France is the only country that pushes for this project, even if I must confess I don't really understand the reason because the other European countries don't want it and only trust the NATO for their defense.
Besides, despite the clear answers of the main European powers on this subject, France continues to be stubborn in this project.
Zbigniew Brzeziński wrote already in the 1980s
"France could become the herald of the European idea, identify with this ideal and, thanks to this assimilation, conform the European project to its conception of the nation. The country that had invented the notion of the sovereign nation-state and elevated nationalism to the rank of civic religion found it only natural that it should be responsible - with the same passion that it had previously invested in the notion of the fatherland - for the construction of an independent and united Europe. The greatness of a Europe under French leadership would then be equivalent to the greatness of France itself. "
What do you think of the idea of European strategic autonomy in the economic, military etc. fields, especially desired by France?
Interesting question but maybe one, that being neither from Europe or North America I'm not well suited for. It would seem to me that the common market was always about economic strength but that NATO has always been contradictory with strategic military independence. And not something that Europe at large was wanting since with the US backstopping there was a peace dividend for Europe. Plus there is reservation on French dominance.
Certainly there has been a very rude shock with Ukraine and European countries can have very little confidence in a benign peaceful collaborative Europe. Did Russia ever want to join NATO other than to white ant it? The intermediary path of NATO Russo collaboration didn't satisfy Putin.
After Ukraine, it surely must be difficult for Europe to feel any great confidence in peaceful co existence with Russia. Post Putin there is likely just to be another strong man in Russia as it has no genuine succession mechanism. Soviet Russia was more reliable as the General Secretary still had a politburo as a check and balance.
Europe very much needs to step up militarily but should that be within NATO or as a autonomous European military. Are French objectives consistent with other European nations? It would seem not. It didn't work with the Typhoon and Rafale aircraft due to different needs. European 6th generation fighter efforts seem far from united.
Would a European military exclude a post brexit Britain? If so that would be a major deficiency as Britain is maybe the second strongest power. It would be highly likely as the US is pressuring Britain to desert the Airbus world to the Boeing world. Plus Britain is showing interest in CANZUK as well as being a foundation member of AUKUS.
I think a military union is highly unlikely. How much would Poland trust France safely far away from Russia? Likely to feel more trust in NATO.
If it is too happen than I think it would need to be bit by bit. Union of French and German militarizes might be possible. The shadow of WW2 still hangs over Germany and a military union could relieve that. .
Indeed, the different European nations do not adhere to the French vision of Europe because first of all they consider rightly that France would not be able to ensure the defense of Europe and certainly they do not see the idea of a Europe under French influence in a good light and I respect and understand their visions perfectly.
What I do not understand is the French insistence on this project.
Please note that in a way it has always been France's dream to federate Europe around itself...
Dream and practice perhaps ( just that one time :) ).
As a Frenchwoman if you do not understand French gov't vision then I will labor. It is highly logical to unite European defense forces (and the French are known for logic) and it could the sheer logic that motivates your gov't.
Historically France seems to have wanted to maintain the independence of it's armed forces from 1966 - 2009. Even on fully reintegrating with NATO there were caveats and droits required. It seems contradictory to have wanted and still want independence of France's forces but integration from other countries. The only way possible for both is for France to command which is obviously an issue for the rest.
So I don't see how France's political class can see how this can possibly fly. I end up with it being a matter of prestige. The combination of forces is highly logical but the politics is entirely illogical.
Brzeziński Was a communist then and he is a communist now. Individual nations, hoping in NATO, while barely contributing to NATO is just an indicator of how weak Europe has become..
The United States is certainly corrupt, and our military industrial complex and lobbyists and corrupt politicians have shown that we are no better than the dregs of society, and the lowest of low. Brzeziński is a corrupt, bought and paid for, pawn of some other entity. I trust nothing that man has to say.
I admire your optimism. I am thoroughly impressed by your doctorate level education at such a young age that man is a vile and wicked corrupter of politicians, and has more blood on his hands than you would think possible
First, he was a devout Catholic and a Pole. Communism sought to oppress religion. And Poles are devout Catholics - and anti-communists. This is why John Paul I, a Pole, became, in 1978, the first non-Italian Pope in about 500 years. And this is why Poland was the first nation to move away from communism beginning in 1980 with the Solidarity union and movement.
This excerpt from his New York Times obituary summarizes Zbig's anti-communism stance: === But in at least one respect — his rigid hatred of the Soviet Union — he had stood to the right of many Republicans, including Mr. Kissinger and President Richard M. Nixon. And during his four years under Mr. Carter, beginning in 1977, thwarting Soviet expansionism at any cost guided much of American foreign policy, for better or worse. === www.nytimes.com/.../...rity-adviser-to-carter.html
You can also read his obituary in The Guardian and learn about those times your parents and I witnessed. At 45, you wouldn't remember these things because you were still shitting in your diaper. www.theguardian.com/.../zbigniew-brzezinski-obituary
Because it's a stupid idea that will give our military, economic and political power to the EU. EU already took a lot of our sovereignty. I'm French, not European. I want my country to be a free and sovereign nation, not a puppet of a globalist, unelected institution working only for private companies and banks.
Sure, who's going to pay for it? There's no appetite in Europe for that. The reason why it won't work is Germany- way too weak militarily and politically, too strong economically.
@Sixgunsound: Yeah, well, you can't ignore the country in the European context. They still haven't figured out how to fully integrate Germany into Europe without continuing the huge economic and geopolitical disparities it brings.
France can't provide the leadership and it will be quite some time until it passes Germany in population.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > What do you think of the idea of European strategic autonomy in the economic, military etc. fields, especially desired by France?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
