2d ago

European leaders brace for their ‘five-minutes-to-midnight’ nightmare summit

www.politico.eu European leaders brace for their ‘5-minutes-to-midnight’ nightmare summit – POLITICO

While French President Emmanuel Macron has talked of the need for “an incredible awakening” and German Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz described Europe as being “five minutes to midnight,” the worry from those close to the discussion is that events are happening more quickly than they can cope with.

“The nightmare scenario is that the U.S. announces a deal soon that accepts most of Russia’s demands and then tells Ukraine and Europe to take it or leave it,” said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

And they’re not only scared of the United States. They’re also wary of some of their own. While Thursday’s hastily arranged summit, just days after less formal gatherings in Paris and London, signals an intention to come up with solutions, diplomats are already bracing for a pro-Russia group of leaders led by Hungary’s Victor Orbán derailing the whole thing.

MBFC
\ Archive

Europe @lemmy.ml

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @lemmy.ml

8h ago

European leaders brace for their ‘5-minutes-to-midnight’ nightmare summit

www.politico.eu /article/european-leaders-ukraine-aid-nightmare-summit-government-emmanuel-macron-germany-us-russia/

5 0

News & Events Surrounding Russia's Invasion of Ukraine @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

1d ago

European leaders brace for their ‘five-minutes-to-midnight’ nightmare summit.Diplomats are already worried pro-Russian EU governments could derail the attempt to regain the initiative from Trump ―...

www.politico.eu /article/european-leaders-ukraine-aid-nightmare-summit-government-emmanuel-macron-germany-us-russia/

1 0

You're viewing a single thread.

49 comments

This is something they should have done years ago, the US has been grumbling about other NATO members not spending enough on defence long before Trump got into power. And they spend roughly twice as much per capita as many European countries, so they kinda have a point.
- From a geopolitics perspective, there are many ways to address "freeriding" in a defense alliance that don't involve literally betraying the entire defense alliance.
  
  Oh, absolutely.
  Just don't say you didn't see this coming, because NATO were explicitly told it was coming for years.
- As true as it is, I don't think it is reasonable to just throw everything away and side with fucking russia because of it.
  But finally europe seems to wake up, which is good.
  
  Nothing about Trump's actions are reasonable, but his complaint is.
  
  Don't legitimize a traitor, because his complaint while possibly valid is not genuine at all. He doesn't give a fuck what they spend, he is just operating under orders from his dommy mommy Putin to destroy the west's cohesiveness.
  
  I fully agree.
  Granted, many members were below the agreed upon spending of 2%
  And he somewhat correctly complained about that...
  Though some were above 2% already and Trump had nothing but silence for it...
  But now that members drastically increased spending (not just because of him but also due to the Putin factor) Trump suddenly demands 5% across the board ... already Poland is over that (because of Putin, not Trump) and Germany approaching it ...
  Trump knows/is told most members can not raise to 5% ...and will use their non compliance to his orders as an excuse to torpedo NATO.
  But I am sure when a few others do pass 5% he'll go to 8% just to spite things and make sure Putin is appeased with his instilled chaos.
- The us spends that much more than anyone, including its enemies.
  The us just spends way too much. Matching us defence spending is kind of a lot. Combined the EU current defence spending is second only to the us
  
  Seeing how the European members are one financial bloc it would be appropriate to count them as one and average their spending, then it would probably go past the 2% easily (I don't have nor know how to use the relevant data, so correct me if I am wrong).
  But this is not useful for Trump's reasoning to want to leave NATO so he will not do that and count everyone separately, be it EU or other members.
  He needs the excuse, and seeing how the EU is thwarting his and Putins plans for Ukraine, I can see Trump will come with an ultimatum this or next year to actually leave/dismantle NATO.
  I am convinced that the only thing keeping Trump from leaving NATO right now is the income the Military Industry is receiving from this.
  
  I fear it's not enough. Not by half.
  
  Not sure if that's true. China+Russia military spending is about on par with NATO when adjusted for PPP. If Europe and the US want to both be able to defend their respective backyards against imperialism, they need to expand their militaries.
  
  If Europe and the US want to both be able to defend their respective backyards against imperialism
  Why are you still talking like the US and EU are allies? The EU needs to defend against US imperialism.
  
  I'm talking about the situation in NATO up until now.
  The fact that the US is refusing to support the rest of NATO definitely changes things. Europe likely does not have the capacity right now to assist in the Asia-Pacific. If we are talking strictly NATO ex US vs Russia, it is still uncomfortably close. Europe needs to increase defense spending.
  The Trump regime currently has their sights on Canada and Greenland, so any defense against Trumpist imperialism will happen there as part of NATO, not the EU.
  
  PPP is difficult with defence spending, especially when nations are running a war economy and recruiting prisoners for free
  
  It's not that - NATO membership includes an agreement to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense.
  
  The reason the US wants that 2% spending today is because they know we're going to hand that money to US weapons manufacturers and trainers.
  
  So? It's an amount everybody agreed to in 2014.
  
  In 2014, NATO members pledged to aim for defense spending of at least 2% of their GDP by 2024. This agreement, formalized during the Wales Summit, was a response to Russia's annexation of Crimea and broader global instability. However, this target is not legally binding; it is a political commitment designed to address underfunding and encourage burden-sharing among allies[1][2][4].
  Countries are not obligated to meet the target because NATO lacks enforcement mechanisms. The pledge allows flexibility, requiring nations to "aim" for the goal rather than mandating it. Members can prioritize other defense contributions, such as troop deployments or equipment investments, which are not directly tied to GDP percentages[1][5][7]. Additionally, critics argue the 2% metric oversimplifies defense contributions and does not account for qualitative factors like military capability or willingness to engage in operations[5][8].
  Citations: [1] [PDF] THE POLITICS OF 2 PERCENT https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/CP_252_Techau_NATO_Final.pdf [2] Defence expenditures and NATO's 2% guideline https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm [3] The two NATO targets: Which countries are hitting the mark? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/ [4] Topic: Funding NATO - NATO https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm [5] What Spending Two Per Cent of GDP on National Defence Means ... https://www.cgai.ca/what_spending_two_per_cent_of_gdp_on_national_defence_means_for_canada [6] Update of Canada's Military Expenditure and the NATO 2 ... https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/additional-analyses--analyses-complementaires/BLOG-2425-005-S--update-canada-military-expenditure-nato-2-spending-target--mise-jour-depenses-militaires-canada-objectif-depenses-2-otan [7] The Politics of 2 Percent: NATO and the Security Vacuum in Europe https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2015/09/the-politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-the-security-vacuum-in-europe?center=europe&lang=en [8] We don't really know which NATO allies are pulling their weight ... https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/natos-next-burden-sharing-agreement/ [9] How much do Nato members spend on defence? - BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074
  
  Neat.
  
  And given the EU is on the same continent as Russia, that should really be the other way around.
  
  Russia wasnt a threat to Europe until the US made it one.
  
  ... Have you read anything whatsoever about European history? Russia has been an imperialist force since before the US existed.
  
  No, he's right. Russia was doomed to lose to Ukraine, let alone the EU, until the US switched sides.
  
  Yeah it's true but they also always kinda sucked militarily. Today, they're struggling against Ukraine. Their peak was during cold war soviet era and even then, they got their ass handed to them by the Mujahideen, which is seen as the event that broke them up. In ww2 they struggled against Finland and just barely made it out of their fight with Germany still a country. Only because the nazis were too confident and got into a two front war. In ww1 the eastern front was basically Russia stacking up defeats. Before that they got their ass kicked by Japan. In Napoleonic times, France handed Russia several defeats, even with other countries helping it. In pre Napoleonic times, again, just Russian defeat after Russian defeat.
  It's just a matter of fact that for as long as Russia has existed, they have always been a big unmaterialized threat. Even far back in the congress of Vienna in 1814 everyone was already assuming Russia was going to industrialize and how powerful Russia will become and in the end.... nothing.
  I seriously don't think Europe needs even half of what the US has, even to face Russia. Nobody does, US military expenditure is ridiculous. I also think Russia is only still a country because no country in history ever wanted to occupy undeveloped tundra. Even the mongols only sorta occupied it by asking them for tribute and leaving them mostly alone.
  Should Europe become complacent ? No, but seriously all Europe needs is a half decent unified army and a cooperating industral military complex for domestic use to go with it and i don't really think Russia will ever be that big of a threat.
  
  You're right, but what you're not quite mentioning is that most of these defeats came from Russia instigating the conflict (even well before the communist revolution). Ie. it performed small invasions in various Baltic states, sweden and finland in the Napoleonic eras and was a general nuisance at the borders.
  Russias long time battle strategy of using its populace as cannon fodder, and seeing individuals as worthless workers for the state, is also the reason why it never amounts to actually realizing the huge threat outsiders think it is.
  In potential they can amass every citizen in the working force for their military complex.
  But if those same citizens are bereft of anything that inspires them the fighting spirit dwindles and force must be used to push them to fight which isn't a great thing for morale.
  It showed in the Russian defeat against Napoleon, Napoleon took his inspired armies deep inside Russia, and all the Russians had as a strategy was just torch every town, city and granary in Napoleon's path, untill he got stuck in the freezing winter without supplies nor local inhabitants to aid his conquest. The same thing it did with its own people during the communist revolution, it torched villages and killed livestock of any single Russians against the regime change. World War 2 also saw this tactic being used, and in Ukraine we're seeing it again.
  So the thing is, be it under the Tsar, the communist regime, or under Putins hybrid oligarchic communism, the cannon fodder doctrine never left the Russian way of thinking.
  And this, in essence, also is why Russia is considered the antithesis and "the enemy" to the West's view of individualism.
  
  Top quality comment. Developing Russia into a strong nation would be a century long effort and would require a complete change in way of thinking.
  If anything, they only expanded their cannon fodder doctrine to their economy as well. Russia will never be a great nation by itself. They will only be one by taking great nations next to it. Putin knows this and it is what i suspect the reason for these senseless wars. Even the atomic bomb is useless to them if nobody attempts to go into Russia. Brickwalling them economically and militarily will lead them to degenerate and die, owing to their self destructive policies, which is why Putin is so against a defensive organization forming around them. It's why he's so invested in Donald Trump to turn around the already forming brickwall.
  It was never about the range of the nukes, intentions of the US or the alleged offensive intentions of NATO that never existed. It's purely and simply because if Russia doesn't take land to exploit from people who actually can carry out meaningful progress and development, they degenerate as a country. Their doctrine is self destructive and they have never known any better.
  
  It was not an imperialist force from 1917 till the betrayal of the US at the end of WWII.
  
  Apart from invading Poland, sure.
  
  How?
  
  Wut?

49 comments