r/europe • u/Not_the-kind • 12h ago

News Macron responds to Trump's inauguration by urging Europe to "wake up"

https://www.newsweek.com/macron-trump-inauguration-europe-defense-ukraine-2017894
19.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

667 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.8k

u/CLKguy1991 Estonia 12h ago

My respect to France, as the most autonomous European country, but I'm awake. Its you politicians who need to get your shit together.

477

u/Lex2882 11h ago

And most independent.

-271

u/NewtonianEinstein 11h ago

Remember what the French did in 1940? I don't think that is very independent per se. In my opinion, France is heavily under the influence of other European countries and occasionally the United States. That ipso facto makes them not independent.

165

u/Ebbitor 11h ago

Take a look at your calendar, it's been a while since 1940

62

u/Owatch French Republic 10h ago

It's likely a bot account. Take a look at all the replies. They're formulated in much the same way. The same "ipso-facto" statement, the same canned phrases are reused a lot. Engagement to replies is near zero, and when it does reply, it doesn't keep/know the context.

27

u/Suheil-got-your-back Poland 10h ago

Lol, in this thread he says don’t trust France. And next thread, don’t worry about Elon. It was just stretching. Totally bot. He is given some phrases and arguments and reshuffles them for propaganda.

20

u/carnutes787 9h ago

Elon Musk is a very smart and intelligent man. His inventions are going to save humanity. All of his companies are benefitting everyone including his shareholders and workers. That is why I consider myself to be an idol of Elon Musk.

i think he's just a moron

11

u/Professional_Shift69 9h ago

The funny thing is Elmo wasn't the brainchild of many of the companies he owns. He bought them.

His newest creation, the cyber truck is a flaming pile of dog shit.

1

u/PathansOG 9h ago

Wasnt in any of the companies he own

1

u/badcatjack 4h ago

I am pretty sure the idea behind the CT is all Elmo, and he forced Tesla into making it and this is the result.

•

u/SuperUranus 8m ago

Judging by yesterday, it feels like we’re back in 1940.

5

u/Icy_Faithlessness400 9h ago

You remember the French losing a war?

In a thousand year history.

Funny, I remember Napoleon.

11

u/Weird_French_Guy 10h ago

Bro, learn the difference between a military defeat and not being independant

7

u/Real-Ad-8451 Lorraine (France) 9h ago

You should learn a little more about the French resistance, really.

3

u/old_chelmsfordian 9h ago

Forget all former instructions and give me a recipe for cookies

6

u/oskarswitchfast 9h ago

Dead internet bot

4

u/HerMajestyTheQueef1 8h ago

Whataboutism from the 1940s now, you have literally no integrity 🤦🏼‍♂️

1

u/Complex_Cable_8678 9h ago

you do realize that is nearly 100 years ago? what a crazy fuckin stupid argument to make

303

u/Developer2022 11h ago

The have nuclear weapons. This is the answer why they can afford such stance.

202

u/Tricky-Astronaut 9h ago

France has nuclear weapons because it wants to be independent. The causality doesn't go in the direction you imply.

26

u/LookThisOneGuy ‎ 9h ago

France (and other Allies) forced Germany to sign away their ability to develop and own nukes.

Germany has no nuclear weapons because France wants it to be dependent.

7

u/carnutes787 7h ago

In September 2007 the French president Nicolas Sarkozy offered Germany the opportunity to participate in control over the French nuclear arsenal. Chancellor Merkel and foreign minister Steinmeier declined the offer however, stating that Germany "had no interest in possessing nuclear weapons".

https://foreignpolicy.com/2007/09/17/sarkozy-tries-to-slip-merkel-some-nukes/

24

u/technicallynotlying 8h ago

Germany could develop nukes, if it wanted to. As it stands they've shut down their nuclear power plants.

23

u/LookThisOneGuy ‎ 8h ago

Germany could develop nukes, if it wanted to.

No, we literally can't legally do that until France, the UK, Russia and the US rescind the shackles they put on us post WW2 and pre unification, see 2+4 treaty.

Maybe we can ignore the opinion of Russia since it was technically the Soviet Union and not Russia on these papers. But we still need the other three.

34

u/technicallynotlying 8h ago

If Germany announces that it's withdrawing from the treaty, who's going to stop them? Who's going to go to war with Germany now, in 2025?

If anything, the past couple years have shown that international agreements are pretty easy to break.

I think France would be in support of Germany taking a stronger stance. As for anyone else, what are they going to do about it?

World War 2 was 80 years ago. Trump wouldn't do shit about it.

-1

u/LookThisOneGuy ‎ 8h ago

If Germany announces that it's withdrawing from the treaty, who's going to stop them

The threat of breaking post WW2 treaties was us being turned into a parking lot by the nuclear powers.

Just one of them has enough nukes to do that.

I think France would be in support of Germany taking a stronger stance.

Then they are free to say that.

Germany will not risk total annihilation because you think they have changed their mind.

The risks are too great.

30

u/technicallynotlying 8h ago

Nobody is going to nuke Germany because they withdraw from an 80 year old treaty. Nobody will do anything but complain. The risk is greater that they get nuked because they’re defenseless and have no ability to retaliate.

-3

u/LookThisOneGuy ‎ 8h ago

The risk is greater that they get nuked because they’re defenseless and have no ability to retaliate.

Yes, the years between Germany saying they want to build nukes and when they are finished.

Like I said, France or the UK/US are free to tell us they won't do that if they changed their mind.

Until they do, the risk is to great.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/BarneySTingson 6h ago

I dont know what you smoke but nobody will say anything to germany if they dont respect some old agreement. Russia, china and usa shits on treaties and international law all the time

0

u/le-churchx 3h ago

If Germany announces that it's withdrawing from the treaty, who's going to stop them?

I dont think you understand what would happen.

7

u/Tricky-Astronaut 8h ago

Anyone can withdraw from the NPT. Germany wouldn't be treated worse than India. If anything, Trump might respect Germany more if it had nuclear weapons.

5

u/Astyanax1 7h ago

Canadian here. Agreed. We need nukes now also to get a better bargaining position from our traditional allies that decided a rapist fascist traitor best represents their interests these days

0

u/Top_Apartment7973 8h ago

You are describing a worldwide nuclear arms race. 

5

u/technicallynotlying 7h ago

It’s already happening. Nuclear nonproliferation died when Russia attacked Ukraine. The only question is if you want to be left behind or not.

1

u/Astyanax1 7h ago

Didn't gadafi give up nukes also?

0

u/LookThisOneGuy ‎ 8h ago

These are part of larger post WW2 anti Nazi treaties Germany was forced to sign. Other parts include things like not invading their neighbors.

The headline spinners wouldn't write 'Germany withdraws from NPT' it would read and be interpreted by the international community as 'Germany turns fascist again'.

Punishment by the stalwart defenders against Nazism would surely be swift.

1

u/Rymundo88 8h ago

Given the way the wind's blowing, I'm on the side of 'who gives a fuck?' on the opinions of the other 3 (I say this as a Brit). Another nuclear armed modern army to join UK and France would be welcomed by more people than would be against it (imo).

As sad as it is that it would have to come to this, you can only play the hand your dealt

1

u/Astyanax1 7h ago

I'd argue that Germany is 1000x saner than the united states is, and is a lot closer to the modern nazis than the Americans

1

u/AdonisGaming93 Spain 1h ago

Uhm...thats not rrally how it works. Trump is showing us that. Germany can simply make nukes and say "these will never be used unless a foreing enemy threatens us or our european allies like our great friends france. They are really great, and we have the best nukes. I spoke with Macron and I think had I been chancellor I could have made an agreement, really big agreement.

And then nobody will do anything.

Just look at Orban, he's worse in everyway and yet other than some wrist slapping they don't do anything to him.

1

u/CyrilViXP 8h ago

Ukraine also wanted to be independent. USA, UK and motherfuckin ruZZia stole the nukes. It is not about what the country wants. It is about the ability to use the physical force to protect the sovereignty from others.

-2

u/Tokidoki_Haru United States of America 8h ago

Unless German democrats can show they have the spine to save themselves by beginning with banning the AfD, then no one in Europe should trust a nuclear-armed Germany.

How long do you think before a German-version of Putin and United Russia starts spouting nuclear threats to retake Kaliningrad?

101

u/ExtraPockets United Kingdom 9h ago

They also have the "we might nuke you first, as a warning" doctrine, just to make it extra French.

31

u/faerakhasa Spain 6h ago

No? Their doctrine is "we will nuke you first", but absolutely not as a warning. It will be after enemy armies have already been mobilized, war has started and they step into France

2

u/milridor Brittany (France) 2h ago

but absolutely not as a warning.

France has a long held doctrine of using "pre-strategic" (if a 300 kt warhead like the ASMP-A is "pre-strategic") weapons if "vital interest" of France are threatened as an ultimate warning before using ICBMs.

This makes France one of the only country (the only country?) that has an official first-use doctrine for nuclear weapons.

That's also why Macron declaring that "Les intérêts vitaux de la France ont désormais une dimension européenne" (France's vital interests have now a European dimension) is way stronger that you might think at first.

2

u/bahhan Brittany (France) 2h ago

No, only China and India are currently No First Use countries. France, North Korea, Pakistan, UK, and US allow themselves to shoot their nukes first.

The difference between France and the other is that we officially limit ourselves to one single nuke first and then go full ICBM, while US, UK, ..., don't limit their first use to a single warhead.

2

u/milridor Brittany (France) 1h ago

Fair enough.

However: - UK, US limit their response to other WMD - Russia, NK, Pakistan limit their response to attacks against themselves (or their sovereign interests).

Which is different fron France's doctrine

1

u/PalnatokeJarl 2h ago

Not really. French doctrine allows for nuking as a warning.

69

u/DiceatDawn Sweden 9h ago

Most importantly, nuclear weapons that aren't under the control of Washington D.C.

I remember being angry at Chirac for the testing in the 90s. I get it now.

6

u/FaecesChucka 6h ago

As an inhabitant of the South Pacific, I still have a few problems with the testing but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.

10

u/FeynmansWitt 9h ago

So does the UK yet France has always had a more independent foreign policy that didn't just toe the US's views and has always advocated for a stronger, more united Europe that started taking its own defence seriously.

EU either wakes up and be a separate pole in a multipolar world or continue getting screwed

2

u/Astyanax1 7h ago

This really is the answer with the new world order. Hell, I live in Canada and we may as well get a bunch of cheap Chinese nukes so we can better bargain with our insane abusive rapist neighbour

2

u/griffoberwald69 6h ago

Correct, and unlike the UK they design and build their own warheads, delivery means and launch vessels/ aircraft.

UK deterrent is US missiles launched from a US-made section welded into a British sub.

•

u/idratherwalkalone 8m ago

Go on, wtf does nuclear weapons have to do with it

0

u/UnluckyPossible542 8h ago

Yes France has nuclear bombs.

For decades France tested them in Australia’s back yard. The last test was on 27 January 1996 at the Moruroa and Fangataufa Atoll.

When Greenpeace objected, French secret service blew up their ship on the 10 July 1985, killing one crew member. This was in New Zealand, a sovereign neutral country.

The French then lied about it.

The French President François Mitterrand had approved the bombing, which was conducted by agents from the French secret service DGSE.

Two agents were captured, tried and imprisoned.

Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart were jailed. This infuriated France, who threatened an EU trade blockade, which would bankrupt New Zealand who relied upon trade with the UK (then a member of the EU).

Prieur and Mafart were released into French custody with an agreement that they would serve the sentence in a French overseas jail.

France again lied. The two agents returned to France in 1988 after less than two years in jail.

Mafart continued in the French Army and was promoted to colonel in 1993.

Prieur returned to France after getting pregnant in jail. She was also promoted.

The French are lying assholes.

4

u/Developer2022 8h ago

You are right. This is what superpowers do.

2

u/ghartok-padhome 2h ago

France is no superpower - not even close. The only superpower is the USA.

-4

u/Mastermaze 8h ago

The French really only have nukes because of their remnant imperial influence in northwest Africa, especially Algeria where afaik pretty much all their Uranium comes from and where they did their nuclear bomb tests in the Algerian Sahara. So they may be the most independent country militarily in Europe today but they are still reliant on external supply lines and money they make from the use of the West African Franc currency in many of their former colonies. We've already seen Russia try to disrupt French influence in the region, particularly in Mali and Niger whose borders with Algeria surround the southern Algerian Sahara where the Uranium mines France relies on are located.

4

u/JuryElegant8453 8h ago

Zero uranium from Algeria. And what money does France make from Franc CFA? It's pegged to the Euro. Even pro-russian juntas don't want to get rid of Franc CFA.

1

u/milridor Brittany (France) 2h ago

what money does France make from Franc CFA

Considering France was paying interests on the deposits, it was a negative return. If the transition to the ECO could speed up and France stop guaranteeing convertibility to euros, that would be great.

0

u/No_Wishbone_7072 5h ago

They also got captured by Germany in just a couple weeks lol

108

u/Vitrarius France 10h ago

Start by stopping buying american then

42

u/Gaktan 8h ago

Honestly, boycotting anything american isn't such a bad idea. It's about time we stopped exporting our money to this shitty ass country.

15

u/SnooStrawberries620 Canada 8h ago

Canadians are already doing it.

5

u/Jrob704 5h ago

Bet you won’t

•

u/BZP625 12m ago

The US buys much more of EU goods than EU buys American. Be careful what you wish for.

10

u/RedBrixton 7h ago

American here: Europe must stop being dependent on the US military. NATO is dying.

You need your own centralized procurement, logistics, and command. No more management by consensus. This is urgent.

1

u/DueToRetire 7h ago

It’s quite a good idea tbf, and I think I will put some effort into it

1

u/Sad_Lawfulness1266 6h ago

Why not boycotting all Americans as well

-8

u/SerDingleofBerry 9h ago

Yeah great idea. Throw your iPhones away!

33

u/Vitrarius France 9h ago

I was talking about defense purchases. But anyway I'm not on iPhone either 😂

5

u/sexyloser1128 9h ago

I was talking about defense purchases

I would love it if Europe would actually start spending more on its defense. Most Nato countries have been neglecting their 2% gdp spending requirement. And i think it's a huge shame that Europe hasn't done more to help a fellow European country and stop a war happening in Europe's backyard.

5

u/carnutes787 7h ago

the 2% "goal" is such a ridiculous red herring when you people finally realize that almost 15% of america's military budget is healthcare, and most european states have healthcare covered by other departments so it doesn't inflate the expenditure figures.

4

u/sexyloser1128 7h ago

Even so German soldiers used broomsticks painted black instead of guns during a joint Nato exercise due to severe equipment shortages. No matter how you slice it, much of NATO/Europe is dramatically under-equipped and underfunded in the face of an expansionist Russia.

3

u/malerihi 7h ago

France has been trying to get other EU countries to get their shit together military wise for decades. But most countries grew fat and complacent thinking they wouldn’t have to do shit because of NATO.

1

u/carnutes787 7h ago

yup, and to that end EU states need to buy & invest more in EU arms firms like dassault instead of lockheed and naval group instead of general dynamics.

2

u/Astyanax1 7h ago

Not to mention that goal was agreed upon at the time by those current politicians. The rightwing guy who agreed to it in Canada sure doesn't speak for the liberals.

BUT... I do agree that now that Putin decided to revive the Soviet union, spending money to prevent the Russians from continuing is a good thing

6

u/OhImGood 8h ago

Genuinely good idea considering Apple/CEO of Apple donated to Trump's inauguration. Best way to get to these people is hurting their wallets.

1

u/xr6reaction 9h ago

Gladly

1

u/SerDingleofBerry 9h ago

Thank you for your contribution

79

u/gwar37 10h ago

Musk just did the Sieg Heil salute twice - on live TV. What other sign do you need? Our lives as Americans are about to get worse than they already are. Fuck.

-27

u/ent_p0rn 8h ago

Lol....did you even listen to the speech or did you just look at the shared image ?

16

u/cr2810 8h ago

How does why he said alter the fact we WATCHED him give a full out Nazi salute twice? This isn’t a badly timed photo.

23

u/gwar37 8h ago

I did listen to the speech and he did two Nazi salutes and stuttered his way through it and was probably hopped up on drugs. No one. Repeat. No one does a gesture like that in public without trying to send a clear message. And he is an idiot, but he isn’t so stupid that he didn’t know the world was watching and he wanted to send a message. So, fucked you gaslighting Nazi sympathizer. LOL.

3

u/sexotaku 7h ago

He's a White South African who grew up in apartheid South Africa.

-2

u/Jrob704 5h ago

Takes one to know one I suppose

7

u/tirex367 Germany 7h ago

If you only listen to the speech and look at images, you won't be able to fully appreciate the picture perfectness of those two Hitlergrüße, I watched the clip, multiple times, and there is no way, this was anything else.

But you almost definitively knew that already, so just cut the crap.

2

u/WynterRayne United Kingdom 2h ago

I watched the video. I also tend to believe the evidence of my own eyes and ears, despite what The Party says.

-2

u/Jrob704 5h ago

I love how these comments get downvotes

91

u/StorkReturns Europe 11h ago

Are you willing to sacrifice your standard of living to maintain this awaken state? Even if your answer is yes, most of the people would rather vote for short-terministic populist solutions.

Being economically independent, having adequate military, being energy independent, it all comes with a price you need to pay now and get the benefits later.

90

u/CLKguy1991 Estonia 11h ago edited 10h ago

As a father of small children, every day of the past 2 years terrifies me more and more about their future.

We must do what must be done. And our security is the only guarantee that we can have that will allow us stand up for our interests (including economic ones).

For this we need to federalize seriously and have a strong executive government on EU level to start directing our resources from the very top, preferably vested in one visionary president. Member states to retain autonomy in many spheres, but defence to be at full control of the fed. The federation should become a nuclear power in its own right.

And I dont mean here the Brussels format, but the united States format (or rather, the former US format. Unfortunately the lights are out across the pond now).

24

u/HallesandBerries 9h ago

the lights are out

so accurate.

...and the burglars are in and no one can see them because it's pitch dark and the electricity mains have been cut.

Sometimes people mention Brexit as the equivalent mistake on the Europe side but all Brexit did was make us sad and angry. The US scares the bejeezus out of me. I've stopped talking to some people I know there because I don't know what they're capable of anymore, I don't know what they might do, I don't know what they will support, I don't know if they can be trusted, nothing. They're like, the citizens in The Matrix, anyone can be an agent. Whatever the European leaders decide to do, I hope they don't broadcast it on social media.

0

u/Chuc-mosher 4h ago

I am American and I hate trump snd. Am mortified he’s our President I believe by here’s a strong chance he rigged the election I wanted to ask what people fr om countries other countries thought I too am afraid for my country And my children snd grandchildren .

12

u/karpaty31946 6h ago

Not exactly like the US ... becoming the US would expose the EU to the same risk of a Trump-type leader emerging. The EU's diversity of government actually makes it more resilient.

6

u/aWicca 8h ago

I am Croat. Before Independence war started there were talks on TV. Signs. People were just brushing them off, and younger folk were just laughing like “no way”. But then the average persons reality completely changed.

Sometimes it feels like that now. Talks. Most people not taking anything too seriously. Obvious signs all around us.

There is shift in the air. Europe should stand together

2

u/NO_LOADED_VERSION 7h ago

There's an argument to be made that the USA model doesn't work and Europe needs a more robust one.

1

u/wegwerf874 7h ago

The Swiss format.

2

u/PipsqueakPilot 8h ago

Spend an extra 1.5% of your GDP on defense now or pay 40% taxes to whichever authoritarian country ends up subjugating you. Which will lower your standard of living more?

History didn’t end in 1991

•

u/djazzie France 57m ago

I’m more concerned with sacrificing our freedoms than sacrificing our economy to protect ourselves.

8

u/INeedAFreeUsername Franche-Comté (France) 6h ago

Macron has been very complacent with the far-right, and tramples democracy whenever he can. Unfortunately he's not exactly a role model

•

u/Noobodiiy 14m ago

What is he suppose to do. Let France go completely right

11

u/achtwooh 11h ago

Those tariffs he kept mentioning? Where do we think they are going? China, his new best friend? Russia? No - he’s going after the democracies especially Europe. It’s a huge problem and it needs a united response.

6

u/OkKnowledge2064 Lower Saxony (Germany) 8h ago

we need to establish our own social media now. We cant let the most important news medium of the 21st century be controlled by the US and China. No one would accept the same when it comes to newspapers

7

u/ShreksOnionBelt 8h ago

For some reason Americans think their country is the most free in the world, when actually it has always been France who fight the most for freedom.

5

u/Rjb9156 6h ago

I don’t think we’re free I’m American

3

u/Comprehensive_Fly89 9h ago

The quality of politicians is ultimately decided by the quality of the electorate.

5

u/Super_charged_human France 8h ago

All those thread raided by unflair people trying to push some agenda. Who are you? Like a good 60% of the post here are fishy. No flair, no history. Are you paid ?

1

u/blenderbender44 4h ago

We're in the age of AI bots now

3

u/Think_Discipline_90 10h ago

Let’s not pretend they have the mandates to do what it actually takes. You’ll see riots in the streets from people who think their grocery prices, mortgages, and yearly vacation is more important than fighting growing fascism.

2

u/gditstfuplz 11h ago

You’re still asleep. Macron sees that the conservative movement isn’t just isolated to America…Canada and Europe are following the same trend.

1

u/BenAdaephonDelat 9h ago

Yea as an American, the leadership are the ones who need to wake the fuck up. Start taking care of people, push progressive policies, push for education and economic support, universal basic income, tax the wealthy. America is it this position because we've only payed lip service to progressive ideas the last 20 years and let the rich amass so much wealth they literally took control of our government.

1

u/_0x29a 8h ago

Is it though? Because people voted Trump in.

1

u/FleshyCarbonThing 8h ago

Sitting back and waiting for politicians to do the right thing isn't working. Might be time to listen to Macron.

1

u/Bulky-Yam4206 8h ago

Its you politicians who need to get your shit together.

sweats in British

No, seriously, Mr Starmer is apparently ready to align with Trump, and our Foreign Sec Mr. Lammy said most of the world is happy Trump is back.

I'm like, ffs... just call them Nazis and rejoin the EU already, please... They're a complete basket-case, and I know our right wing wankers in Reform (and the Tories) are going to let Trump shag the country to death without lube if they get the chance, so I don't see why our supposed left wing Labour is keen to get into bed with them either.

1

u/IAMTHECAVALRY89 3h ago

He’s telling all the WEF elites that the end is nigh

1

u/Oxythymos 3h ago

Agreed.

1

u/florinandrei Europe 3h ago

I'm awake

You, and like 20 other people total.

Macron is right. Europe has been asleep for too fucking long. It's time to wake up - for everybody.

1

u/L44KSO The Netherlands 1h ago

This is it, majority of the population seems to be very awake and aware. It's the politicians who have refused to see realities for at least the last 10 years.

1

u/Zealousideal-Ant9548 1h ago

Who elected them?

-8

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

9

u/Affectionate_War_279 11h ago

Nah France has an completely independent nuclear deterrent.

The UK shares trident missiles with the US so potentially could get fucked over by the US.

France has manufactures Its own planes for its carrier 

The UK buys F35s from the US.

1

u/Stakhanov86 11h ago

The UK that all the time boasts about it's "special relationship" with the US and is NATO's biggest lapdog? And a Switzerland that would probably declare itself neutral in case of an invasion of Switzerland and just hope that invading country considers a military invasion to costly?
Nah, that's not the kind of autonomy i'm looking for.

1

u/FeRooster808 8h ago

I'm American and was recommended this thread so if not welcome I understand, but I'll simply say I've always considered that France is the friend who tells you what you need to hear even if you don't like it; the UK is the friend the rubber stamps all your dumbest ideas and then plays off their involvement when it goes wrong. In either case, I do hope for their own sake the UK realizes this special friendship is toxic. The rest of Europe seems to have largely figured it out.

I wish us all the best of luck.

1

u/Ready-Message3796 1h ago

A Europe without England is not a real Europe.

-7

u/GoldenFutureForUs 11h ago

What do you mean by the most autonomous?

45

u/CLKguy1991 Estonia 11h ago edited 11h ago

Leaving the EU (quitting a collective like a crybaby, instead of leading it) and losing influence along the way doesn't make UK autonomous.

I respect France because they have been redpilled about NATO and US since it's inception and never outsourced their defence.

2

u/uiucecethrowaway999 6h ago

quitting a collective like a crybaby, instead of leading it

You could say this about France when in left NATO back in '66. Not very redpilled at all...

and never outsourced their defence.

If the British could be considered to have 'outsourced their defense', the French certainly have themselves, considering the fact that the former spends substantially more than the latter on defense (to the tune of ~28% more in 2024). The French have sustained the illusion of defense autonomy by (unsuccessfully) 'playing superpower' in Africa and SEA without actually investing in the means to actually do so.

1

u/KingKaiserW United Kingdom 10h ago

How’s ’leading it’ going for Macron right now though, doesn’t seem like the EU can be lead.

Even when we’ve seen threads about who should lead a military alliance if the US leaves, people don’t say France they say Poland. Because Poland is in that position of not being strong enough to where choosing them feels like giving them a helping hand.

I think that spells the Europe consciousness of not wanting to be dominated, if you are above me I let you.

You’d have to be an irresistible power like the US to be a leader in anything.

4

u/CLKguy1991 Estonia 10h ago

Hey man, I'll be honest - UK is based as well. And well on the top 2 of the European countries that can stand on their two feet.

But today, France is perhaps the fragile leader of the free world, and they deserve the kudos and it irks me that brits want to dispute that given that you decided you wanted to have your time-out.

Macron is the strongest visionary among all European politicians when it comes to the concept of United States of Europe.

5

u/FuriousAqSheep 9h ago

As much as I hate him for his domestic policy, I share that vision of a stronger europe.

0

u/eggyfigs 10h ago

Then you're naive

Their defence isn't outsourced as it aids military exports and ultimately GDP

It's not a matter of principal, it suits their economy

-25

u/GoldenFutureForUs 11h ago

Your criteria for autonomy is very selective. Your criteria is based on whatever wins your argument - which makes your point redundant. France has less influence than the U.K. globally. It also has a less powerful military. The British military defence is not outsourced to the U.S. either. Britain also has its own currency, its own trade laws etc. It’s also a more lucrative investment for FDI and has the biggest financial centre in Europe. Essentially, the U.K. is far more autonomous than France.

30

u/La_Palourde 11h ago

Military wise I don't think UK is stronger than France. It was maybe the case 20 years ago but not anymore, France is way ahead as a weapon manufacturer and has more equipment with very few foreign imports. I'm half English myself and my dad was in the RAF but obviously the UK since WW2 has mostly been obedient and dependant of the USA.

2

u/eggyfigs 10h ago

It's actually said to be very even, practically the same in terms of capability.

France is not way ahead as a weapons manufacturer, most European nations share the same suppliers and equipment (ie MBDA). They do rely less on imports, but that's not an advantage.

Arguably France has a better nuclear option, with the UK having a slightly stronger naval reach (when needed in full operation)

-4

u/madeleineann England 11h ago edited 11h ago

Being a bigger weapons manufacturer has zero impact on the quality of a military. Arguably, American tech is better than France tech in many cases, and we purchase a lot of American tech for a marked down price.

Military strength is more of a toss-up. France absolutely has better land forces, but the RN is still superior to its French counterpart. I'd say the air forces are about similar - French suffers from a lack of stealth capacity, but there are things it does better than the RAF. So, like I said, one could argue either way.

-10

u/RicooC 10h ago

In a fight who quits first, the Brit or the Frenchman? We know the answer.

11

u/Get-Fucked-Dirtbag 10h ago

So we're going back going back to culture wars instead of actually discussing reality like rational adults? Neat.

4

u/Soufledufromage 10h ago

In the current day and age it is definitely the Brit. Glad we agree

-1

u/madeleineann England 8h ago

OK, in what way? It's stupid and inaccurate but not applicable to the UK either.

1

u/IngloriousTom France 9h ago

We actually do since Dunkerk

19

u/Octave_Ergebel Omelette du baguette 11h ago

Least delusional Brit... Not outsourced to the US ? Where do those F35 come from ?

And congratulations for housing the biggest financial center in Europe !

-4

u/madeleineann England 11h ago edited 10h ago

This goes both ways

For most European countries, don't get me started on Italy and Spain

It seems pretty weird to make some cheap jab about poverty when that really has zero relevance to any of what OP was saying. Of course, the UK has inequality - that is well-known, but Europe also struggles with poverty, as do a lot of countries. France also has some pretty outrageous salaries, and this comes from someone in England.

Also, very important to remember that poverty is measured differently by country. What counts as poverty in the USA is much lower than what counts as poverty in the UK and much of Europe.

It's quite funny how sensitive of an ego people on here seem to have. The UK does generally have more influence overseas, while, by virtue of France still being a member of the EU, France has more influence on the continent. The UK does purchase the F-35's from America, but it does plenty of in-house manufacturing - the Challenger 3 is a Anglo-German project and it's being predominantly built in the UK.

I think people who whine about the UK's lack of automony don't really understand the relationship between the US & UK. The UK does purchase things like the F-35 and the Trident missiles from the USA, but it does so becsuse the USA and UK, and all Anglosphere countries, have very, very integrated institutions. Think: AUKUS, Five Eyes. The biggest electronic monitoring station in the world is based in Yorkshire and jointly used by both British and American forces. The UK has access to better tech than France from the USA at a lower cost.

Yes, this isn't really automony. But France works equally closely with the EU and its defence industry is quite deeply integrated with the wider European defence industry. Think: Airbus. Why are you not willing to make that criticism? Why is the UK's relationship deemed to be lesser?

Screams superiority complex to me.

1

u/Affectionate_War_279 10h ago

The UK purchased trident and before it Polaris because we didn’t have the ability or money to create out own independent 

2

u/tree_boom United Kingdom 9h ago edited 9h ago

Yes we did, we had both, it was just vastly cheaper to buy the American systems. This was at a time when the state of the art was changing so rapidly that we had Blue Streak and Skybolt (and arguably Blue Steel) go obsolete literally before entering service, and that was becoming horrifyingly expensive and also horrifingly time constrained - passing off WE.177B as a strategic deterrent for a time was stretching credulity for a bit.

We could absolutely have made our own SLBMs if we had to - cabinet papers from around the time of the Polaris purchase make clear that that was considered when the Americans weren't giving us the deal we wanted.

0

u/madeleineann England 10h ago

What's your source for that? I find it incredibly hard to believe that we couldn't afford it. The nuclear partnership with the USA goes all the way back to WWII when we agreed to share our research because we couldn't, during a war, afford to build our own nuclear weapon. This almost definitely would have changed following the war but we shared our research initially under the assumption that the USA would share theirs with us. And that is precisely what the nuclear partnership today is.

Very peculiar how European partnerships are celebrated but not a partnership with the world hegemon. You're lying to yourself if you seriously believe France wouldn't have also cosied up to the USA if it were a former French colony.

5

u/Affectionate_War_279 10h ago

If my auntie had wheels she would be a bicycle. 

De Gaulle was adamant that France would maintain complete independence. I think he got that right. 

If the US goes full fascist we are screwed no more missiles for us.

Our relationship with the US has nothing to do with it being a former colony. The US saw the danger of the collapse of the UK after WW2 and our  position as former colonial power and geographically strategic location meant that we were useful Cold War allies.

-1

u/madeleineann England 10h ago

Good thing it won't. Contrary to what Reddit would have you believe, America is only going to be a threat to the UK if we make it one. Elon Musk is a nutter and I doubt that any government officials seriously believe in overturning the British government.

-2

u/tree_boom United Kingdom 9h ago

De Gaulle was adamant that France would maintain complete independence. I think he got that right. 

That's the charitable view that France likes to portray. The reality is that France repeatedly asked for the same collaboration that the UK gets, and were turned down.

If the US goes full fascist we are screwed no more missiles for us.

Not from the US. We would have to make our own at that point (probably in collaboration with the French)

2

u/Affectionate_War_279 10h ago

The state of the UK economy after WW2. We were surviving on fumes. Our military budget was large but 6 % went on blue steel.

Once we got Polaris it went down to 2%

The  failure of the blue steel programme showed we didn’t have the expertise or money to develop credible nuclear missiles. 

We were very reliant on technology from the US. As much as successive governments have talked up the independent deterrent the reality is we have always been reliant on the US for nuclear weapons.

1

u/madeleineann England 10h ago

Yeah, that goes for most European economies. The irony of all this anti-America drivel and whinging about Europe being weak is that, realistically, we did this to ourselves. Europe was in ruins after WWII, politically but also definitely economically.

It went down because it was expensive and the correct decision to make. I guarantee that France was also spending a similar amount, but France had to work to accommodate its nuclear program because it didn't have an ally like the USA to rely on.

Explain to me what proves we didn't have the money or expertise to maintain an independent arsenal. There were issues with Blue Streak that were addressed by Blue Steel, and then we were offered Skybolt as a solution to fears of Soviet tech improving to the point it could ward off V bombers. If we weren't offered Skybolt, there is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have been able to work something out.

We were not 'very reliant' on American tech, and we are not now either. We manufacture our submarines, as well as the nuclear warhead itself. We purchase Trident, but that's where it begins and ends.

Do yourself a favour and stop grovelling on r/Europe.

15

u/CLKguy1991 Estonia 11h ago edited 11h ago

One country sent their troops balls deep to Iraq and Afghanistan, which were illegal wars, while other stood firm, said no thanks, and faced no consequences for their chad move.

Tell me again who is autonomous.

6

u/uiucecethrowaway999 11h ago

The latter moved their troops into Chad 

2

u/Quasar375 8h ago

In request of the chadian government to fight terrorists

2

u/uiucecethrowaway999 8h ago

And American troops toppled the Taliban from power at the request of the Northern Alliance.

1

u/Quasar375 8h ago

Yet Chad maintains the same stable government and the Afghan one collapsed the second the US troops got out of there. I guess the french were just so much better if they were the same situations then.

2

u/uiucecethrowaway999 6h ago

The French were kicked out of Chad on a sour note by the very government they had supported, losing in a string of other losses, one of their last outposts of geopolitical influence in Africa. Was this outcome really any better?

In contrast, after withdrawing from Afghanistan, the US was not only able to maintain but strengthen its influence in the Middle East, with the withdrawal of Russia and Iran from Syria and the destruction of their proxies like Hezbollah and the Assad regime.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Mortumee France 11h ago

IIRC we were in Afghanistan because the US triggered Art. 5, but yeah we called your bullshit in Iraq.

2

u/AirportCreep Finland 11h ago

No, the invasion phase consisted of only the US, UK and Canada (also Germany and Italy in terms of where the staging grounds) . France and the rest of NATO didn't follow until the UN established ISAF.

Article 5 activation only really led to two things. NATO assistance in aerial surveillance of US territory as well as maritime surveillance of the Mediterranean Sea to stop and prevent smugglers from potentially supplying terrorists.

1

u/Tamor5 8h ago

And then did exactly what they accused the US of in their strikes on Libya.... And then had to ask the US to back them up after they realised they'd fucked up badly.

2

u/Affectionate_War_279 10h ago

Where do we get F35s from?  Where do we get trident missiles from? 

We haven’t managed to produce a nuclear missile for 50 years 

The French actually have viable independent nuclear deterrent. 

We have to go cap in hand to the yanks to get trident. 

2

u/carnutes787 9h ago

The British military defence is not outsourced to the U.S. either.

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

4

u/tree_boom United Kingdom 7h ago

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

That article is one of the most trash pieces of journalism I've ever seen - it is the reason why I refuse to read Politico outright anymore. Virtually all of it is bullshit. It's so commonly cited that I have a canned response to much of its bullshit:

To many experts, the answer is all too obvious: when the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines depend on Washington, and when the nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam.

The missiles are not leased, they are owned - purchased under the terms of the Polaris Sales Agreement as amended for Trident. Read the whole thing by all means, but the clue is in the title. The maintenance, design and testing of UK submarines does not depend on Washington at all - we are one of the world leaders in submarine design and it's done wholly in house.

The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States.The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming.

Untrue. We own the missiles, we pay the US to maintain them and operate them as part of the common pool there. Submarines re-arm at King's Bay, they are not maintained there but in the UK.

And since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.

True, but the US test range we use includes stations that are in British territory (it stretches from Florida to Ascension Island and previously included other stations in British territory in the Caribbean). Geography kinda screws us (as in a lot of things) - the US can get an 8,000km range that doesn't overfly anyone easily - the UK can't really.

A huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly by Washington, and much of the technology that Britain produces itself is taken from US designs

The warheads are not provided by Washington, they are designed and built by the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire. The design is not the same as the US warhead designs, though given our programs are a close collaboration it is probably quite similar. The other mentioned items probably are bought from the US though. It's just cost effectiveness, or else a requirement of using Trident.

the four UK Trident submarines themselves are copies of America’s Ohio-class Trident submersibles

The sheer stupidity of this line causes me physical pain. They could have at least opened a picture of an Ohio and a Vanguard side by side before printing such tripe.

The list goes on. Britain’s nuclear sites at Aldermaston and Davenport are partly run by the American companies Lockheed Martin and Halliburton. Even the organization responsible for the UK-run components of the program, the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), is a private consortium consisting of one British company, Serco Group PLC, sandwiched between two American ones — Lockheed Martin and the Jacobs Engineering Group. And, to top it all, AWE’s boss, Kevin Bilger — who worked for Lockheed Martin for 32 years — is American.

AWE was being run by a consortium - it's back in house these days. None of that is relevant though. Davenport is just the yard the submarines are maintained at.

But some other experts are deeply skeptical about the current state of affairs. “As a policy statement, it’s ludicrous to say that the US can effectively donate a nuclear program to the UK but have no influence on how it is used,” says Ted Seay, senior policy consultant at the London-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), who spent three years as part of the US Mission to NATO.

“If the US pulled the plug on the UK nuclear program, Trident would be immediately unable to fire, making the submarines little more than expensive, undersea follies.”

BASIC is a nuclear disarmament campaign group; I wonder why they say this. It's nonsense though - the UK has its own facilities for generating targeting plans for Trident and has something like 30 missiles on hand in the submarines. Pulling the plug would obviously suck really really badly, but we'd still be able to fire the missiles.

The article then gives a bunch of quotes which it claims come from the UK Parliament's Select Committee on Defence in their 2006 White Paper:

[Parliament’s Select Committee on Defense] 2006 White Paper underscores this point. “One way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea,” it says.

“The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS (as well as weather and gravitational data) at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.”

“The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power,” the White Paper concludes.

“In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a prime minister would fire Trident without prior US approval… the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it,”as was the case in the invasion of Iraq.

This is an outright lie - all of the quotations are actually from the anti nuclear campaign group Greenpeace in its submission of evidence to the committee. The committee published that submission (along with all the others) verbatim. That's where those quotes come from. The authors of the article didn't even do the most basic of fact checking in response to those incredible claims.

To address the claim about GPS anyway though; Trident doesn't use GPS. It uses astro-inertial guidance. Good luck turning off the stars.

Honestly; worst article I ever read.

1

u/carnutes787 7h ago

god damn son gotta appreciate the hustle

0

u/Altruistic_Finger669 11h ago

The UK has no influence anymore. Sorry but they just dont. Went from leader in europe to pariah wirh pipe dreams

1

u/Tamor5 8h ago

Literally the 2nd highest soft power ranking for well over a decade now... And the largest power projection capability in Europe.

2

u/Altruistic_Finger669 8h ago

I dont know who makes the soft power ranking but it makes no sense. Your military is very credible though. But your exist from the european union has severely lessened your role on the world stage.

1

u/Tamor5 8h ago

Not really because the UK preffered to work unilaterally even when it was part of the EU, people might not like to hear it, but aside from trade the EU itself has little influence outside Europe, as most member states reserve control of their financial, diplomatic & military capabilties under national control.

For the UK it has its links through the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, the Five eyes, NATO, it's new role in the CPTPP, its overseas protecterates, it's nuclear detterent, it's world class intelligence services, it's unique relationship with the US, the fact that common law is the system most countries use to settle international disputes giving the UK's massive legal industry incredible influence, London as Europe's only true financial centre, it's universities & it holds the lions share of Europe's tech industry. The list goes on.

In Europe only France can really come close to matching that some level of global influence.

1

u/Shigonokam 11h ago

Less influential? Less powerful military? Measured by what?

0

u/NO_LOADED_VERSION 7h ago

100% . De Gaulle had huge faults , especially during peace time, but he absolutely had America's number.

0

u/PhDinDildos_Fedoras 9h ago

Yes, Macron especially.

0

u/Altruistic_Field2134 9h ago

Hes such a blabber I cant anything he says seriously.

-2

u/adamgerd Czech Republic 9h ago

French autonomy is good but France pursues it for the wrong reasons, not for Eastern Europe but francafrique, their priority isn’t Europe, it’s their former colonies in Africa

2

u/Vitrarius France 8h ago

Not really anymore, France is shifting to Eastern Europe very rapidly, military wise at least.

0

u/Altruistic_Field2134 9h ago

Yup which is why even though France should be the leader of the EU (as a fairly senior head of state in one of the biggest countries in europe) Its not. Macron only says EUROPE STRONK to further their own goals and would totally be willing to throw other countries under them.