For a moment i was worried that Pierre and Hans might actually agree on something, but everything’s back to normal again…

by Katatoniac

33 comments

  1. Why should we dedicate an EU fund to countries not in the EU ?

  3. The French have been right on just about everything security related over the past few decades. Hans, famously, not so much. I side with Pierre.

  4. Well if non-EU means Japan or Korea then fine. But rewarding the US with money when they cowardly pull out is not the right way.

  5. Stupid Hans can’t think by himself and want to once again buy foreign weapon for his own security. 
    That’s completely stupid. EU must start thinking long term, we have to be independent. Buying EU-made weapons means that our tax money will go to our economies. Constructing a military independence means that we have to make our own weapons 

  6. because when a european solder wears a EU-made armor, he gets two lives.

  7. If outside EU means Switzerland, Norway, UK, Japan, Korea, then it‘s fine.

    But no US/Chinese weapons.

  8. Here I am with Pierre, that money must remain entirely in Europe and develop industry and innovation, and of course, not one euro to the ameritards, that should not be on the table

  9. The French are right, as much as that hurt me to say. We need to invest in EU industry not just in defence but specially in defence right now.

  11. Australian, Japan, Korea or Canada is ok but under no circumstances should we buy American weapons. They should not profit from this

  13. european companies should quickly work on closing the ability gaps & increasing capacities, and all that with full priority. in worst case copy things. this reduces dependencies and answers the question from where to buy. to bridge the time needed to get there… don’t buy too complex things from america. they can just cut off their support like for the satellite data for ukraine. and it appears, as a lesson from ukraine, drones and operators will be needed in big numbers. start building drones, start training the operators now.

  14. Bias aside, the UK absolutely should be involved from a pragmatic perspective. This isn’t the time to be hung up on technicalities. Too much is at stake.

    Britain is also by many accounts *the* world leader in intelligence about Russia. This is a huge complementary advantage for cooperation alongside equipment procurement.

  15. This is a classic and quite clever french ploy and I can see why Germany is opposing it.

    The largest military power in the EU is France. If you only spent it in the EU, excluding the UK (and Norway), EU wide military would essentially become an extension of France’s own military and dependant upon it, basically replacing the US for France in most cases.

    While Germany, Italy and other EU countries do have defence industries, France has the largest and most active one and it is likely a solely EU based fund would fund French industries more so than any other.

    I also suspect Germany is objecting because they know how co-operating with France on Defence usually goes when you’re the weaker partner, especially in relation to the ongoing Franco-German Fighter Jet programme, where France is essentially is demanding the majority of manufacturing and research investment, at Germany’s expense. (The UK/Italy/Japan project on the other hand is far more equitable, despite the UK being the dominant military power out of the three)

    I also think Germany is thinking more globally, while France is focusing on the region.
    Just because the US went batshit crazy, doesn’t mean there aren’t other useful and very important non-EU partners that could be tied into Europe and aid in European security eg. UK, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada etc.

    I obviously agree with Germany here; from a geopolitical standpoint, Europe needs to maintain the Western framework in spite of American abandonment and non-EU countries are in prime position to be swayed to Europe’s cause.

  17. Have to side with Pierre here, we have great defense companies. Sending the money to the U.S. is just the opposite of what we should do.

  19. I’m siding with Pierre on this one, assuming EEC-members are included in EU-partners. What has the world come to be? 😱

  20. France’s doctrine has always been independence and sovereignty. It was proven a good strategy given the current events, but we’re already ditching it?

  21. Why do the Germans want the US to financially benefit from being turncoats?

    We need to create a military industrial complex that beats the one of the U.S and steal all of their customers.

    If we need something immediately look to our more trusted trading partners. South Korea, Japan, China, not the US.

  22. if “non-EU” includes the UK, then I agree with hans. there’s no benefit to excluding the UK when it comes to european defence

    if it means “non-european” then I agree with pierre

  23. Seems like a pretty easy decision, stop dealing in absolutes. Primarily focus on the EU but if there is a desired product that is ready to go that is a Non EU country that is friendly to the EU (Japan, South Korea, UK, Norway), then why not? A lot of people here are forgetting that there is a time constraint. The EU needs to increase its military NOW to combat Russian aggression, and that won’t be the case if money is going to development programs that might not see results for years or even decades considering the timescales that we have seen on modern military equipment projects.

  24. Quote of Scholz in the [article](https://www.ft.com/content/76937db3-0b3b-44d4-9005-9709512acd53):

    >“It is very important to us that the projects that can be supported with this are open to . . . countries that are not part of the European Union but work closely together, such as Great Britain, Norway, Switzerland or Turkey,” Scholz said.

    Especially GB and Norway should be no brainers and included since they are basicly EU+ but Turkey or even Switzerland can be more problematic as partners (especially Switzerland).

  25. Let me guess. The Germans are still hungry for cock so they wish to keep buying US material over French while deliciously slurping on America’s schlong

  26. The most important thing that should come out of this investment is a military industry. As of now European countries, if we stick together, can hold of an attack from Russia (the most direct threat). However in the long term, we need to be autonomous in our defence.

  27. Sorry Hans I’ll be siding with Pierre on this, it turns out they’ve been right about a lot of things when it comes to defence recently.

  28. I’m with France on this one.

    Neglecting the domestic industry in favor of buying external weapons is what got us into this mess.

    We should boost domestic industries now.

  29. I put the German position on corrupt polititians, wouldn‘t be the first time we have a scandal where one of our‘s got paid off to do stupid shit. I personally think the EU should make itself as Independent as possible with weaponry, Everything else is stupid

  30. The best time to invest in EU military procurement was 3 years ago when France proposed it.

    The second best time to invest in EU military procurement, is today.

  33. So many people in here not reading and understanding it’s not about the US but countries like the UK and Norway

Comments are closed.