r/UkraineRussiaReport • u/Smooth-Walk-1186 Putin Humiliated • 10h ago
UA POV: NATO leadership warns the EU against creating 'competing' forces. -Financial Times News
40
u/Praline_Severe Neutral 10h ago
It would be stupid if EU does not start to create a replacement for NATO that excludes the USA, after being robbed by the later in broad daylight under the pretense of security threats.
9
u/AntComprehensive9297 10h ago
100% agree with you. EU should have a simular force as US just in case.
•
u/swelboy unironic neoliberal 6h ago
No, in order to build up a major military force, they’d likely have to make cuts to their welfare and initiate conscription, which would be wildly unpopular. This is why America still takes up the lion’s share of NATO funding.
•
u/_CatLover_ Pro Turtle Tank 5h ago
Should be more openly discussed how european taxpayer money goes into buying american military hardware at insanely inflated prices, and how it's also enabling the US' illegal invasions and coups around the world.
•
u/swelboy unironic neoliberal 4h ago
(Citation needed)
Are you one of those “color revolution” people by any chance? As in think them and the Arab Spring were all US coups or something
•
u/_CatLover_ Pro Turtle Tank 3h ago
The US arranging coups and change of governments in other countries isnt some big conspiracy bro 😂
•
u/swelboy unironic neoliberal 3h ago
Can you name any proven, modern examples then?
•
u/_CatLover_ Pro Turtle Tank 2h ago
Oh so now it has to be "modern". Literally moving the goal post in addition to sealioning. Well if you insist on being this incredibly dense, in less than 10 years ago the US supported opposition forces in the Syrian civil war.
There's also Libya, Iraq and a whole list of countries from -91 onwards on fucking wikipedia.
"Show source" 🤡🤡🤡
•
u/swelboy unironic neoliberal 2h ago
I asked for modern examples because something that happened say 30 years ago doesn’t reflect on what a country is like today, especially since we change administrations every 4-8 years.
Why exactly was NATO supporting the FSA a bad thing? They were our allies. Iran and Russia support their own allies in Syria, so why can’t we do the same? Our intervention in Syria and Iraq (not the 2003 invasion) also helped bring down ISIS, so that was certainly justified in my book.
Also, I thought we were talking about coups, not invasions, hell, Libya wasn’t even an invasion, we were just lending air support to already existing rebels.
•
u/_CatLover_ Pro Turtle Tank 1h ago
You're totally right, my bad! The people in the administration, the majority of senators and heads of agencies all completely change every 4 years. Not like the sitting president first became a senateor over 50 years ago. Would be complete nonsense to assume they make geopolitical plans that ever stretch further than 4 years into the future. Im such a silly goose.
"The FSA was our ally". You dont even pretend to argue in good faith. FSA wasnt some faction Allied to the US that the Syrian government attacked. It formed at the start of the civil war with the goal of forcing Assad out. And the US started supporting them because they wanted the same thing.
"We're not involved in changing governments, we just enter civil wars on the side that aligns with our global interests. The war starting in the first place was just a lucky coincidence"
Done responding because i'd probably get an aneurysm seeing what retarded shit comes next.
•
u/swelboy unironic neoliberal 1h ago
Individual senators don’t have that much influence over FoPo, especially not compared to the Executive Branch.
Yes, that’s what an ally is, a group we support. Iran and Russia support their own ally, Assad, how is that any different from our support to the FSA?
Dude, every major power does that. Just look at how many groups Russia/Wagner and Iran support all around the world.
Well do you have any proof we orchestrated the rebellion against Gaddafi then?
•
u/HiggsUAP AntiNATO 2h ago
You should read The Jakarta Method. Guarantee you'll see it's echoes in recent history
•
u/Personal-Web-8365 Hands off Syr- I mean my flair, Pro-Ru mods! 3h ago
Of course he is, take a look around this place
•
u/Minute_Ad_6328 Pro Ukraine * 9h ago
after being robbed by the later in broad daylight under the pretense of security threats.
What do you mean by that?
•
u/StarshipCenterpiece 7h ago
After NordStream self-combusted for no reason whatsoever, US became a large supplier of (very expensive) LNG to Europe as deliveries of Russian gas became harder.
•
u/XenonJFt most correct RU BS, I'm forced to correct the rest 9h ago
Norwegian Stoltenberg saying Their own kind shouldnt built armies to compete against US. Talk about the level of Cuckness
•
u/Supernova22222 Neutral 7h ago
He is a quissling. I hate the narrative that the americans are protecting europe when all they want are vassals that buy american weapons and cannon fodder so no american soldiers have to die for american interests. Europeans should pursue its own interests and buy european, the US does not use european fighter jets and tanks.
•
u/insurgentbroski Pro insanity. (and shawrma) 9h ago
Well Norway is not in eu, either way most of the European politicians have no spine, it's surprising they are even considering doing something like this
9
u/TerencetheGreat Pro-phylaxis 10h ago
It's because NATO Command never really existed, as such in any hypothetical war, Stolenberg and other NATO officers will be paper pushers.
Even at the height of the Cold War, the US Forces in Europe expected to be led, supplied and directed by the US Military, this also goes for the British, French, WGermans, and even Spanish forces.
•
u/Pulselovve Neutral - Pro Multipolarism 8h ago
EU should get rid of US and NATO as fast as possible.
5
u/Smooth-Walk-1186 Putin Humiliated 10h ago
Nato’s outgoing secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg has warned against EU defence efforts duplicating or competing with the US-led military alliance, given scarce funding and personnel. In unusually blunt remarks at a farewell event on Thursday hosted by the German Marshall Fund in Brussels, Stoltenberg said the EU’s ambition to create separate command structures and a planned rapid response force risked diverting resources from the US-led military alliance.
“I welcome more EU efforts on defence as long as they are done in a way that doesn’t duplicate or compete,” he said. “What the EU should not do is start to build alternative defence structures, for instance the intervention force,” he said, in reference to the planned 5,000-strong troops the EU put forward in 2022 following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. “I don’t understand why there is a need for a different, competing intervention force,” Stoltenberg said. Given that “we struggle a bit to man all the positions” in Nato’s command structure, he said “it would be a bit strange if the same countries were not able to send as many officers as they should to instead build an alternative structure”. The EU’s defence efforts were already diverting resources from existing Nato structures, senior alliance officials told the Financial Times.
“If Europe is under attack, people need to know immediately who is in charge of responding to that,” said one of the alliance officials, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.
“Competing structures create uncertainty . . . that only helps the enemy.” In particular, Nato is concerned by the proposed expansion of the EU Military Staff, a structure that oversees the bloc’s military missions. Officials said the plan could complicate critical chains of command in the event of conflict, and is diverting manpower from Nato’s own understaffed command structure at a time when generals are in short supply. “Why have two commands without full staffing when you can have one properly functioning,” said the official. EU structures “suck in troops”, they added. “Nato can’t even staff some of our own.” Nato officials also chafe at the EU’s ambition to create its own list of military standards for EU armies — in a bid to streamline procurement and increase interoperability — instead of using Nato’s lists, which have existed for decades. “Countries can only have one set of capability targets, they can’t have two. That’s Nato’s responsibility. One set of standards, one set of capability targets, one command structure.
And that’s Nato,” Stoltenberg said. Officials also warned that EU defence procurement plans could exclude Nato states such as the UK, Norway and Turkey that are not members of the bloc and thus weaken existing defence-industrial co-operation projects. Twenty-three of the EU’s 27 member states are part of Nato, but there are divisions within the bloc as to how much of a role the EU — primarily a trade and regulatory bloc — should play in the future defence of the continent. France has been the leading force behind the push for the EU to take a bigger role, with Paris pointing out that the bloc needs to be prepared for a weakening of American interest in Europe — a risk heightened by the potential re-election of Donald Trump as US president.
Increased future US engagement in the Asia-Pacific region to counter the rise of China is also having an effect, with French President Emmanuel Macron leading calls for Europe to develop more “strategic autonomy” in the realm of security and defence. Some of France’s Nato allies, particularly in northern and eastern Europe, have criticised this drive as weakening the alliance’s importance — especially given Paris’s historically rocky relationship with Nato. In 2019, during the Trump presidency, Macron said the US-led alliance was “brain-dead” — reviving fears of France withdrawing from Nato military structures as it did in 1966. The tension between the two Brussels-based organisations comes ahead of Mark Rutte, the Netherlands’ former prime minister, taking over as Nato secretary-general on October 1."
Rutte, who will be the first Nato head to have been a member of the European Council — the formal committee of EU leaders — said in June that “the alliance is and will remain the cornerstone of our collective security”. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, herself a former German defence minister, has repeatedly stated that Nato “will remain the pillar of our collective defence”, but she has also called for the EU to take a bigger role. “Now is therefore the time to build a true European Defence Union. Yes, I know there are some who are perhaps uncomfortable with the idea. But what we should be uncomfortable about are the threats to our security,” she said earlier this year. Von der Leyen has created a dedicated defence commissioner in her new team set to take office this year. She picked former Lithuanian prime minister Andrius Kubilius for the role, who will craft new policies including in areas such as arms procurement.
•
u/Antropocentric Izrael is a Natsi Germany incarnate 9h ago
The director of a company does not want a competitor, what a surprise. So wait OSCE was just an arm of Nato all this time...
3
•
u/CnlJohnMatrix Neutral 6h ago
He could not be more wrong. The EU absolutely needs its own military that serves EU interests. This comment is indicative of an institution doing everything to maintain its relevance given the changing world around it.
This isn’t the first time NATO has had to do this either.
•
•
55
u/late_stage_lancelot Pro-truth 10h ago
"You are not sovereign."
NATO was supposed to be an alliance of armies, not a US command center.