The EU thread

[Legbiter]

It kinda looks like the Germans are serious. I just hope the next US prez isn't some smooth-talker who'll lull them back to sleep.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

That net zero and energy transition would better be replaced with reindustrialization and cheap energy. That'll help more than trying to be holier than the pope

[crazy canuck]

It kinda looks like the Germans are serious. I just hope the next US prez isn't some smooth-talker who'll lull them back to sleep.

It will take at least a couple generations of the Americans not whipsawing on foreign policy and trade, before the level of trust they once had is restored.

It took 80 years to build that trust and less than 80 days to destroy it.

[Josquius]

It'll need actual democratic reform in the US.
Which who knows. Maybe an experience like this will finally be the needed kick.
But more likely it's the same as trump 1.

[Jacob]

NATO cannot be 'naive' about China's arms build-up, says Rutte

The head of the transatlantic military alliance stressed that China's military build-up and support for Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine should not be overlooked, as he called on NATO members to work together and assess the issue.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Tuesday raised concern about China's arms buildup and military drills near Taiwan and called on the 32 alliance's members to work together to keep free and open sea lanes in the region. 

"China is supporting Russia's efforts. China is building up its armed forces, including its navy, at a rapid pace," NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters during his first visit to Japan since the beginning of his mandate. 

"We cannot be naive, and we really have to work together, assess what is happening," the NATO chief added from the Japanese navy port of Yokosuka. 

Rutte's comments follow a meeting of NATO foreign ministers last week in which the alliance's chief stressed that global security threats are more interconnected than ever and that increasing defence spending is key to ensuring NATO's security.

"We are seeing what China is doing. We're seeing how these two theatres, the inner Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are getting more and more connected by the fact that the Russians are working together with the North Koreans, with the Chinese, with Iran, so we have to look at all these theatres in conjunction and that will be our focus," he said. 

The former Dutch prime minister also said NATO is worried about China's military exercises near Taiwan, and "we follow them very closely."

Japan considers China as a threat in the region and has in recent years accelerated military build-up, including preparing to acquire strike-back capability with long-range cruise missiles.

Japan, in addition to the United States, has expanded its defence ties with other friendly nations in the Indo-Pacific and Europe, as well as NATO, saying Russia's war in Ukraine underscores that security risks in Europe and Asia are inseparable.

The United States wants NATO members to be more involved in the Indo-Pacific region, Rutte said. He welcomed US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth's recent trip to Japan to ensure Washington's commitment to strengthen its alliance with Japan and presence in the region. He stressed its importance, noting that Japan is the only member of the Group of Seven that is not in NATO.

NATO has also strengthened its ties with Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, known as the IP4, in recent years - a move that has been criticised by Beijing, which fears that Washington is seeking to form a NATO-like alliance in the region.

https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/08/nato-cannot-be-naive-about-chinas-arms-build-up-says-rutte

I'm in a few minds here...

Fundamentally, I think Western democracies should support Taiwan, Japan, and ROK; and fundamentally we don't have value alignment with China.

On the other hand, if faced with Russian aggression and the US withdrawing support from NATO and generally undermining our common welfare, why should Europe (or Canada) commit to protecting the US sphere of influence and great power competition against China? Especially if some level of working with China can help overcome some of the negative impacts of the US' sudden heel turn?

Thoughts?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I think Europe should take this opportunity to pull Taiwan, Japan, and Korea into their sphere of influence.  I think it's clear that the US isn't going to help Taiwan against an invasion by West Taiwan, and likely wouldn't help Japan or Korea either.

[Jacob]

If the EU could do that, that'd be great - but I'm not sure to what degree the EU could handle a conflict with China.

[HVC]

Europe can barely unifi to contain Russia, and that's their backyard.  I doubt they have the political will to stand up to China. Or, I don't think, the logistics and capacity to deal with China.

[Sheilbh]

I'm in a few minds here...

Fundamentally, I think Western democracies should support Taiwan, Japan, and ROK; and fundamentally we don't have value alignment with China.

On the other hand, if faced with Russian aggression and the US withdrawing support from NATO and generally undermining our common welfare, why should Europe (or Canada) commit to protecting the US sphere of influence and great power competition against China? Especially if some level of working with China can help overcome some of the negative impacts of the US' sudden heel turn?

Thoughts?

Arguably it's a question of whether or not what's been loosely termed "the West" is a thing or if it was, in fact, always just America's sphere of influence?

Practically I think Europe's ability to support Taiwan, Australia, Japan, Korea etc is very limited - particularly Taiwan, which even the US has always hedged around the level of its commitment (there is no formal security guarantee). At this point Europe isn't meaningfully able to defend itself or project power into the near neighbourhood (for example keeping the Red Sea/Suez open). That has to be the priority - and I think as long as that is in doubt, I'm not convinced there's any real weight to talk of a European sphere of influence. Europe's a regulatory and trade policy superpower - but I don't think that's meaningful in an age of great power competition and hard power. It's dependent on the global public goods the US has been providing.

I think it's important that Europe (and everyone) doesn't just react to Trump and the US. As I say, we're not Americans - the objective should be pursuing our interests not responding or having our policy shaped by a need to respond to Trump. Given that I think the most alarming intelligence agency assessment (that's been made public or reached the press) is the Danish who estimate that after a ceasefire in Ukraine, Russia would take about two years to re-arm for a regional conflict (Ukraine again, or the Baltics) and about five for a full-scale European conflict. The most conservative is, I think the Norwegian, which says about five years for the former and ten for the latter. I think that's the security context for Europe.

Having said all that from a European perspective, while I think there is tension and opportunity in the Russia-China relationship I don't think it's going to break down anytime soon. I would see them as a similar bloc on the Eurasian continent - and I think both sides of the landmass are linked and matter. I think it would be difficult to pry China from Russia. Similarly I think a Russia with a good ceasefire in Ukraine will be able to provide material support to China, as will China if they take Taiwan be able to ramp up support for Russia. The wider context of that, I can't really imagine, but I do think strengthening at one end will help at the other and vice versa. If Russia "wins" in Ukraine and China wins in Taiwan there is no doubt in my mind that the threat to Europe increases.

Australia, Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent Taiwan have provided support to Ukraine. I think that's because they view the conflict as linked but also because they view European security as important. I don't think it's just because of the US and I think in European anger at America we shouldn't throw out those valuable relationships.

As I said in the UK thread - a lot of that I think goes for Europe more generally (and also Canada). My view is that the UK and Europe should be absolutely doubling down on relationships with Canada, with Japan, Korea, Australia, Taiwan. And also looking at India (fully cognisant that they don't want to be in anyone's bloc). We should be building those relationships with other like minded middle powers to preserve what we can and want to and also look for new ways of working together. I think for European countries we should be opportunistic with the US and China, in order to confront Russia (and without trying to align fully), for the Pacific countries probably the reverse of being opportunistic with the US and Russia, in order to be ready to confront China (if/when necessary) - I'm not sure with Canada. Some things we absolutely need to be clear and push back on, like sovereignty but elsewhere work together and elsewhere try to take advantage of the chaos for our own benefit.

If we can on both sides of Eurasia build up our forces and our capacity, maybe we'll be a bit more principled - but who knows.

Perhaps semi-relatedly on the scope of European power, there are reports of frustrations in the EU basically breaking down on something not a million miles from the North/South divide. This is also part of the UK-EU relationship on security. The Swedish Foreign Minister publicly said the issue with that is fisheries - it's unusual for someone at the ministerial level to state that openly. I think the day after that there were reports that defence chiefs and finance ministry officials from the UK, the Nordics (including Norway), Poland, the Baltics and Norway had been meeting to possibly set up a relationship (and fund) for rearming outside of EU structures - deliberately to circumvent the Commission. I suspect that both of those were deliberately timed and in part because those countries are relatively like-minded on Russia. But also I suspect for the EU members to make clear to everyone else the frustration over security running into the usual sand of whether the program should be based on grants or loans and fisheries (I did see a line from a Scandinavian diplomat that the countries who are spending the least on defence and intend to increase their spending the least are most insistent that it's a grant and that fisheries are resolved).

I worry that after the initial shock a lot of European politics has gone back to BAU for too many countries - hopefully Merz might be able to break it with the big German deal on debt (and in a UK context - from everything I've read it sounds like the government's strategic defence review and spending plans will underwhelm).

[mongers]

If the EU could do that, that'd be great - but I'm not sure to what degree the EU could handle a conflict with China.

It was always going to be the US Navy, with a little help from the air force, that was going to sink China's invasion, but now with trump 'at the helm', he could well pretend to look the other way and then Taiwan is cooked.

Europe/EU cannot be in anyway  meaningful way be a replacement for that.

[Jacob]

I agree with all of that Sheilbh, with on little detailed qualifier - that the US's ambiguity around Taiwan was not (at least as I understand it) based on lack of ability to defend it. Rather it is (was?) based on a desire to keep the status quo and not trigger a conflict by giving Taiwan excessive confidence in their support, while keeping China from starting anything as well.

[Josquius]

If the EU could do that, that'd be great - but I'm not sure to what degree the EU could handle a conflict with China.

It was always going to be the US Navy, with a little help from the air force, that was going to sink China's invasion, but now with trump 'at the helm', he could well pretend to look the other way and then Taiwan is cooked.

Europe/EU cannot be in anyway  meaningful way be a replacement for that.

Japan would be an interesting wild card in that.
I do think even sans America Taiwan stands a very good chance providing it has learned all the right lessons from Ukraine about naval drones.
Add in Japan... Japan does have a pretty decent military and China is trying to move in on its islands. Unimportant rocks for now but it's clear in Chinese propeganda they have nutty claims on okinawa.