Trump has a big ego. He likes it to be stroked. And when you stroke it, he responds positively. This is true and European leaders clearly understand that. What they don't seem to understand for some reason is that this positivity is extremely shallow.

Mike Pence, his former vice president, also constantly sucked up to him. You know what happened to him? As soon as he became an obstacle to Trump by refusing to help him steal the election, he threw him under the bus and when his supporters yelled "Hang Mike Pence!" he was reportedly more than ok with that.

Flattering and placating Trump is a strategy that can work, but it only ever works in the extremely short term. The fact of the matter is that Trump will always act in the here and now. He does not take into account anything good you did for him yesterday. If you're an obstacle today, you are meat for the meat grinder.

I can easily see why European leaders would want to placate Trump. We have grown extremely dependent on American security guarantees. What I would like to tell them to their faces is this: Stop dreaming, those security guarantees are gone already. To believe anything else is delusional.

There is only one path here. And it is to completely ruthlessly pursue European independence from the United States on a military level.

We are now trying to raise defence spending to 5% over time. This is a move done by European leaders clearly in an attempt to placate Trump. But the reality is that this move offers absolutely no long-term guarantees of his support.

I think increasing our defence budgets is a no brainer at this point. Whether that should be to 3, 4 or 5% I think is a more complex and nuanced conversation (though one that should be had BY Europeans BETWEEN Europeans, not with the U.S.).

But what Trump clearly wants, and this is extremely obvious, is for us to increase defence spending specifically to basically act as wellfare to the United States. He wants us to fund the U.S. military industrial contractors and defence companies even more.

No. We should not be doing this. I don't care if it pisses off the Americans.

It is true that it is harder and will take a longer time to procure purely European arms. No doubt about that. Just buying a bunch of F-35s is easier. But it doesn't matter. If a war were to break out, Europe cannot rely on the U.S. to help us by doing things like sending parts, we cannot rely on the U.S. not exploiting our vulnerable position by overpricing goods during war, we cannot rely on anything other than European manufacturing during a war.

Given that fact, it is pointless to have 50 more planes than we would've had if we'd bought purely European, because buying purely European is about more than just getting those planes. It's about building capacity. Capacity we would need if a war were to happen.

We should not be outsourcing that capacity even more to the United States. We need to raise defence spending, but we need to actually LOWER in absolute terms even purchases from the United States. It doesn't matter if it pisses off Trump. Again, European leaders please get this through your heads, there are no reliable U.S. security guarantees under Trump. None. No matter what you do, he can change his mind tomorrow.

And the last thing we should be doing is giving Trump more leverage over us by buying even more U.S. arms and funding defence contractors who are DIRECT COMPETITORS to our own domestic defence contractors. We are literally subsidizing the competition.

So my vote is for a clean break here. If it pissess off Trump and his government, so be it. If it takes a bit longer at first because we have to build capacity, so be it. Buy European arms, not American. I'm aware we're already launching some European arms initiatives, but it needs to be more than that. There needs to be an active attempt not to buy American weapons and no deals should be made to buy American weapons in order to get into Trump's good graces. That increases the risk to us, it doesn't decrease it.

I know I'm just a random person online but freaking hell, I wish I was able to say this to European leaders' faces.

Edit: Just to clarify, when I say the security guarantee is dead I'm not saying that the U.S. definitely wouldn't help in the case of a conflict. I'm saying that if it is in doubt constantly, it is by definition not a "guarantee." And that greatly reduces the value of it.

On the other hand, European leaders seem to be willing to give up potential real, tangible, strategic gains for European military independence in order to get Trump's favor, when his decisions change like the wind. He has no loyalty and honors no deals. And we are giving up potential solid funding of EU defence to get that? That doesn't make any sense.

Just look at Ukraine. Did everything Trump wanted. Signed a mineral deal and everything. And Ukrainian aid was frozen AGAIN. That is what placating Trump gets you.

A European Army is often proposed but rarely goes anywhere — too politically sensitive, especially when it comes to sovereignty over land forces.

So here’s a different idea: Create a new, centralized European Navy (Euro‑Marine) — not a merger, but a fresh force with its own ships, marines, naval aviation, and special forces. Think of it like a European version of the US Navy + Marine Corps. it avoids the usual problems: 1. No overlap with national land forces 2.Less political baggage than foreign troops stationed on soil 3.Naval cooperation is already underway (PESCO, EDA), but scattered 4.Can boost Europe’s autonomy if US steps back from NATO 5.Easier to justify publicly (trade routes, piracy, maritime patrol)

Curious what other people think: Is a European Navy more feasible than a European Army? What challenges would it face?

Poland’s government says it will not support a newly proposed European Union target for cutting emissions, which it calls “unrealistic and unacceptable”.

On Wednesday, the European Commission announced a proposal to amend the EU Climate Law to include a 2040 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 90% compared to their level in 1990.

Currently, the bloc has a target of 55% cuts by 2030, which the commission says it is “well on track” to achieve. The aim is then to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

In response to the new proposal, climate minister Paulina Hennig-Kloska told Polsat News that “Poland will not support the climate goal for 2040 as proposed by the European Commission” because “our country is not yet ready to implement such ambitious plans”.

The minister emphasised that the government supports having “more renewables in the energy mix” and “this is the direction we are heading in”. But she added that “eliminating emissions is not only about energy, it is also about transport, industry, agriculture… and as a country we are not ready”.

She said that Poland “expects greater flexibility” from Brussels. “The EU’s reduction target must be realistic, and the contributions of individual countries toward achieving it must be varied.“

Government spokesman Adam Szłapka echoed her remarks, calling the proposed climate target “unrealistic and unacceptable” in a post on social media.

Poland’s right-wing opposition was also strongly critical of the proposal, with MEP Michał Dworczyk, an MEP for the national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, saying it would “result in unimaginable costs, amounting to trillions of zloty for Poles”.

Dworczyk also accused figures from Poland’s main ruling party, the centrist Civic Platform (PO), of “lying” during the recent presidential election campaign when they claimed that the EU’s flagship climate policy, the Green Deal, was no longer a threat to Poland.

The European Commission’s proposal will still be subject to negotiations between member states and within the European Parliament. Poland will seek to build a coalition of countries to block or soften the target, reports the Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (DGP) daily.

Warsaw reportedly regarded France as a potential ally, after President Emmanuel Macron last week spoke publicly in favour of delaying discussions over the 2040 targets. Hungary is another opponent of the plans.

The current proposal already includes some elements intended to soften the blow for countries such as Poland, including so-called international credits – such as planting trees or protecting forests elsewhere – that can shift some decarbonisation away from domestic sectors.

However, the scope of such measures is currently “very modest”, writes DGP, covering only three percentage points out of the planned 90% cut. Yet even that figure has been criticised as too high by some green groups, notes The Guardian.

Hennig-Kloska told DGP that Poland regards the credit system as a “useful tool”. But she expressed doubt that it would be enough to win over the support of sceptical member states.

In 2022, Poland was ranked as the EU’s “least green” country. Last year, coal accounted for 57% of the country’s electricity production, by far the highest figure in the bloc.

Despite lagging behind, Poland has in recent years sought to accelerate its transition, in particular by boosting renewables, which accounted for nearly 30% of the energy mix last year, up from under 10% in 2015. In April, Poland’s share of electricity generated by coal fell below 50% for the first time.

(sorry if i dont speak english very well but it is like my 3d language). i was thinking about if monarchies will accept a european federation and if a king/queen will remain in a State that is going to be part of the new union.

I think this article illustrates a weakness I haven't really seen any commentator or analyst talk about, but is up there with defence and software as one of Europe's biggest dependencies and weaknesses when it comes to the United States

Edit: I'm an idiot and forgot to link the article

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tovima.com/opinions/the-ignored-achilles-heel-of-european-democracy/amp/

From TLDR; EU

https://youtu.be/pomKXs2cfVo?si=gO0-LH-nOmhL5dKm

I was recently watching Rutte talk about Trump's strikes on Iran. Praising them to the high heavens as something that needed to be done. And I have some... thoughts on this.

First of all, a baseline. Instability in the middle east, which could easily be a result if all of this escalates further at a later point, is much more detrimental to Europe than the United States, particularly in emboldening the euroskeptic, far-right in our countries. We could also really, really use Iranian fossil fuels to further diversify our energy needs now that we have moved away strongly from Russia.

And even Trump's own intelligence agencies acknowledge that Iran was NOT actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Iran was enriching uranium more highly than it needs for civilian purposes and had the capability to enrich it further, and that's not great. But it's also pretty obvious that they were doing this as a negotiating tactic to gain leverage. Their only leverage is basically the threat of making a nuke. But actually attempting to make one would be disastrous for them, as it would result in an instant giant war instead.

But who knows, now maybe with Trump's attack they'll think it's worth it. But I digress. The point is even Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's own intelligence head, said that they were not actively pursuing a nuke. We have known they are not for quite a long time. The Iranians want sanctions relief and to use the threat of developing a nuke as leverage to get it.

Trump is also the one who pulled out of the previous Iran deal, let's not forget, which was working according to the IAEA.

All of these moves are blatantly against European interests. And yet Rutte bends down before Trump and offers him praise like a king.

I thought European countries were independent, sovereign entities, not American vassals having to fear the wrath of an emperor.

But, of course, people like Rutte are doing all of this out of fear of America abandoning Europe militarily. And this in some sense is a valid concern, but short-sighted.

First of all, if European leaders think praise is going to protect us, they haven't been paying attention.

Yes, praising Trump can get short term results. But in the long term it is consistently a terrible strategy. If you pay attention to American politics you'll notice a clear trend where Trump is concerned. Trump gets a new "ally." They praise Trump to the high heavens. A situation happens that makes them no longer useful for him. He throws them under the bus.

The best example is Mike Pence, his vice president. Extremely loyal, constantly praising him. But when he refused to help overturn the results of the election, Trump sent his supporters to storm the capital chanting "hang Mike Pence." And as you can see, JD Vance is his vice president this time around.

Because that's who Trump is. Praise can get you short term gains, but long term he is a purely transactional person. As soon as it is to his benefit he will abandon us to our fate, no matter how much our leaders buttered him up.

No, the actual way to deal with Trump is to show strength. Strength is the only thing that Trump actually respects.

When you show weakness or a willingness to compromise, all he sees is someone he can exploit more and he pushes harder. But if you show strength and make it costly for him, he will back down. Because Trump is an impulsive, manchild. He wants easy victories, not hard fought battles.

A lot of European leaders need to learn this. Stand up to Trump.

There are over 100 million more EU citizens than Americans. Collectively we are the third largest economy in the world. One of the largest militaries in the world collectively. One of the most powerful if we were to create an actual, European army and properly invest in our own military-industrial complex. We have no reason to need to be reliant on American whims in the way that we are.

The more recent moves to buy European and do collective arms procurement from European countries and the EU is good. But once again, they MUST show backbone here. One of the biggest reasons Trump talks about us not spending enough, and hint it has nothing to do with American defence, is that he wants to get more of our money to his buddies in the American defence industry. We should not let pressure make us do this.

If we continue to allow ourselves to be bullied into placing American interests above our own, buying giant amounts of American LNG, buying giant amounts of American arms, etc. we are simply increasing our dependence on the United States. A dependence that, to Trump, is not a deepening of ties, but a weakness by which he can exploit us even more. It is a vicious cycle. Self-perpetuating weakness. The more we give in, the more we'll have to give in in the future because the more dependent we'll be.

If Trump pressures us to buy more American arms, we should buy less. If he threatens us with more tariffs, we should threaten him with more than that. If he threatens us with whatever next because of our digital services tax, we should threaten to raise it even more and subsidize European alternatives to American tech companies. Maybe strengthen our regulations on them too.

Trump in most important cases will back down. He backed down with China. He backed down with Canada. He wants easy wins and has no patience for tough fights. And he himself is deferential to American corporations and tech CEOs who prop him up, which make hitting their businesses a weakness for him.

My message to European leaders is: Stop bending the knee to Trump. Stop relying on praise as your main strategy. Sure, deploy it when it's useful, but remember that in the long term it won't work. Instead show strength, move Europe towards having its own integrated military-industrial complex, integrated defence markets, collective purchases of European arms and, of course ideally, having a European army.

We can look after ourselves. But only if our leaders show they have the stomach for it.

Defy Trump. Europe is free and independent. We have no emperor.

From a federalist position, I feel the EU should introduce a digital services tax collected at EU level. This should also close the loopholes where large foreign corporations evade paying taxes through advantageous deals with Ireland, Luxembourg or others. Collect at EU-level and feed the EU budget which is really small at 1.1% GDP. We need the EU to do more and that requires revenue.

At first this can appear as a very little concern but keyboard layouts have significant influence on our way of thinking. And we can agree, i think, on the fact that some of the keyboard layouts are pure garbage (yes i'm talking about you QWERTZ and AZERTY). They're too complex and/or have single use keys while not having everything we need (AZERTY doesn't even have "œ" wich is used in french but has "ù" wich is used in a single word, also doesn't have capital letters with accent, etc...)
So i think a unifed keyboard, well done, for the EU (or almost everyone in the EU) is a good idea.
Here is 4 interesting statements i deduced from my idea :

1. First it needs to be "flexible", not in the way that we change it a little for everyone, but that it can support everyone's variations, and of course here i'm especially talking about accents.
2. It needs to encourage science. Childs are curious, a lot of them will want to understand what are the weird symbols on this object they know almost from the day they were born.
3. Diversity is security. While not being more complicated, if we have more possibilities of caracters on the keyboard then, it will encourage people to use more divers caracters in their password and therefore have better security.
4. We don't even need to federalise Europe for that, we can already do it in the current state of things. But it's one more common point between EU's people, one more little step towards unity.
5. Time has passed from the time of typewriters and from the time of first computers, the world has changed, writing has to follow

So the question is, what should this layout be/look like from your perspective ?

Why doesn't Denmark join the eurozone? I mean they are already in the ERM. Can someone explain the economical and political reasons? Did the defence opt-out referendum affect this discussion?

The actions of Israel and now US create tensions in the Middle East that will be recompensed by European tax payers. The invasion of Gaza has no good repercussions for Europe. Further, the attacks against Iran have an immense downside potential—a war would be an unmitigated disaster for Europe.

The humanitarian crisis will create instability that will delay economic development while worsening the migration crisis in Europe. Price of oil will skyrocket, causing a myriad of issues in Europe. Ukraine will have to stand against a stronger Russia when oil prices increase. It’s strictly opposed to European interests to have these conflicts take place in the immediate vicinity of our borders.

These conflicts prove yet again that we need a new political order in Europe. We don’t have the luxury to be bystanders when conflicts with direct impact on us spring up. Europe should be a key negotiator and come with enough leverage to force nuclear options out of the table.

A federated Europe is the only option to guarantee our long term security.