How Israel Strengthens Macron's Case for 'Strategic Autonomy'
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 06. 2024
- Get 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/tldrnews
Since he was elected, President Macron has been pushing the EU to achieve strategic autonomy in Europe and end their over-reliance on the US for security. So what would this look like? And how might recent conflicts and wars strengthen Macron's case?
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
////////////////////////////
1 - edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/po...
2 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...
3 - Double Trouble: Trump, Transatlantic Relations and European Strategic Autonomy
4 - euobserver.com/world/140164
00:00 Introduction
00:37 What is Strategic Autonomy?
02:38 Trump & Biden’s Impact
03:46 Recent Developments
05:21 Why Israel is Significant
06:23 Incogni
Europe seriously needs to stop relying on the US for security. We need to build up our own armies and defend ourselves for a change.
With what money? We're kinda broke...
Good luck developing billion dollars of weapons from scratch
What a joke comment. If you believe this then you really need to read European history to realise that arming and militarising Europe more is a bad idea. Two World Wars started on the European continent. Europeans are nasty, selfish, and destructive and should not be left with any weapons.
You can also make weapons with licens .
@@migrocha no we are not. Its a simple question of priorities.
I have always been for Europe being self-reliant in every regard. Having allies is good and all, but what happens when said allies got their own thing to deal with? Or when said ally decides that they won’t honour the alliance?
That's why Europe need to be self reliant, as we can trust more each others to support each others (same continent, very strong economic ties), than USA or Canada.
You're joking right? European 'self-reliance' is a myth. Two devastating world wars are proof that Europe should not be left to it's own devices.
@@mrsupremegasconand then what if europe itself fractures? even right now there are disagreements between west and central/eastern europe.
European nations should just pay 3% of GDP on their militaries already smh
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 that's why we need a European army, organised under a more democratic supranational EU
I want to congratulate this new host for an amazing delivery of the news! Welcome to the TLDR!
yes
pretty sure this dude has been on the team for a while, he's appeared in a few videos
glad to have him hosting tho
He's the editor, he's not new. He was on the criticism response video. I think he's covering for Rory.
He’s usually a writer. Pretty sure his name is Zak
@@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500 He has improved a lot though!
I still can't understand why this isn't applied yet. HOW can a self respecting european citizen be against more autonomy and strengthening the EU's international standing? I understand not actively pushing for it because you're comfortable in your own country and don't care about the rest, but how can someone be against it...
One thing to say all
Economy
To things to say: national sovereignty
@@inteallsviktigtnational sovereignty is worthless, you cannot eat it, you cannot use it as a defensive weapon. I don't want it.
The eu armies are already integrating. They use the same protocols and tech. That's just common sense as we all work together. So if every country spends 2% we are most of the way there.
If Russia or anyone else were to attack the EU no country can stay on the sidelines anyway.
@@inteallsviktigtYou have a very based profile picture.
The people of Europe are divided and don't really trust each other in security matters. It will always be a hard sell to explain a dude from Lisbon he has to get shelled in eastern Europe or a dude from Villnius that he is defending his country in French Polynesia
The problem with this is that Europe dies not have unified vision for what that Strategy Autonomy looks like. Diffrent countries want different things.
You'd really need to centralize foregin policy, so you don't have situations like Turkey is still trading with Russia, and refuses any harsh response. Problem is, if Germany and others lose the right to cut deals aboard to their benefit, so good luck with that...
While I do hope Europe achieves this as having a self-reliant democratic state should the US implode seems like a good thing (and allows us to shift our resources elsewhere to other allies that need them more), I do look forward to when the French realize European strategic autonomy is not synonymous with French strategic autonomy.
yeah we do. its called csdp.
@@Treviisolionwhy would America emplode
Between France too keen on leading the pack and the other EU countries too keen on sucking USA's juicy tit....i don't think we'll see any kind of "Strategic Autonomy" in EU soon.
The case for strategic autonomy has always been a strong one. Many countries were sleeping on it because relying on others is comfortable, but for many years now, the waking up has been brutal.
No, Europe is just not united in security matters. Eastern Europe doesn't trust Western Europe to care for them. They see the US as the only credible security guarantee; And considering how western Europe reacted to Russian aggression, that wont change anytime soon
Unfortunately how Maxron applies this is to switch from the US to China
@@matthewmiller6568 Nah, we don't want to depend on China either. Autonomy is autonomy, not a change of master.
@@albevanhanoyi know but Macron does. Right when he declared he literally went to China signed a pact which discussed trade and security which China promptly violated. Meaning Macron is just selling you to China.
@@matthewmiller6568 that's just false
I'm delighted to see Zak presenting a video. He sounds like someone who's knowledgable about the topic explaining it to us in simple terms. I love Jack and Ben, but too often they sound like they're reading from an autocue or making an announcement.
That's just in your head. They all read from autocue.
@@bzuidgeest Well that's true, I guess. But Zak doesn't *sound* like he's reading something
@@grotmx I'm not hearing the difference
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 jeez, can you even more homofobic? You know they are people too, yes?
I think what you mean, zaks voice fits wel to this topic.
Just a slight little detail: Germany was initially now allowed to spend much on military things after WW2, this was more an obligation initially, that then turned into a habit "because it pleases the US". The mindset shift from NATO that Germany should start spending more on military budget is very very recent (basically since Russia started with Crimea).
It also has to do a lot with the expectations towards Germany by other nations. As a frontline country during the cold war the expectation was more to provide men and an initial blockade on the ground. With that focus you can have a relatively large force with little money.
Now the European east expects Germany to somewhat alleviate the US role as the big daddy that roles in with the expensive things. Air defence, air power, development of those weapons, a capable navy, and forces that role in once a conflict starts.
That means very different financial needs for a similarly sized military.
That’s not true at all. Germany had one of the largest standing armies during the cold war
Not true, Germany is one of the biggest spender in defence in the Cold War, they are at the front after all.
Spending only plummeted after the Soviet collapsed and Germany reunited.
Not excactly. After WW2 West Germany started rearming in 1955 and quickly built one of the most potent conventional armies in Europe. By the mid to late 80s we're talking about a tank force of over 2000 Leopard 2s and R&D dipping its toes into developing Stealth fighters.
East Germany wasn't excactly underequipped either.
So when the Wall came down and both sides looked to unify a ton of our current allies were looking at the potential of living next to one of the most advanced militarised countries on earth and given our history they were a bit worried.
Therefore disarmament was part of the 2+4 treaty and Germany happily obliged.
@@heyho4770 Correct Germany did scrap alot of GDR and FRG equipment in the 90's and early 2000's
Aprox 10.000 IFV and MBT were scrapped
It was a big industry
Wow, very cool to see Zac for once delivering the news - refreshing approach.
You know things hit the fans when two videos back to back mention a specific event
yes
You know it's messed up when USA sends the biggest aircraft carrier in the world to help against a small terrorist group
@@prsimoibn2710 that ship (and the whole support group around it) are not there to fight Hamas, but to deter other parties in joining and trying to grab a piece of Israel for themselves (like Iran or Hezbollah).
it's to show that the US (and it's allies) have the material to jump in and support Israel if needed
@@ChristiaanHW as the 30 billion dollars send to Israel yesterday
EU needs to be more indepent and needs to start acting like leader for its people
Great job with the presenting here Zak.
I agree with france here. The problem is in order to do so a combined European Army should be the goal because otherwise supplying 26 different armies, each with their own equipment is a dissaster waiting to happen.
But in order to do so each E.U. country must give up more power to Brussels. Something nobody likes doing.
Not nobody likes doing but I do not see it happening for Hungary and Poland
Funnily, NATO has already standardized most of the EU armies, so that part wouldn't be that much of an issue.
@@nnnik3595The only thing stopping Poland is their current government. Most Poles would definitely be up for a European army but the current ruling party is trying to further advance their ridiculous feud with the EU.
@@Bezimienny1598 and who is voting for these politicians?
@@nnnik3595 election this week so lets see
Zac is a really great host and should be on more often.
Hi Zek. Nice to see you filling in for Ben and Jack. Always a pleasure to see you narrating videos
My god, America is not a state, it is two continents....
"America" , just like "Holland", "France" and "China" etc., is also a nick name; i.e. "America" is a short for "the United States of America", "Holland" is a short for "the Kingdom of the Netherlands", "France" is a short of "the French Republic" and "China" is a short for "the People's Republic of China" and so forth..
P.S. Which god is your god?
Macron has a solid idea. However, given that the trend of the EU citizens appear to be tilting more towards right wing groups & politicians like Le Pen & Germany's AfD, we'll have to see if plans for a EU Strategic Autonomy still stands. Either way, Europe needs to start standing on its own 2 feet, and stop relying so much on a U.S. that wants to be more isolationist, and deal with its own problems first.
the rise for the political right isn't a rise in anti-EU sentiment.
the European people are sick and tired of having to let in people from all over the world and having prices going up to support those people.
to long have the left government put the countries people on the second place and the citizens are done with that.
Strategic Autonomy doesn't have to be an EU wide policy, even if an anti-EU party gets into power I'm sure that they'll try and reduce dependency on America for the sake of their country's interests.
Remember Macron is a horrible president
im in Europe. please tell me exactly how im supposedly relying on the US.
its just such unchecked horsesht. hello Russia is getting slapped around by Ukraine.
oh no save me from the rushkies America, yes those ones getting their tanks towed by tractors in the eastern border of our post Soviet 2nd world neighbor.
@@sliftylovesyouNo European country has economic or military might to replace US.
EU can't do it without sacrificing in living standards.
Ah yes Macron's version of autonomy, the one where Macron can play Napoleon.
It's weird hearing you doing a regular episode. But I'll get used to it, and I support it.
Hello new reporter. Just gotta say you have a very clear accent, easier to understand for me as i’m not a native English speaker
Are u a pa jeet?
@@nostro1940 are you gay ?
As non French EU Citizen, i realy like Macron or at leat his plans for the EU
That's because Macron believes it will bring France to the forefront of European foreign policy, essentially becoming the "leader of Europe" in state affairs.
The Germans sure as hell won't be advocating any military solutions to a problem any time soon...
I'm french and i don't like Macron but I need to recognise that in term of EU evolution I like him. Also his idea of an multi tier EU is quite interesting and could allow the EU to continue our integration without having to wait for Hungary/Poland to agree.
@@alganis3339 valid, i heard that he did a few shitty things in france and was responsible for the revolts happening, but i am a huge fan of an integrated Europe, which stands strong by it self and is respected by the other great powers
Europe does need strategic autonomy not because USA is unreliable but because it also means that USA is less the big daddy standing behind Europe to scare people off, but rather as a partner. Makes USA more willing to help if necessary and also gives more back to USA in the sense that USA is not invincible on it's own either.
I agree with that but we shouldn't also forgot that the US in the 2010s were lobbying in Brussel to slow the EU military projects because it will mean that also they are going to lose quite a lot of money (most of the EU countries were spending billions buying US weapons). For the EU to have a true strategic autonomy we need EU countries to buy european weapons.
Lol, "strategic autonomy" in a lot of European countries would mean buying primarily US-made weapons from US companies while having the vehicles maintained by (parts from) US companies and the operators trained by the Americans too.
Also, is it stands right now the US is pretty impregnable from a land perspective. Only way it gets compromised is through civil war or ICBM(or naval missiles) barrage
its all a false premise.
Russia can't get west of Bakhmut. Who is the threat to Europe. (far stronger than Ukraine).
@@okeneStrategic independence doesn’t mean Europe wants to attack the US
@@tedcrilly46Russia is weak right now. Rearmament takes years, if Russia rearms they'll be more powerful and yall won't
It has been a while since we have seen you do the report !
0:25 I know it is a simplified map, but atleast you could include alaska
If I've learnt anything playing strategy games, Troops that are there to defend a nation can just as easily become occupiers if things take a wrong turn.
it's always been that way... heck Japan has some tough time dealing with herself and the 1945 Peace Constitution ...
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Even with strategic autonomy if US couldn't or wouldn't come to the aid of Baltic States, no European country would come to our aid.
If you're an EU member then yes, we would. It's more for economic reasons than sentiment though.
This was so very interesting ang you guys really covered all the bases.
Is it just me or have the videos gotten a lot better great work guys
Only a European would accuse the US not supporting Ukraine after giving them $88,000,000,000.
Hows the weather in Texas?
Excellent video TLDR, impressed by your balanced and informed video.
no its not. if it was a good video it would have compared European stats with Russian stats, and seen that Russia doesn't stand a tiny chance.
as we see by Russias inability to progress west of Bakhmut.
awful video, started from a flawed conclusion found a narrative to fit. zero perspective. crap channel.
Really good video, well done!
I like this new locutor. I know he's been part of the TLDR team for a very long time, but it's the first time I see him on CZcams. As alays, thanks for the high quality news.
Europe would need to up its act. America warned Europe about becoming too dependent on Russian gas after its Crimea invasion. America warned Europe about the imminent invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Europe was oblivious, and unwise.
omg so short sighted
it was america that blew up the pipelines, and it was america that did a coup d'etat in ukraine to put its puppet zelensky, if anything, europe should cut ties with america, who is sabotaging europe.
@@Jimmy2g NO, that's Russian propaganda.
I wouldnt say the US ha shown "unwavering" support for Ukraine. Being hesitant to send the military equipment Zelensky have been asking for.
@@HollowVortex81 That, however, has resulted in Russia having enough time to build up their defenses in the occupied territory, and since Ukraine is having trouble to push the frontline back, it's turning into apprehension amongst its allies. It would have been best to provide decent equipment to Ukraine since the start of the war.
Dude you can’t just send anything you never know what may happen as you can see. The support has been unwavering outside of a few people. Zelenskyy asked Israel for the iron dome lol some things just aren’t realistic.
@@sparks1792 Given the scale of conflict everything is necessary. It's not about begging, it's about survival.
@@yurigagarin9765yeah however when your playing with a country like russia theres always a fear that it'll end everything. Unfortunately better to play it safe than sorry.
@@diogorodrigues747 My comment might sound disrespectful but it’s not. I understand and support the aid. Op saying the resolve hasn’t been unwavering because they can’t have everything they want is what I’m disagreeing with.
This was one of the best videos you ever uploaded. Very indepth
Its been a while since you hosted your own video Zak and I noticed you've made marked improvement. Not bad mate.
Being self sufficient and not having to rely on others is always a positive. If the US gets dragged into a war with China for instance they wont be focusing on helping the EU and Ukraine.
Europeans being 'self-sufficient' is like saying the Russian Federation is a 'democracy' both statements are false. Europe has a long history of plundering other nation's natural, territorial, and human wealth to get it where it is now. You're clearly a delusional nationalist.
That makes the assumption Nato countries won't get drawn into a war with China. The UK certainly will to some extent. The UK went into Korea, but turned the US down on Vietnam, so there are no guarantees on anything.
Helping? Your helping us. We are the only people peopel keeping this whole thing going lol.
Help with what? Ukraine is holding Russia off with NATOs scraps. Militarily there's Zero threat from Russia as long as Europe is in it together.
Decoupling from the Chinese economy and our energy sector from the middle east is way more important
The US’ military is designed to fight Russia and China at the same time. They don’t have to compromise their security garuntees.
There will be no further european integration.
If we want common eu army we need common forgiven policy and common eu goal.
Portugal and Poland have nothing in common.
People from Greece don't want a Dutch to rule their army.
France don't care about east that much and germany will definitely sacrifice some countries for better deals with russia.
Quatar Gate shows us that there is a reason for european distrust.
Nice delivery, new guy!
I like his way of deliver the news!! well done!
I was very surprised to see Zak 😅 Great job tho man
This new face is a surprise, but a welcomed one; it's always been difficult to tell Ben and Jack apart from their voices alone.
It should be noted that as lifesaving as NATO's article 5 is, any USA forces and equipment would still take a while to cross the Atlantic and reach the frontlines in the face of an invasion, so there is extra merit for strategic autonomy as a sort of bulwark, similar to Poland's mindset towards their recent surge in military spending.
What about the US bases in Europe?
@@e.g.8018 I believe it's barely just enough to aid INB4 the the larger force from US comes thundering down as backup
Do you know how many bases they have in Europe?
Welcome new guy. We like our news thorough and well contextualized, thanks.
Cheers team
EU needs, in my opinion, take steps towards federalization, currently it is clumsy and perhaps does not function in such way that people expects it to function and does not act exactly in way that people would want it to act. In my opinion, strategic autonomy and steps towards federalization are inseparable.
Are you mad? Federal politics have destroyed Italy!!!
This voice is perfect.
Love to hear Zach's beautiful voice...
Nice to see a new host in the mix
Not only could this make Europe more prepared to provide it's own security, but also help lessen the US's self-imposed burden as well. I'd say it's a win-win for both sides of the pond.
A bit of militarization can help EU being percieved more seriosusly, reduce unenpolyment and help upward class mobilty. Hystoricaly if you are poor you can join the army and get decent livehood.
but your whole premise is false.
EU countries already spend way more than Russia, beat Russia in almost every conventional stat, far outnumber Russia in every way.
Just take the relative population sizes as 1 indicator 440m vs 140m. And the other stats track this trend. EU towers over Russia in endless ways.
And Russia is getting slapped around by Ukraine. (pop 40m) . Poland alone is comparable.
New reporter is killing it🙂❤
Not new, chief. He's just an editor filling in cause Jack and Ben are off to Liverpool for the Labour Party Conference.
Nice to see you in front of the camera Zak 😊
Strategic autonomy can only be secured if you have safe and local access/production of all resources necessary, including energy, arms, metals and electronics.
As of right now, that's a very long way from being an achievable goal.
I have always felt we, the US, need to stop spending our military and support in Europe and even Asia with a more focused effort in the Americas. An EU style approach to NA with Canada and Mexico gives an economic powerhouse as these three countries have enough natural resources and manufacturing potential to be almost completed independent of other sources.
By putting the resources of these three countries to focused effect, they could stabilize Central American countries bringing them into the "AU" and eventually expanding into South America.
I agree with that but one thing that the video didn't talk about is how the EU countries in NATO were buying US weapons. US governement was maybe paying more than european countries but at the end was also gaining quite a lot of money.
One of the first step for a EU army is to start to oblige EU countries to buy EU weapons and to boost our military R&D like that
That's a really good idea. Crises across South America have been a big driver for the refugee crisis on our border. Creating greater economic interconnections across the Americas would be an easy way to begin stabilizing and building up the Latin American nations and create a large number of friendly nations that we could create a nearshored trade bloc with.
The name AU is already taken "African Union". Unless you want people to be confused every second they see the name.
A further reason why Biden won't move the Embassy back to Tel Aviv is due to the fact that the move was actually a law passed by Congress in the 1990's that required the US to move its embassy, but in the law there was space to defer the implementation of the move every six months. Trump simply failed to renew the deferral, so Biden would need to utilise political capital (which he doesn't have a lot of) to repeal the law in order to move the embassy back. I don't think that it's something that he's prepared to do.
Good video more like this
0:23 forgot Alaska and Hawaii
The issue for security Europe isn't budget, European defense spending are 2x to 3x higher than Russia. We have 2x more military personnels, and now more tanks and planes, and our industry is 15x larger than Russia.
On paper, Russia is not a threat at all for Europe.
When Trump is asking for Europeans to spend more on defense, he his asking for Europeans to buy more Americans hardware for his industries.
Our issue is coordination and combat readiness against Russia. That's it, and mostly due to USA being here, having most of Eastern Europe in their sphere of influence, so larger Western Europeans countries don't see the need to invest a lot to protect American interests there.
Especially since Russia was view mostly as a partner for Germany or even France.
On the Mediterranean and other fronts, Europe is alone and is strategically independent. But the issue there is that we have conflicting interests between Europeans.
So the call for Strategic Autonomy is not just about stopping to rely on USA, it's mostly to coordinate European diplomacy.
Eh yes and no. There have been 3 previous US presidents(this goes all the way back to Bush and Obama) also asking for Europeans to increase spending so the US doesn't have to shoulder so much. The US was trying to pivot attention to Asia. It doesn't mater where Europeans buy that equipment. Even if it were true, you have to remember that much of US Military equipment is made by European companies. Much of that is German, Belgian, Italian, and British companies(not so much French). Even the Abrams is made up of parts made by European companies. The gun is German, the armor is British, The machine guns are Belgian and the concept was developed from a German/US partnership.
@@provicate4334
Nah its absolutely also the US interest to sell their arms.
They know they can outbid most of their competitors in many sectors so a buildup mostly benefits the US MIC.
Whether thats their main motivation for making these or just a very convenient cirucumstance isn't clear
@@heyho4770 Once again much of the US military equipment also include European industries...there is no disputing this fact.
The only major area where US equipment isn't as heavily intertwined with Europe is aircraft and missile technology and judging by the way that is headed with the f-35, they will at the very least all be able to communicate and talk with one another.
@@heyho4770please tell me you're stupid without saying you're stupid
@@heyho4770we just want you to increase defens spending by 2 percent like we all agreed he'll if Poland can do it so can Germany
One of few things most Europeans agree with. Enough of being a US vassal
Hard to be a vassal when you disproportionately benefit
More energy in your voice pls it sounds better but I love your content
The new host did a great job.
Well its good. Im very happy USA exists. But Europe must be AS powerful as the USA. Only nations like Greece, Finland, Poland, and few others are very powerful for its size because they invest and take responsibility.
Netherlands (where I live) and others have been pathrtically immature about this and will have to get to much higher military spending
I like the new commentator
3:00 That aged well….😂
Love this new presenter!!! 😍 great job man
The idea sounds good on paper, but currently it has no real prospects. Eastern Europe and especially countries like Poland are very keen on much deeper cooperation with the US, as they don't see France and Germany as a reliable partners. And to be fair to them the Russian invasion of Ukraine kind of proved them 100% right.
we need a European federation
What a nice fictional idea.
Yes, we do. It will be hard work, but we need to defeat nationalism.
Nah it is possible. The inner 6 should just try to archiev it. If the other countrys want to join, they are very welcome of course.
@@Pointi69 Yes, it should happen gradually and voluntarily.
Just call it properly - Fourth Reich
lets see more of this guy ok, well done
great piece. i like the new host
The U.S. is by and large as reliable an ally as any democracy can be. The fact that they put pressure on our governments to pull their weight in NATO is entirely understandable and I support it.
The last 10 U.S. wars kind of shows the opposite
@@inteallsviktigt As an American, I would like nothing better than to leave Europe to its own devices. We've got our own problems to deal with.
Like when the NSA tapped Angela Merkel's phone and spied on her? What a great ally!
@@sliftylovesyou thruth be told, it probably wasn't just americans spying on her, seeing her policies and all....... it's just the americans got exposed for it
@@sliftylovesyouare you saying that Germany doesn't have spies in the US? Because it does.
The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Nagorno-Karabakh before it confirm that Pax Americana is coming to an end. Ukraine’s unexpectedly effective resistance and the rally of solidarity among Western allies and partners made a lot of us think that maybe American primacy on global stage is not over yet and it’s too early for a multipolar world order. However it’s now clear that the state of American hard power (struggles to supply Ukraine and keep Azerbaijan at bay) is not enough to deter aggressive actors around the world and that the U.S. is slowly but surely turning isolationist. Therefore the Europeans need to get a grip, reach a compromise between the west and east of the EU, renegotiate treaties and build up their hard power ASAP.
you think US has sent it's best weapons to Ukraine, they are the older ones.
@@niweshlekhak9646 how is that relevant to my comment? The U.S. keeps its latest technology close to its chest for a possible war with China, yes, as it should because Chinese out-churn them in mature technologies already. China can now be an arsenal of autocracy, yes, the quality is subpar still but American tanks were subpar to German ones too. But in keeping best tech to itself America can’t provide its very convenient partners (like Ukraine) with cutting edge weaponry to triumph in battle and it doesn’t have industrial capacity to provide them with enough mature technology.
I am not sure whether Pax Americana played any role in events in Karabakh, to me it seems like reliving of pressure that was left after collapse of USSR. I wouldn't be surprised if we would see some more such events in upcoming years.
I think that good plan for federalization would be acceptable for both sides, as it would significantly increase direct control of people over EU by creation of standard federal government and it would make EU stronger by creation of standard federal government and thus possibly federal army, and other institutions.
I think another part is that they want more power
A bit of militarization can help EU being percieved more seriosusly, reduce unenpolyment and help upward class mobilty. Hystoricaly if you are poor you can join the army and get decent livehood.
Three points.
The historical attitude that the US is an unreliable ally has historical reasons. The US has had a tendency during the past 70 years of toppling and couping any and all governments they didn't like, with its height during the current century being Irak's war. Meanwhile, France's international policy maintained a neocolonial attitude where they wanted to maintain an unequal relationship with its ex-colonies, but one that they could justify under the pretense that it was benefitial for both France and those African countries. But this position had an extremely bad PR while sharing a political block with the US, since rather than "unequal cooperation", they wanted forced political assimilation, which favored a discourse of "The West vs Peripheral Countries" without any nuance about the distinctions between the US and France.
On the other hand, the US' fast response and strong commitment during the invasion of Ukraine has been, undoubtedly extremely helpful for Europe. This is a good argument in favor of the common interests of the EU and the US, but this brings us to the next point.
Historically, Biden's presidency is exceptional, if only because they've supported Lula (a Latin American far left sympathising socialdemocrat) in successfully surviving the transition of power after the defeat of Bolsonaro, to the point that you could argue that his administration is particularly committed to protecting liberal democracies from authoritarian movements. But can you trust the US to perpetually maintain this position? Remember that the opposing party has a schizophrenic debate where they're not sure if they like Putin and Russia, if challenging the core institutions of liberal democracies is permissible, or even if they want to be isolationist or interventionist. What would have happened if Trump was ruling the US during the invasion of Ukraine? Would Europe have reacted appropriately?
In my opinion, the most sensible position is celebrating the current shared interests of the EU and the US, but reinforcing European international autonomy anyway.
As a French and a rather staunch opponent of Macron's devastating policies in my country (and overseas - eg Niger, Saudi Arabia and multiple others), I can but imagine his proclamations as a hint towards his petty personal ambitions.
If anything, not being able to run as presidential candidate in 2027, makes a European ascension even shinnier to him.
So why not make such position even more powerful in a unified EU ?
The man is intelligent. And a raving megalo sociopath at times, so I wouldn't be surprised he'd thought this all through.
When viewed as a simply cost/benifit. Armies only have two uses. Invading other countries or stopping other countries from invading yours. With a few major exceptions. Most *_individual_* countries in European fall into neither camp.
Great video. Ty for the information.
One point: it’s thRee not thWee
Leaving out France's huge arms industry, and the financial benefit for France if the rest of the EU imported arms from France instead of the US, feels a little disingenuous
Ikr? They completely left that out and the fact that France is doing what it accuses the US of doing.
So contrary to other EU countries France has kept a strong defense industry with their own budget and that's a Bad thing because it would mean they make more money on weapon sales compared to others ? What's your point ?
@@cocolaridelle1176 My point is that there are very real financial reasons for France to encourage other EU members to supply their militaries inside of EU
@@thecryingsoul there is but is that a Bad thing ? France is on the same continent so it would make sense to source your weapons from a country that shares your strategic goals, at least more than the US
@@cocolaridelle1176 2 things can be true at the same time my friend. What is bad is leaving out a very important factor behind France's decision making when talking about it
Macron is right. We should not rely on anyone for defense but ourselves.
What if the US has one of its mood swings and decides to not intervene? Or only intervene if we make concessions on the welfare of EU people in for example healthcare so they can squeeze money out of our citizens like they do their own?
No, we have to stand on our own. We can still be members of NATO , but equal members.
That's the thing. Standing on your own comes at the cost of the welfare state. That is something no European is willing to do.
@@brandonf1260 i don't agree, though both things cost money, they are not mutually exclusive.
If the NATO budget went to our own armies we would have more than enough. Most countries support armies even now. Relying on the US is not free. And we could sell our high tech arms around the world.
@@bzuidgeestAre you saying to pull funding from NATO to have European countries fund there own armies?
@@bzuidgeest that is ridiculousness of the highest order, NATO is a military structure. To fund your army is to fund NATO. You cannot be a military superpower globally and support the welfare state. It just isn't possible, no nation has been able to pull both off at the same side. Let alone a whole continent of nations with diverging interest.
@@brandonf1260 we don't have to be a global army power, that stupid idea is just the US. They think they have the right to start wars everywhere. The only thing they did was make the world a mess. The US is pure self interest only. We don't need to be world police, we just need to be capable of defending our own. To be able to make decisions without the need of the US support in the background. At lot of things that were thought to be ridiculous in the past turned out to be possible. Caring for your citizens and being able to defend yourself and be equal partners in NATO is certainly possible. And if you look a little bit further back in history you'll even find early examples.
nice voice you should keep him
Is Alaska not murica...? 🤔
I like the idea but feel like this is France just wanting to sell military hardware and critical imfrastructure to the other EU countries.
Those sectors are already mostly autonomous in France but currently often lose out to less autonomous or US competitors when it comes to other european countries.
Although I'm for Strategic Autonomy, I highly question France's motives here. IMO, it's all about control over Europe and the French military industries.
France cannot control Europe, but larger countries like USA or even China can.
@@mrsupremegascon Sure, you are right but that does not mean they will not try
@@CarlosKTCosta They already trying it, like every other countries.
Every countries want more influence.
What's important is how much risk and opportunity such influence make on you.
French influence is not a threat for Europe, as they are too small to control it. They will be obligated to work with other European leaders to get what they want.
USA influence however can impose things on Europeans without their consent.
@@mrsupremegasconIts not about complete control but about the French MIC and electricity production which is already trimmed towards autonomy.
If Europe decouples from the US those sectors would have an advantage over their few competitors and could make bank
What France wants is more MBDA or KNDS for European strategic Défense
5:30: You basically just summed up everything about American and European geopolitics for the last 40 years in two sentences.
There are powerful forces that don’t want European unity…
Who the hell is the new guy
I think in near future Europe or EU will create its own army. Basically you wll have NATO, Europe army, and every country their own individual army. Those three level of army organisation will have their own rules of when to defend and when to attack, but they will be mixed to together. For example if there is some local war individual army of country fight if there is attack like from Russia Europe army is defendin, and if there is world war then NATO is involved.
There might be some kind of joint defense and rapide action forces, like Frontex on sterioids, but that's it.
I don't Europeans paying for both a national and multinational army.
@@mrsupremegascon we will pay if we believe we are in danger. I personally think that most people don't realise if Ukraine fall and if China join with Russia that half of Europe could be occupied, because we dont have lot of weapons for big war. Germany dont have any submarines, my country did not invest in army for like 20 years. We in Europe dodge a bullet and I think Europe leader are very well aware how lucky we were. Now time will show will we play on luck in future or will we do actually something.
@@mrsupremegascon you don't pay for both.
they are kinda the same. the people in the national (defense) forces are also in the EU wide army.
why would we have a system with 3 different military's
i see it more like:
- national guard to protect the homeland, and the army to defend our interests elsewhere.
- national armies but integrated EU wide so we can send and combine whatever the situation asked of us
every nation focuses on their strengths and together they make up a big/strong conventional army. (like a land locked nation doesn't need a navy, but they can still supply personnel for the EU navy)
- and if NATO needs help those forces come from the national armies that make up the EU army.
so it's all kinda like 1 army but with different possibilities of deployment.
@@mrsupremegascon If spending on federal army would be part of those at least 2 % spent on military, then I think it is possible that members would pay even for federal army. Especially if it would mainly consist of Air Force and Navy as those wold most likely benefit the most from it. Instead of 27 air forces there would be 1 air force with several regional groups and three fleets of Navy, one in Mediterranean and one in Atlantic and Fleet of Outer Seas that would protect all various overseas territories*.
And then there could be perhaps something like USMC that would be directly under federal control.
*Speaking about this mess, I think it is time form them to became integral parts of the EU either as parts of their nations or current members or as new member if they shall decide to declare independence. As well we should have some article about future unions, splits of member states so if in future any region would decide that they do not want to be part of their home country they would still remain members of the EU.
@@ChristiaanHW Interesting proposal. But may I have counterproposal?
1 federal federal air force divided into several regional groups (e.g. Mediterranean, Baltic, West, East)
1 federal Navy divided into three fleets (Mediterranean, Atlantic, Outer Seas)
1 federal army consisting of N regional technical groups, each consisting of several "national" armies closely integrated in terms of tech and command structure. Each "national" army then would consist of professional army, active reserves (volunteers and recently relieved personnel), optionally conscripts. Federal government would have full* control only over professional part of the armed forces, active reserves and possibly conscript army (if the country would have one) would be under full control of national government unless national parliament would pass bill that would yield their authority for period of time (that would have to be clearly stated) to federal government. If the state of war would be declared on federal level, it would activate same procedures as today would be activated in each member state. (So federally declared state of war would have different effects in Portugal and Estonia, I suppose the have different procedures)
N coastguards subjected to Frontex and their respective home countries
If in country where military service is mandatory would sign up for service in any of federal armed forces (navy, air force or army of other member, be it due long term residence** or dual citizenship) and would finish at least basic training, they would be viewed as if they would serve in
*This control should not be absolute and should allow for continuous operation of other parts of respective armies
**Some people can live in other country than they have citizenship since birth or early childhood. And I see no reason why those should be forced to serve in army of country they do not call home just because they have it's citizenship. We would as well need provision for people who do not want to join some federal force, live in different country (long term) and member state of which they have citizenship requires mandatory military service.
Yay, we've got Zac!
This presenter is great, he presented the thesis very well
Macron has lofty ideas but as usual France don't want to pay for it. Agriculture, let Europe pay. Defence, invite UK even after we've left.
France already has the biggest defense budget of the EU, the idea is that we should all share for a common defense,
Macron have a lot of lofty ideas but what you said isn't true either. Macron idea right now is to have a common defense program not to unify all of our armies... France have right now the biggest army in the EU they aren't going to give everything to the others.
@@alganis3339 under who's command is PESCO? The EU?? No way should the UK be involved.
@@arthemis1039 EU members fine. But not the UK.
@@jeffsmith3392 The UK isn't a key factor in the creation of an EU army ... It would be better ofc with them but it's not a necessity to have them to be able to create an EU army.
SLOW DOWN. I know it *feels* like you are speaking at a normal conversational rate, but you're not *and* presentations like this need to be made a slightly slower speed than conversational anyhow. So ease back and take it a bit slower next time. I promise you, you will like the results (well, OK, *I* liked the results when I compared my first taped presentation with one where I consciously slowed down; I hope you will too).
I didn't find that to be the case for me. I thought his pace was pretty calm and measured
This guy is so cool .
I like this new host. Definitely a viable alternative
I have left comments on this subject time and time again and I am fully with President Macron on this. Not limited to the EU, European countries should form a separate military alliance that only consists of European countries. We Europeans have let the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation become the 'North America Treaty Organisation'. Whilst European, I live in Japan and the USA prattles on about a 'Special Relationship' with Japan as well. The UK is very, very naive to believe that there is a 'special relationship' with the USA. Certainly, there is a good relationship, but special it isn't. As for the USA support for Ukraine, it certainly has contributed much, but it has been lethargic in its response and it has taken pressure from some European countries to encourage the USA to do more and faster. Whilst we will retain and should keep a good collaborative military relationship with the USA, we have to recognise that the Americans themselves have grown tired of being the 'World's Police Force' and there is internal pressure not to get involved in conflicts overseas. The USA hasn't successfully won a conflict since The Gulf War and even then it was a coalition. In the minds of Americans, Vietnam, the Iraq war, Afghanistan are all military operations that ended unsuccessfully with a lot of dead young American soldiers with little benefit to the USA. In short, the Americans have lost their appetite for actively helping other countries with their defence. There is also the matter of budget, with the USA like everywhere else, needing to spend more on internal infrastructure and less on helping others. Of course, in typical American fashion, they will jump into action if they feel that their interests are directly threatened. Europe needs to stand on its own two feet again. President Macron is right.
It's a shame the European Union cannot look after their homeless people in their countries or pass the law stating very clearly that nobody can be homeless within the European Union countries,,, The European Union leaves people destitute and homeless on the streets were the rich a middle classes Livening It Up In restaurants living a wonderful lifestyle where the poor has nothing....
It's nice to live comfortably having borders with only UK and not giving a sh*t about countries which need army for protection.
I'm english. If the Americans leave 'airbase 1' we lack the equipment to get our army deployed anywhere. We have little strategic power alone.
The sad part is you're even then still by far the nation's most capable of projecting power.
I’m half American and half Norwegian. I approve of strategic autonomy from both perspectives.
Every country should be military independent. Few can.
"It's remarkable to observe Europe's significant reliance on the USA and the Anglo-Saxon sphere, given its composition of diverse strong nations economically and militarily. This stands in contrast to China's journey, progressing from a state of poverty in various domains to achieving substantial autonomy across diverse sectors such as the internet, military capabilities, economy, and manufacturing."
yes
Yeah I have to say Macron is correct on that matter. European countries are in fact "brain-dead" to some extent.
How does it contrast, China can't even get into ASEAN or the CPTPP let alone establish a multilateral security alliance like nato or even dream about a supranational union like the EU lmao
Developing a country is easy once you have good educated people.
Hard part ois to keep progressing once you are developed. It's seem that China isn't good at that.
you haven't spoken about the economic and industrial side of strategic autonomy
The problem is Europe isn't a country. Who decides what is in the strategic interest of Europe? Because what is in the strategic interest of some countries isn't in the interest of others, and is potentially against their interests.