The NATO Secretary General has told MEPs that closer cooperation between NATO and the EU is essential to boost defence production, sustain support for Ukraine and strengthen European security.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte addressed the Renew Europe Global Europe Forum at the European Parliament on Tuesday, stressing the importance of closer alignment between NATO and the European Union in response to growing security challenges.
Speaking to MEPs and invited guests, Rutte highlighted increased defence spending by NATO allies, efforts to expand defence industrial output, and continued military and political support for Ukraine as central pillars of Euro-Atlantic security. He argued that cooperation between NATO and the EU allows both organisations to act more effectively in an increasingly contested security environment.
“When we combine our strengths, of NATO and the EU, we can more effectively tackle the many challenges we face,” Rutte said.
He linked this cooperation directly to Ukraine’s ability to resist future aggression and to Europe’s capacity to accelerate defence production.
“Working together, we keep Ukraine strong today and able to defend itself against any aggression in the future,” he said. “And working together, we can produce more defence capabilities, and we can produce them faster. We can innovate better and outsmart our competitors.”
Following his keynote address, the Secretary General took part in a discussion with Members of the European Parliament, addressing a range of current security challenges facing Europe and the wider Euro-Atlantic area.
Deeper EU and NATO cooperation is not possible and not desirable. NATO is a security alliance and the EU is an economic one. They should stay out of each others perspective fields because neither is very good at the others job.
The EU is far too riddled with bad actors like France, Ireland and Hungary I.es nations who put their own immediate economic interest ahead of the security needs of the continent.
The EU should just stay out of military matters. It’s got more than enough to worry about on the economic front.
All EU nation put their interests first; EU is a system to discuss conflicting interests to come up with the best possible outcome for everyone. As for “bad actors”, France has been deploying nuclear capable rafales in sweden and poland, among other things. And btw, economy, industry are closely linked to military capacities.
Nuclear capable is a long way from nuclear armed. The UK deterrent is allocated to NATO perhaps you’d like to enlighten us all to who France’s deterrent is allocated to……..and it isn’t NATO nor Poland nor Sweden.
France is only for France and many Europeans are very unimpressed by them.
« Nuclear capable is a long way from nuclear armed. ». Well, you don’t know that, which is the point.
Poland and germany have asked to benefit from French deterrent. Discussions are considered « serious » by tusk and Duda is pushing this way too. Don’t you read the news?
bad actors how? in terms of military France isn’t a bad actor and Ireland has no army lol. Seems like you’re just naming the countries that you personally don’t like
How about France forcing the uk into a fisheries agreement for access to SAFE then sending the uk a 6 billion bill to join while Canada pays 10 million.
I could also raise Frances conduct in the FCAS program as being a bad actor.
Lol imagine leaving the EU and then crying when EU nations bill you to join EU programs
The EU needs to have a common defence policy. NATO being a security alliance doesn’t mean the EU can’t also be one: You simply have the EU be a NATO member, instead of the 30 odd member states (just like the US is a NATO member instead of the 50 states).
The idea that the EU being a security alliance is incompatible with NATO is just US administrations afraid of EU states being strategically autonomous and not reliant on the US. Given recent events being able to operate without the US is vital.
Also “the EU has several bad actors” you say, but then mention 3 countries, 2 of which are in NATO, and ignore the biggest bad actor in NATO; the United States.
Not to start a Brexit debate, but… the EU is a political and economic union. It coordinates laws and policies across trade, social rights, the environment, and even foreign and security matters. Economics is central, but the EU’s role goes far beyond just money and markets — it even tried to ban curved bananas 😀
If it had stayed focused on trade, we would no doubt still be a member.
I don’t think you can call France a bad actor.. a bit to focused on the interests of its own MIC for the greater good, but that does not make it a bad actor just a normal nation state…
I think the problem for Europe is it needs to step beyond this normal state on state focus on own self interest or it will be swallowed bit by bit.
A classic example of where France is probably think with to much self interest is the restrictions it’s trying to place on the 90 billion EU loan to Ukraine, I can understand why it’s saying it but in reality the only things that matters is Ukraine does not fall and can have a lasting peace staying a stong sovereign nation.. if that involves the EU nations holding their noses and purchasing US armaments then that is what needs to happen.. and a lesson needs to be learnt.
The greater good…. I think you mean France’s greater good. It really doesn’t give a hoot about anyone else. Oncr thst’s understood French actions make much more sense tbh.
I was mean to say the French MIC over the greater good..
You can always count on Jim for his horrible takes on the EU.
I’m actually very pro EU and would love the UK to rejoin. But it has its limits.
« But it has its limits »: exactly why eu countries Will refuse uk to rejoin.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the EU should get involved in military matters however it could helpfully mobilise it’s member’s economies to encourage defence expenditure. Not sure why anyone would object to that?
A common European army, as and when NATO finally fails after Trump’s disruption is inevitable. The UK needs to make a defence decision – stick with the fickle America, after Trump departs the scene there is no guarantee the US will return to playing the game of NATO and the Trump years can just be put to a ‘rocky’ patch.
Personally my money is is for the UK joining a European army. Its our continent – nobody else is going to defend it from Russia or even possibly America
And please spare us the sceptics about joining a European army. The British army/forces has been fighting in Europe as far back into history you want to go.
Seven Years War, War of Austrian Succession, WW1, WW2.
Available for the Cold War
A full on Common European Army is a ways away, but what needs to happen is a common European Command structure. 3* and 4* enablers, and a common force structure that everyone habitually slots into. It would be a good initial stepping stone, and would open the door to future intigration on things like procurement and doctrine, while still allowing nations to deploy in their own national interest seperate of the EU for now.
Yep it’s the command and control that matters.. the European liberal democracies do have a lot of brigades..but no real command and control at corps level.. the U.S. did that.
Brigades and up to Divisional Levels yes. Most European countries can field a Division of some kind if they tweaked and did some adjustments.
I’m not actually sure it is a ways away. The speed with which things are moving might well precipitate such a concept into being rather rapidly. The EU (and the UK most likely) look now as though they have to defend both their Eastern and Western frontiers. Crazy times = hitherto crazy solutions – and an EU army isn’t even too crazy as an idea.
No. An alliance structure with a unified command that national forces can slot into is potential onto the table. An EU Army isn’t. We are far from that position. Even countries that are open to intigrating their commands, like the Netherlands are with Germany, are not intigrating their armies. Aside from amalgamating into a full army meaning operating autonomously is no longer possible, and a big ask, it also would mean the end of individual procurements and doctrines, and while that would, from a grand strategic view, be a good thing, it’s probably too much to ask any time soon.
NATO unity blurbs are worthless when we right now have a Danish and Greenland team pleading with Vance at the Whitehouse to not take Greenland off them. Hey Rutte, who’s the ‘daddy’ you buffoon.
Meanwhile after a disastrous meeting in the WH with Denmark and Greenland the Nordic countries are moving SFs into Greenland!
Germany is also deploying troops reportedly.
France too, and the Netherlands, and potentially Canada. Small numbers at the moment to identify basing locations.
Yes, Germany has mobilised 13 soldiers…
That’s 11 more than Norway’s two though, so if France can fill the gaps we’ll have a platoon as a show of force.
So what’s your point? Obviously they are there to recce locations etc! Did you expect Regiments and Battalions just to rock up?
Probably won’t register with the orange muppet but this is a subtle message that if Denmark triggers A5 there will be a response.
Seven European countries (yes, only seven) signed the joint letter stating that Greenland belongs to its people and that Denmark and Greenland decide its future. Now a ‘reassurance force’ of 13 confirmed soldiers is deploying.
So back to your question — “So what’s your point?”
My point is that it hardly screams unity or strength…
I missed out Norway’s two confirmed soldiers. Might not seem like much, but it adds another 15% to the deployment. So my reply should read 15, not 13.
Exactly what do you expect to be deployed to a region that has a very hostile climate and zero infrastructure? Germany has stated quite clearly that this is a force to work out basing locations.
I didn’t expect a lot to be honest… maybe slightly more than the EPG. ECG?
Wow. Okay so you are very dishonest. Multiple people have pointed out this is a recce force to assess basing posibilities and you just ignore it every time.
So you’re agreeing with Trump that Denmark can’t defend Greenland — as it’s been part of Denmark for over 300 years, and now all of a sudden Denmark and the EPG are running around trying to figure out where follow-on troops would be based. You’d like to think they would already have a plan for an uplift in numbers, just like the US does.
Anyhow, EPG update: the UK and Netherlands have sent one each, so that’s over 30 all in now.
Jesus Christ you are a fucking moron or just completely dishonest. I suspect both.
Here I’ll lay it out for you, you oxygen thief, but I doubt you’ll read or give a fuck, since you can’t seem to read two lines and think them through.
The US has had an agreement with Denmark to base whatever troops they want in Greenland as long as they aren’t Nuclear. Throughout the Cold War there was a much bigger US presence in Greenland than there is now. At no point did the US need to threaten to Annex Greenland to protect its borders. If the US wanted to base more troops in Greenland it could do so entirely peacefullly, without invading or threatening to Annex it.
Denmark absolutely can defend Greenland but why the fuck would it you piece of excrement? It never has had too because the US has done it while respecting Greenland sovereignty. Now it has to defend it against the US because stupid fucking cunts like you can’t bother to read, and just listen to the stupid fucking cunt in the white house.
So shut the fuck up. Stop trolling. Learn to actually listen to people talking to you.
Haha! Someone’s got their knickers in a twist.
You’ve got angry because you’ve just realised that there is no Danish plan to defend Greenland, and that means, by default, you agree with Trump! 😂 This is probably why you’re smashing your room up now.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with EPG, then good for you. For me, a lot more should have been done in the past. But once again, Europe is behind the curve, caught with its pants down.
Have a good one, and don’t break too much with your tantrum 🤣
What happened to the bases that the peak cold war US 30.000 troops had?
Overblown nonsense. One, the EU is so pitiful they have no chance of defending Greenland even if they wanted too
And two, more importantly Trump has zero support in the congress for any sort of military adventure in Greenland. Even his magatard branch are against it
So “no chance of defending Greenland” obviously something as big as invading another country can’t be kept quiet unlike a raid into Venezuela!
What’s to stop European countries moving ships and aircraft into place and saying to the approaching armada “ok are you really going to start shooting” and if so is trumpy going to then flatten Greenland Russian style? Denmark and Greenland made it quite clear yesterday they will not just lie down and do nothing.
Whatever helps you sleep at night Jackie boy, they wouldn’t even do that. They dragged their feet on defence spending increases despite a rampaging Russia on their border and have done nothing to prevent their drone incursions, so they wouldn’t impose themselves in front of an American fleet.
But like I said, next to no one in the congress or military support a Greenland action, so your cowardly EU buddies can sleep well and just tolerate trump’s demands until they reach some sort of background deal
French authorities confirmed that about 15 French soldiers are already in Nuuk, with more en route. Sweden has also sent 2 or 3, so there should be a platoon assembled by now, if not later today.
Last one from me, Jacko, and then serious hat back on.
Imagine when Trump, Putin, and Xi get their daily security briefings — they will no doubt be wondering what Europe is doing to ‘step up’ in Greenland, and then they are told that the EPG (European Platoon Greenland) is being set up. They won’t be laughing! All three will finally start taking Europe seriously!
I wonder what happens to the 80k US soldiers stationed in individual garrisons across Europe when 2 million European soldiers demand they lay down their arms.
Wondering that myself ,still our aircraft inventory should go up with the planes we impound at lakenheath and Mildenhall👍
Send the RMP in? Jesus guys! 😝
Haha, Jesus! You two crack me up 😆
Bore off troll.
Tbh I’m more worried about Trump leaving the protesters in Iran to hang out to dry than this Greenland fiasco.
Still if the balloon goes up in Greenland France will get to raise a white flag in yet another country around the world……
At least the French don’t runaway Like brits always do: dunkirk, Iraq, ireland…there is a tend here.
Wow! Good effort, must try harder though👍
The poor Sweetie was upset about my reply earlier today so posted a francophobic comment to feel better; he did not reply to anyone though, probably opening no one would read his comment.
Hoping *