https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1949645178236481976
https://x.com/HoansSolo/status/1949563634209669452
Most economists and political scientists seem to agree.
Suppose one has to congratulate the US. In the same manner one would congratulate Russia for taking Krim in 2014.
So congratulations to the motherfuckers.
Except this deal reinforces military industrial dependence on the US (EU is now obliged to buy most of its weapons from the US):
https://x.com/FuestClemens/status/1949573253413933416
https://x.com/Olivier1Schmitt/status/1949574729678962816
https://x.com/Olivier1Schmitt/status/1949576015291777185
Sure, Olivier. But this will not happen (without buying lots of American arms and US will also seek to block the rise of a militarily poten Europe) and this very deal now reinforces the submissive european position. Europe is full of high quality arms industry for our rearmament, but obliged now to buy American strategic weapons and air defence. Good God, what a deal.
Itâs borderline rapeâŚ
Military procurement moves in very slow cycles - a contract that enters negotiation on Monday morning is unlikely to see any production for at least two years. The only possible exception is munitions from existing production lines. A lot of that was going to have to happen anyway.
Big picture, this is not a bad deal for the EU as long as it is understood as a temporary reprieve and nothing more.
But the contracts for arms industry is binding in the âshort termâ, and it takes many years to produce and deliver. Years where own arms industry will get less contracts (and so expanded less for production logically, I would assume), during years that our security analysts tells us it is critical to grow it.
Of course, EU would obviously buy some US arms regardless, but this deal seems to bind the EU to buy so and so much.
Most of the F-25 contracts took over 5 years to negotiate, just for one example. With the numbers in question versus the scale of what the rest of NATO needs to spend, something like that level of purchasing was going to happen anyway - and the devil is always in the details. American corporations, or American factories - that alone is going to take years to work through.
I donât really disagree, given U.S dominance in high tech weapons. But it is humiliating to be enforced to do so. It also gives the EU less theoretical freedom for common arms programs.
The EU is likely to look to walk away from any âcommitmentsâ with the US as soon as itâs expedient. A deal with this administration means nothing and they will be looking at building their own supply chains too and wonât be âlocked inâ beyond when it suits them
Europe needs an independent deterrence. Rich. Clever. First world. It needs the political will to secure itself, independently. Thereâs no reason why the best hi tech armaments, at all levels and types, cannot be developed by Europe.
The deal with America seems expedient for the times, but mid to longer term, Europe needs to be truly independent.
I personally donât think the EU will walk away from any commitments at all. If it did, it would lose credibillity, which it cannot really afford to do, given itâs geopolitical power.
Yes, that should ideally happen but isnât happening at current, with no indicator that it will happen within 20 years unless the rift with the US becomes permanent and total (i.e. US allying with China or Russia, in which case it would force it)
Are there no working class people in Harlem, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Flushing, Elmhurst, Corona, Brighton Beach?
In every demographic, the population is shifting towards the Republicans
https://x.com/iapolls2022/status/1949332688067764263?s=46&t=o3XUPKxiqJH7KZYdWMCtqg
Are there no working class in Harlem, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Flushing, Elmhurst, Corona or Brighton Beach?
If true, thatâs a catastrophe. Now I understand Bayrouâs words better⌠
The EU has no leverage on the US. This is the consequence of neglecting military spending the last decades, because now, the US has a president that is not only willing, but do use, security as leverage against the EU; which means it must capitulate. Previously, the US has never used security as leverage in this way, but now it does under Trump and then weakness is highlighted. Vasselage; not alliance. And since the EU is now operating on a time table regarding threat level, itâs impossible to break the vassalage in the medium term. Again, no leverage, just humiliation.
Unfortunately, Speck here is quite correct:
https://x.com/ulrichspeck/status/1949723530503037268
To make everything worse, you can extrapolate the current difficulties with the US to geopolitics, where lack of military might makes the EU inconsequental in this post-Liberal age. The Rules Order is dead/dying/on life support, so only the combination of military and economic might gives you agency in this new day and age.
I understand why people are taking this as a loss for the EU, but I think the reflex to then necessarily position it as a win for Trump is simplistic. What are the objectives that define if this is a win? How does this all fit with the rest of his policy to help achieve that aim? Is this really lose-lose, with China being the real winner?
Reminder that these sorts of preference polls are really bad indicators of future election performanceâŚcareful not just reinforcing your priors when you see them.
The reason why commentators position this as win for Trump, is that Ursula caved (I donât know if you have seen how the anger in European capitals, European financial politicians are rather angry) on reciprocal tariffs. If you then include the stipulation that the EU is bound to buy so and so much US energy products and so and so much weapons and still get 15% tariffs, then it is hard to see this as anything but a devestating defeat.
That doesnât necessarilly mean that the US will gain from this long term, after all, structural damage, loss of trust and so on. More importantly , US will pay tariffs to everywhere and it will obviously stifle growth in the US. But in the specific relationship US versus EU, this must be regarded as aa major victory for Trump. At the very least it is a humiliating defeat for the EU, and that means a political victory for Trump. The terms are after all, not at all even, and the EU did conditionally capitulate here.
