comment: >
  
  Well, not reslly. France buys it's engines from Germany (and quite a lot of Europe buys from Germany makers, Germany's issue is shit procurement, not lack of military industrial base). Sweden and the UK also have quality arms (and often cooperate), and Poland has been making deals with Korea to make them a big manufacturer as well.
  The issue is France wants a united European army, which if France was to be a member, would require France to head, since they don't really trust others intentions with their troops historically. It would also require a lot more centralisation than member states might suffer, given the EU still has issues with Eurosceptism that might resurge if major reserved powers leave their countries.
context: Europe has to be more self reliant. That doesn't mean forget its alliances, but we have to prepare as though we are alone. >
  
  An improved readiness is clearly needed, but I concur, it does not mean forgetting alliances. I still think EU itself should remain an economic union, but a larger security union is already present as NATO, it's just that NATO is really dominated by US contributions, which is our own fault, and that France pulled out in many ways to do their own thing. >
  
  The Alliance is not something I have to depend on. It's something I have to choose, something I work with. We have to rethink our strategic autonomy," the French President said.
  "Europe should get more autonomy in matters of technology and defense potential, including from the United States," Macron added.
  Recall that earlier Macron promised to supply Ukraine with air defense systems and Caesar self-propelled artillery installations at the beginning of 2023.
  Also, at a joint press conference with Zelenskyy, Joe Biden explained why he opposes providing Ukraine with all the American weapons requested by Kyiv.
  This was reported by the press service of the Danish Ministry of Defense on Wednesday, December 21.
  Government representatives held consultations with parties in parliament and reached a decision to donate DKK 300 million (USD 42.8 million) to support Ukraine.
  The Minister of Defense of the Kingdom, Jacob Ellemann-Jensen, announced that on Monday he had a virtual meeting with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
  "He emphasized the need to maintain support from the outside world. That's why I'm glad that Denmark can make another big contribution to Ukraine's struggle for freedom," the press service quotes Ellemann-Jensen as saying.
  DKK 300 million allocated by Denmark will be directed to the International Fund of Ukraine (IFU) created by the United Kingdom.
  As Ukrainian News Agency earlier reported, on August 11, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced an increase in financial support to Ukraine by another EUR 110 million.
  We also wrote that Denmark sent its military to the United Kingdom to help train servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as part of the Interflex operation.
  Later it became known that part of the Ukrainian military will undergo training on the territory of Denmark. >
  
  Fwiw, the amount of money in the just passed US budget for Ukraine is 40,000x greater than that from Denmark. France will need to step up.
  Edit: MY MATH IS WAY OFF. ABOUT 1100x. >
  
  Honestly, the problem with Europe in the context of Defense is Germany.  They're the DeFacto leaders of the region but are either too corrupt or too timid to enforce their own region.  
  So, Europeans depend on the US, which fills the power vacuum.  This works great until the US has some domestic issue, gets distracted, and pulls back.  Like 2016-2020.    
  Maybe it's time for a standing EU military. >
  
  Even were Germany not timid, they don't have the budget to be hegemonic the way the US does >
  
  Germany alone doesn't, but the EU as a whole certainly has the economic potential to field a military that rivals the US. They just lack the political will to do so. >
  
  Yes, also every American administration has been reminding Europe that it needs to invest more in its defense industry. The reason why the US defense industry is leading in terms of the weapons provided, is that the US never stopped investing in its defense industry. >
  
  I think respective US administrations want Europe to invest in the US defence industry. >
  
  They should, at this point they will not be as strong, might as well help the US >
  
  They are happy to grift off of American defense spending, in order to provide healthcare to their people. 
  And yet they still look down their noses at us. >
  
  Bit disingenuous, france can afford 2% gdp on defense & healthcare for its people. THe US can also afford healthcare for its people while maintaining its top dog military position.   
  The barriers to increased spending on Defense/healthcare in France/US is a political one, not a financial one. >
  
  France can afford 2% gdp on healthcare and defense only because the US is carrying most of France's defense load. If not for the US, France couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag. 
  And I'm French. >
  
  I'm not sure. Which part is US military is carrying France's defense load?
  The only reason France wasn't spending more is because it felt safe having nuclear deterrence. But 2022 showed its not enough >
  
  Correct. 2022 has shown that only the US has enough. >
  
  Has enough what? >
  
  Freedom units >
  
  France calls for this every year. Germany nods and plays on it's phone. The UK ignores them and runs off after the US, and Italy sleeps through the geopolitical discussion.
  Europe has no geopolitical brain. Europe has no government, for now. >
  
  The EU is getting a ridiculous deal. Basically all meaningful investment in R&D in tech, pharmaceuticals, energy and almost any other faucet of research is done by US companies or through US investment public or private. 
  And not only that but their entire defence is entirely handled by the US. They don’t have to invest because they know it’s in the US’ best interest to protect them.
  The EU really gotta start playing on the world field. Their biggest source of power seems to be annoying people with random antiquated ideas on setting the world standard on shit like chargers and GDPR. 
  Getting a committee together with absolutely no experience at all on the shit they legislate on and having them set a world standard on shit they haven’t the slightest about isn’t close to the geo political power we should be wielding. We’re getting carried in every way by the US and all we do is bitch about them. 
  Biden should cut us off like a bitter child. Reduce their military spending, don’t support us in our conflicts. Have us foot some of the western defence bill. Reduce their corporate taxes to bring American companies back from our tax havens. >
  
  Hey that mandated charger shit is good and everyone should follow suit. Iphones having a different plug is so dumb. >
  
  It’s not a bad idea but the amount of attention it got is absurd for something so minor. It’s like the crown jewel of EU accomplishments… >
  
  The crown jewel of EU accomplishments is peace, yet nobody is ever talking about it because they assume it's a given, when before the EU, it really was not. >
  
  Considering whats happening with Russia, sure doesnt seem like peace is a given. >
  
  France and Germany haven't been at war for nearly 80 years, EU did alright. >
  
  As a US person, I am all for this.  Mutuality is a much-needed goal for us all to achieve together in geopolitics today.  Not just when it comes to military matters but also global finance, trade, and so on.
  However.  I'm not sure I would want to follow the plan laid down by the guy who says that everyone needs to spend more time soothing Russia's hurt feelings.  I'm not sure that such a person's vision of security independence is something that France or anyone else should rely on. >
  
  Not to mention that most European countries aren’t doing the minimum required by nato >
  
  Tbf, that was a target agreed in 2014 for 2024. That said, plenty are looking to miss it, but the UK, Poland, Greece, Turkey, and I think the Baltics spend over, while France is spending 1.9% and still seems to be able to use it's expeditionary forces and support it's nuclear deterrent. Germany is really the major issue, though Spain and Italy getting up to French levels would be nice as well. >
  
  
  and still seems to be able to use it's expeditionary forces
  
  Not really no. France lacks the logistics to even move their forces across the Mediterranean into Africa without US help. France needed US logistics and transport to airlift their forces and equipment into Mali when they entered their war there since they didn't have the ability to do it themselves. Really only the UK actually has the ability other than the US to support a small-medium scale war by themselves and even that is not certain anymore since their military is much smaller than it used to be when the Falklands war happened. >
  
  Yeah, that would be great. -America >
  
  Frankly yeah.
  I support Ukraine and how we're supporting them is necessary but I'm sick of US spending on being the world police while y'all spend on enjoying free healthcare. >
  
  Oh god, “the world police.” It’s a superpower, the US defends its interests and supremacy. >
  
  Facts. As Americans, we have to see the benefit of being the biggest kid in the playground. The US throws its weight around whenever someone sneezes the wrong way and that can only be achieved by the massive spending. The deterrence against hostile world powers a massive military provides is beneficial for NATO since they fall under the umbrella, but we can’t forget it benefits us as well. >
  
  NATO countries should all be contributing a certain percent to ukraine too…everyone loves hating on the US but they are always the ones helping out. >
  
  As an American I fully support this. Build some of your own defense infrastructure guys. >
  
  Wasn’t this what Trump wanted in the first place? Either pay up or use your own security. >
  
  Yup, for all his flaws, he was right about this >
  
  Wasnt he threatening to pull out of NATO? It wouldnt surprise me if his handler tried to get him to do that. >
  
  He was. He was wrong about pretty much everything else, but Europe being self sufficient defensively is important, even if his motivations were, let's say "suspect." >
  
  Hurry up with ITER! >
  
  De Gaulle wanted to create a united European military as well….. but only if it was led by the French. >
  
  And then their next best idea to stop a Pact invasion was to turn West Germany into a nuclear wasteland, no wonder people said no in the first place >
  
  When Macron says "Europe" he means "France". >
  
  How about starting by contributing 2% of GDP to the military, as required by NATO. >
  
  That was a commitment made in 2014 for 2024. France spent 1.9% iirc in 2021. UK, Poland, Greece, Turkey, and some Baltic states I think spent over 2%. France probably will hit the target by the allotted time, they spent 2% in 2020 but it's possible it dipped due to recession. >
  
  The 2% marker has stood for a long time. France has failed consistently to fulfill its commitment. >
  
  The 2% goal set for the year 2024, yes. >
  
  Wrong. The 2% mark has stood for a long time. That France doesn't fulfill it until some time in the nebulous future is but "merde." >
  
  I think he's less interested in Europe getting less dependent on America, and more in Europe getting more dependent on France
  "Independent" Europe is Europe that buys everything from France