sovereignty. It is the same battle. It is the battle of nuclear power, of renewable energy and of European energy sobriety. It will be the battle of the next ten to fifteen years.
Strategic autonomy means having convergent views with the United States but, whether it is on Ukraine, the relationship with China or sanctions, we have a European strategy. We do not want to enter into a logic of block to block. On the contrary, we must "de-risk" our model, not depend on the other, while maintaining a strong integration of our value chains wherever possible.
The paradox would be that, at a time when we are putting in place the elements of a true European strategic autonomy, we start to follow American policy, by a sort of panic reflex. On the contrary, the battles to be fought today consist on the one hand in accelerating our strategic autonomy and on the other hand in ensuring the financing of our economies. I would like to take this opportunity to stress one point: we must not depend on the extraterritoriality of the dollar.
Is Joe Biden a more polite Donald Trump?
He is committed to democracy, to fundamental principles, to international logic, and he knows and loves Europe, all of which is essential. On the other hand, he is part of an American transparent logic that defines the American interest as priority number one and China as priority number two. The rest is less important. Is this open to criticism? No. But we have to integrate it.
Isn't China the power that replaces us wherever Europe is retreating, in Africa, in the Middle East...
I don't think so. We have been going backwards for twenty years. I decided three years ago to increase our official development assistance, but after fifteen years of retreat. When Europe disengages, we should not be surprised that others move forward. When the United States turns more towards itself, as it has done since the 2010s, or towards the Pacific, and Europe suffers a financial crisis, China naturally steps forward. This is why it is important to ensure that it remains within a common framework, that it participates in the reform of the World Bank, that it engages with us as it intends to do at the next summit in Paris in June on the financing of developing economies. /deepl
About Politico.eu (Politico, is a German-owned political newspaper company based in Arlington County, Virginia, US [
], that covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally /wiki)
Politico's European department is owned by the German publishing house Axel Springer, which owns the big populist newspaper Bild. The editors of this publishing house have to swear allegiance to the transatlantic, this is no joke:
It was Axel Springer himself who wrote freedom as the most important value and its safeguarding as a goal into the company's philosophy: the Essentials derived from this commitment became part of the Articles of Association as well as the contracts with journalists in Germany and have shaped Axel Springer ever since. Together with the German version, the international version of the Essentials has made it possible since March 2016 that standing up for freedom unites all employees in all Axel Springer companies.
The Essentials were formulated by Axel Springer in 1967 and have been updated again and again over the decades in order to adapt them to the social understanding of our company and our view of the world.
1/ We stand up for freedom, the rule of law, democracy and a united Europe.
2/ We support the Jewish people and the right of the State of Israel to exist.
3/ We support the transatlantic alliance between the United States of America and Europe.
4/ We support a free and social market economy.
5/ We reject political and religious extremism and any kind of racism and sexual discrimination. /deepl
www.axelspringer.com
], that covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally /wiki)Politico's European department is owned by the German publishing house Axel Springer, which owns the big populist newspaper Bild. The editors of this publishing house have to swear allegiance to the transatlantic, this is no joke:
It was Axel Springer himself who wrote freedom as the most important value and its safeguarding as a goal into the company's philosophy: the Essentials derived from this commitment became part of the Articles of Association as well as the contracts with journalists in Germany and have shaped Axel Springer ever since. Together with the German version, the international version of the Essentials has made it possible since March 2016 that standing up for freedom unites all employees in all Axel Springer companies.
The Essentials were formulated by Axel Springer in 1967 and have been updated again and again over the decades in order to adapt them to the social understanding of our company and our view of the world.
1/ We stand up for freedom, the rule of law, democracy and a united Europe.
2/ We support the Jewish people and the right of the State of Israel to exist.
3/ We support the transatlantic alliance between the United States of America and Europe.
4/ We support a free and social market economy.
5/ We reject political and religious extremism and any kind of racism and sexual discrimination. /deepl
Werte
www.axelspringer.com
France/Germany are making a decision like India has done with respect to Russia. The Europeans don't want to create a whole new existential threat when they already have to deal with Russia. But, unlike India, they are burying their heads in the sand.
But the rest of NATO even outside the US/UK combine disagree with France/Germany.
Europe might be an influential economic entity but militarily they are nothing much without US. They simply signed off their relevance by blindly following US into every war & sanction. US will virtually clean up europe's hitech industry to ensure complete control over them.
Countries will prefer to deal with US directly rather than with europe bcos US is the one which takes the decision, so why waste time pandering to europe? Ukraine war is a good example , russia will negotiate with US but wont care to give a damn to european powers.
To make things worse there are lot many smaller stupid countries in Nato which are willing to dance to US tunes. Worse is these stupid cacophonic countries like Latvia, Estonia, Poland ....etc will cause more embarrassment to soon to be ex-big powers like Germany & France. More humiliation is in store for these powers of yesteryears .
Countries will prefer to deal with US directly rather than with europe bcos US is the one which takes the decision, so why waste time pandering to europe? Ukraine war is a good example , russia will negotiate with US but wont care to give a damn to european powers.
To make things worse there are lot many smaller stupid countries in Nato which are willing to dance to US tunes. Worse is these stupid cacophonic countries like Latvia, Estonia, Poland ....etc will cause more embarrassment to soon to be ex-big powers like Germany & France. More humiliation is in store for these powers of yesteryears .
Europe has no effective military. Expensive fuel from the ME and US will make their economy uncompetitive. And their demographics has started changing, and to make matters worse, the Russians will try and take advantage of that.
He was being sarcastic Paddy. Trust you to get it . I mean apart from a handful of NLAWs , outdated Challengers & artillery pieces , maybe assault rifles , APCs etc all of whose performance is unreported , what exactly have you contributed to Ukraine .
In dummy terms it means , do you have the wherewithal to even fight a war against the likes of Norway or say Poland leave aside Russia .