Your daily dose of ragebait I suppose. Rutte claims advocates for a European army are dreaming but it seems he is the one asleep. A world in which Europe must defend itself without America isn’t some dreamlike hypothetical, it is a very possible reality. But then why would we expect better from the man who fumbled his country to PVV and then ran off to call Trump daddy. If this is NATO’s head, it doesn’t bode well for the body.
I can understand that Rutte needs to charm Trump because Trump is the leader of the most powerful country and army in NATO, but what purpose do comments like this serve? Does he genuinely believe this, or is he slowly losing himself in his (at least to an extent needed and understandable) sycophancy?
Significant_Arm4246 on
I hold a nuanced stance on the Rutte question.
On one hand, just tell Trump whatever he wants. It costs basically nothing and only buys us time, but time is actually quite important to get the rearmament and any decoupling underway.
On the other hand, behind the scenes we need to rearm (with non-American weapons) as quickly as possible, diversify trade (Mercosur is a good first step — but no to the genocidal regime in China), build alternatives to NATO, and a common European defence (in reality, I want an as tight federation as possible, but that seems a bit out of reach), and of course send Ukraine every single weapon money can buy.
So this statement is very bad. But not everything he is criticized for is necessarily as bad.
What is honestly more infuriating is that the leaders in charge of the other part — Merz, Macron, v. d. Leyen, Starmer, Tusk, Meloni (not that we’d expect anything from her) et al. — are doing too little. If there actually was an ongoing effort to create a common defence, Rutte could actually be useful in distracting Trump in the meantime.
Jigsawsupport on
I have always thought it is intensely weird that NATO a military Alliance, has this whole bizarre bureaucracy, topped with a executive branch to it.
Worse like all bureaucracies it seeks to perpetuate itself, never mind the desirability of that being so, at the minute its arguably actively harming the defence of a majority of its members, by trying its level best to supress a successor on the form of a common European defence force.
TLDR
Rutte delenda est
SouthernSerf on
He probably coming from the angle of many Europeans don’t remotely comprehend he monumental task that would be building up an EU military that would reach current NATO capabilities. I think his concern is that if NATO completely crumbles once the real costs of a European military reveal themselves that the EU military never actually materializes and the worst case scenario is neither NATO or an actual EU military.
8 Comments
Your daily dose of ragebait I suppose. Rutte claims advocates for a European army are dreaming but it seems he is the one asleep. A world in which Europe must defend itself without America isn’t some dreamlike hypothetical, it is a very possible reality. But then why would we expect better from the man who fumbled his country to PVV and then ran off to call Trump daddy. If this is NATO’s head, it doesn’t bode well for the body.
!ping EUROPE
Daily Rutte L.
https://preview.redd.it/vthqfwj3rrfg1.jpeg?width=399&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cacd0f86bf004e0914f01c27825a52d9fc7e1cc1
Rutte is unironically playing 5D chess.
Trust the plan.
I can understand that Rutte needs to charm Trump because Trump is the leader of the most powerful country and army in NATO, but what purpose do comments like this serve? Does he genuinely believe this, or is he slowly losing himself in his (at least to an extent needed and understandable) sycophancy?
I hold a nuanced stance on the Rutte question.
On one hand, just tell Trump whatever he wants. It costs basically nothing and only buys us time, but time is actually quite important to get the rearmament and any decoupling underway.
On the other hand, behind the scenes we need to rearm (with non-American weapons) as quickly as possible, diversify trade (Mercosur is a good first step — but no to the genocidal regime in China), build alternatives to NATO, and a common European defence (in reality, I want an as tight federation as possible, but that seems a bit out of reach), and of course send Ukraine every single weapon money can buy.
So this statement is very bad. But not everything he is criticized for is necessarily as bad.
What is honestly more infuriating is that the leaders in charge of the other part — Merz, Macron, v. d. Leyen, Starmer, Tusk, Meloni (not that we’d expect anything from her) et al. — are doing too little. If there actually was an ongoing effort to create a common defence, Rutte could actually be useful in distracting Trump in the meantime.
I have always thought it is intensely weird that NATO a military Alliance, has this whole bizarre bureaucracy, topped with a executive branch to it.
Worse like all bureaucracies it seeks to perpetuate itself, never mind the desirability of that being so, at the minute its arguably actively harming the defence of a majority of its members, by trying its level best to supress a successor on the form of a common European defence force.
TLDR
Rutte delenda est
He probably coming from the angle of many Europeans don’t remotely comprehend he monumental task that would be building up an EU military that would reach current NATO capabilities. I think his concern is that if NATO completely crumbles once the real costs of a European military reveal themselves that the EU military never actually materializes and the worst case scenario is neither NATO or an actual EU military.