In a recent meeting held in Paris, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius and French Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu underscored the need for Europe to take a more proactive stance in securing its own defence capabilities.
The two ministers expressed a shared vision for bolstering European security and announced plans to engage with the UK, as well as Poland and Italy, in discussions next week to further these objectives.
Germany at NATO shared Pistorius’s remarks on the meeting, speaking of the importance of Franco-German cooperation:
“We have achieved a lot in Europe, but need to do more for the coming years. Franco-German unity is a major part of this. Europe’s freedom and security depend on whether we are able and willing to defend them credibly.”
The discussions mark an initiative to enhance collective European defence efforts, particularly as the region faces heightened security challenges. By seeking the involvement of the UK and other key European nations, Germany and France aim to forge a unified response to reinforce Europe’s strategic autonomy and bolster its readiness against potential threats.
Defence Minister #Pistorius: “We have achieved a lot in Europe, but need to do more for the coming years. Franco-German unity is a major part of this. Europe’s freedom and security depend on whether we are able and willing to defend them credibly.”
— Germany at NATO (@GermanyNATO) November 7, 2024
Following the recent meeting in Paris, France and Germany stressed the importance of maintaining military spending and fostering unity on European security, particularly involving the UK. The call for reinforced European defence cooperation comes in response to Donald Trump’s re-election as U.S. president, which has revived concerns over Europe’s reliance on American defence support.
French Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu and German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius highlighted that NATO members must ensure their defence spending results in visible, substantial contributions, such as troops, ships, and aircraft, to reinforce NATO’s role as a military alliance.
Reflecting on Trump’s earlier criticisms of European nations’ defence budgets, Lecornu and Pistorius emphasised that European nations need to demonstrate a credible commitment to their own security.
Time for the wallet to open government can not be naive when it comes to defence
Yes not sure how many more times we need to be shown rabid disarmament only emboldens the tyrants. Making Europe no military threat to Russia has clearly not had the desired effect just focuses them upon breaking the tie between Europe and their military guarantor to make them a nice simple target. Well so they thought when they initiated their disastrous Ukraine campaign anyway. Thankfully it has given us time to correct our naive error, let’s hope we do so, just worried about Germany with elections next year, weak economy and a sizable minority not wanting to ‘upset’ Russia how… Read more »
Time partially wasted…. But hopefully not completely.
Europe do not have culture to defend itself.
Europeans love to criticize American education, healthcare, and public transport. They’re about to learn why. Incredbily difficult to fund the welfare state and anything remotely resembling credible defense at the same time.
Whatever the problems Europe will have in squaring that circle I don’t think it’s particularly comparable to the reasons why the US has failed to inspire something comparable to what they did in the 30s to transform the infrastructure of their Country and have patently failed to repeat since despite being a far richer Country. It’s more political and economic dogma and distrust of the ‘Big State’ than economic potential to do so.
I find your knowledge of the issue to be lacking. The US had sprawling rail and regional transport infrastructure in the 40’s and 50’s. It’s cost to maintain during the Cold War were too high.
One benefit Europe has is being much smaller with higher population densities.
It’s smaller with more density and no oil or natural resources. Swings and round abouts.
Welfare state is hugely wasteful, has no internal coherence to be efficient.
Btw cancer mortality rate in US is 82,3 but in UK 98,3 despite NHS
Source: JAMA Global Disparities of Cancer and Its Projected Burden in 2050
i wonder if that is mortality rate of those that can afford health care? Many don’t have access to healthcare or wont take it because they can’t afford it
!? do you even think what you wrote?
can u understand what you write?
Everyone has to die from something. The US spends over twice as much as the UK on health (per capita), yet Americans will die nearly 5 years younger than Brits on average. Granted the US had great success at lowering cancer mortailty figures also age-standardised cancer mortality per incident ratios. America is superb at detecting cancers early; they screen agressively. Now that seems like a good thing, and it is, but it also skews the standard measures. Let me give you an unrealistically extreme example to highlight how that happens. If you have a slow-growing cancer fatal if left untreated… Read more »
superb if you are lucky enough to have a private health plan. millions dont
Cancer mortality rate is more a function of how a population acts not its health system…
America spends about 1% of GDP more on defence than the European average. America spends 7% more of its GDP on health care than the European average.
You have been hood winked into thinking that Americas problems are anything to do with spending in defence or Europes better public service are anything to do with high European taxes and lots of welfare spending.
Average Physician wages;
UK 85,000.
US 251,000.
The EU will have to spend far more than 1% to catch up. More like 10%. It has almost non of the organic capabilities the US has from nearly 100 years of increased defense spending.
Well. We managed to do that during the Cold War.
You do realise the U.S. pisses away an insane amount of money on healthcare compared to Europe..it spends 4.5 trillion dollars a year in healthcare…that around £15,000 per person compared to the UKs £3000 per person. You can spend on healthcare and defence.
Franco German unity? Really?
The wished unity.
But yes, it’s still a dream, neither France nor Germany are ready for real in-depth cooperation.
They should…
French ambition funded by Germany, but for much longer ? German manufacturing is in a lot of trouble.
The American attitude towards European defence could change under a Trump presidency and as illogical as his thinking may appear, he’s likely to send worrying messages in the coming months. I don’t believe for a moment that he intends to leave NATO however, this second term may end up being a stormy one for Europe. The most likely outcome could be a reduction in US land forces resulting in mainland Europe having to rapidly fund the gap left behind and that will lead to a huge increase in defence budgets. For me, this new joint initiative makes eminent sense.
America has two bridges in Europe, European NATO has 1.8 million service personnel. What gaps do you believe the US is filling in Europes defence with two bridges?
Personally I rather see the US leave NATO so I don’t have to constantly listen to the same stupid argument that the USA is defending Europe when the US is one of the very few countries in NATO that actually boarders Russia.
For Bridges, read Brigades here, I think 🤔
Sorry auto correct on the phone 😀
What they mean is they want our armed forces and France to be in charge
Well yeah, not like Luxembourg is a candidate
Not sure they want that, more likely they want the UK to commit to more European deployments to safeguard them. I think no. The UK should concentrate on combat air, force enablers. Special forces and rapid deployment forces and the Royal navy.
We should NOT commit to rebuilding the army into a continental war fighting heavy armoured force. That is NOT where we should commit our forces.
Totally agree, furthermore if they want an expansion to the UKs nuclear forces they can contribute to the cost ( but not have any say in them).
This has little to do with defence, much more with pretending to have a foreign policy independent of Washington. Please excuse me from pointing out the U.S. control of N.A.T.O. continues to guarantee Europe’s security, a successful military organisation that over matches all others. France in charge of anything ensures toys will fly out of the pram sooner than later.
Who is America defending Europe from? How does it do this with just 100,000 personnel in Europe?
Us needs nato or Europe to make sure they are safe without Europe us is an individual target for russia china north Korea iran
Good luck getting any significant support from the UK!
Have you forgotten who is in power now ? I don’t blame you for trying to forget.
But wasn’t Trump pulling out of NATO just one of the reasons why PESCO was set up in the first place, in which the UK is a partner?
Did Boris Pistorius play Higgins in Ted Lasso?
This is the point that the UK should capitalise. Europe wants a security deal the UK wants a refugee return policy and better economic ties.
Should be an easy trade but unfortunately the EU commission is as flexible as the 16th century Catholic Church.
They see Europe in flames before they compromise on doctrine and French and German politicians like to hide behind their excuses.
That’s what should’ve happened in the original brexit negotiations but they didn’t want to know then. They was happy cutting off there own nose to try and make an example of us to stop anyone else from leaving. Funny how they want a security deal now!
Well written response. Agree.
I think the UK government will take a watch and wait policy.to defence and continue to relatively ignore the worsening geo political security and threats. They will try to string it out until the SDSR2025 report comes out. Unless Trump follows through with some of his threats like withdrawing all support from Ukraine, effectively ending the war and ceeding control of Donbas, Crimea and Kherson regions to Maf Vlad. Further emboldening him. A US reduction Of military power in Europe might stimulate a change and some adding on of military power. I’d be happy with just a few good incremental… Read more »
They could start with readmitting UK to participation in Galileo at all levels, and allowing us to access and input to the Schengen Info Sys with no strings attached. Things that could be done almost with a stroke of s pen with no cost, only benefit for all.
So undo brexit?
I hate to use defence as a lever during times like this but frankly we need one, and should be using this as a way to get a proper trade deal with the EU and not the nonsense boris got us that didn’t include export of services which is our main trade.
There has never been an effective EU free market in services, which is why UK benefitted far less from EU membership than many other countries.( University of Louvain study 2010)
That’s not true, there is a very much free trade in services across Europe, it’s why things like free roaming here taken away when we left. Our trade has been hit hard by losing that, anymore between 5 and 8% of our gdp has been lost.
I agree we will never get full free access as a third country but we might be able to get some limited deals on services which would help massively.
Well not fully true, countries like France have illegal state protectionism that go against EU law but overall our country didn’t very well out of the membership.
We have left and realistically not going to rejoin in my life time but doesn’t mean we can’t get a better trading relationship with our biggest trading partner. Especially right now where they need our military, diminished or not it’s still one of the strongest in Europe.
The US hold over Europe has always been defence. That hasn’t been given for free, it was always used in the US trade interests.
Agree, we need a much much better trade deal, terms and conditions. Borris deal was frankly useless and terrible. Something akin to Norway but minus the EUs oversight into the running of our country.
A trade deal that increases GDP significantly is needed both for the EU and the UK, enabling an increase in defence expenditure. The EU are worried so now is the time to push a deal forward
Bravo well said 👏👏
It was seen as morally wrong (whatever that means) to use defence as part of the trade deal at that time. You’re right, now is the time for the EU to cut us some slack for the best interests of both parties. And we should press home that point.
It wasn’t morales at the time. The EU wanted to keep trade and defence separate and boris was so keen to get a deal that he didn’t push back on the point as it would have slowed things down. Just like all the other terrible trade deals we got post brexit or that we didn’t negotiate the divorce bill alongside trade. All was just stupid. However as bad as it is, if Russia and trump are bringing the EU back to the table to talk let’s capitalise on it. We won’t get a massively better deal but could get a… Read more »
The combined population of the 5 countries mentioned is double that of Russia. The combined GDP is @7× as large. Europe should therefore be fully able to defend itself without US support. But governments have to persuade their electorates that defence budgets need to match US levels, perhaps double what they are now. Fat chance.
Did I miss the new referendum about re-joining the EU? Maybe they should drop the 90 day rule to sweeten the bribe.
Donald Trump has tasked Elon Musk to head a commission to reduce US Federal Spending by $2 Trillion per year. The last US budget under Biden is $6.75 Trillion. The defense portion of that budget is $849.8 billion. Defense cuts are coming. Since China is now the US’s main defense concern, cuts will have to come in European/NATO defense. Trump’s argument will be that Europe should pay for its own defense. Most of Europe still refuses to do so. A confrontation is coming.
A common fund from all NATO European nations could greatly increase numbers of A330 tanker, P8 and AEW Transport auxiliary corps and ammunition stockpiles. There are enough fighters, frigates, destroyers and arguable SSK, SSN and with Poland uplifting , enough armour and artillery mass as it stands, getting that up to near war readiness seems to be the problem. A common fund to increase readiness, flight hours, large scales exercises. Spanish, and med NATO forces should be compelled to deploy and rotate to the baltics and Scandinavia to improve mass on the flanks. They need to plan to fight in… Read more »