By John Q. Hosedrinker 
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned of an unprecedented threat to European freedom, emphasizing the need for increased defense spending. He announced plans to double France’s military budget by 2027, highlighting a rising geopolitical instability and the return of nuclear power. Macron’s address, delivered to the armed forces in Paris, referenced Russia’s actions in Ukraine and called for France to become a more powerful force to be feared. The proposals, which would bring the budget to €64 billion, are still subject to government approval.
Read the original article here
Europe’s freedom faces the greatest threat since World War II, according to some, and this is a statement that clearly carries significant weight. It’s a stark assessment, implying a level of danger not seen in generations. This isn’t something to be taken lightly. Prior to 2022, there’s a sense that the severity of the risks wasn’t fully appreciated; Europe was perhaps asleep at the wheel. Now, however, with the situation in Ukraine and the broader geopolitical landscape, the dangers have become undeniable. The good news, if you can call it that, is that awareness is higher now, and there’s a prevailing belief that these threats can be overcome, even if the path to doing so won’t be easy.
The comparison to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, which lasted until the 1990s, raises a critical point. Was that not a greater threat? It’s a fair question to consider, especially when looking at the decades of Cold War tension and proxy conflicts. And some are already looking forward, wondering if we’re already in the early stages of World War III. This is a frightening thought. Then there are those who see ulterior motives, suggesting that governments might be using this heightened sense of threat to justify increased military spending, potentially lining the pockets of defense contractors. This sentiment is understandable, especially when faced with economic challenges and societal issues. The idea that the current crises are merely a smokescreen for other agendas is a common concern.
The statement, “To be free in this world, you must be feared. To be feared, you must be powerful,” suggests a certain view on how to deal with the current threats. It’s a perspective that emphasizes strength and power. Macron, seemingly applying this to Europe, further highlights the need for a robust defense posture. But the real question here is, how can Russia be the “greatest threat” when it’s simultaneously struggling in Ukraine? This raises questions about the true nature of the threat and whether it’s being accurately assessed.
A wave of skepticism has followed, focusing on the hypocrisy of some European leaders and nations. It has been pointed out that Europe is still buying Russian oil, despite the strong rhetoric, and that the French, German, and Italian populations may not even fully comprehend the gravity of the situation. The accusations of inaction and prioritizing economic interests over principles also contribute to the overall sense of distrust.
The concerns surrounding the rise in global tensions also point to a larger issue, which is how quickly things can escalate. History has shown that we’ve seen it before. The USA has been advising European nations for decades to maintain their defenses, but these calls for action went unheeded, leading to a situation where many countries are now unprepared. This leaves them vulnerable.
There’s also a school of thought that suggests powerful figures may be seeking to use war to reset the course of the world order, hitting the pause button. This leads to the question: who would even fight for Europe if it’s “overrun by foreigners who care nothing for the place?” The concern is that this is a complex issue with many different layers. The issue extends to the EU’s trade deficit with the United States. The call is to purchase more gas and weapons from the US to reduce tariffs.
There’s a recognition that alliances have shifted, particularly since Trump took office, making the situation more unpredictable. The question of whether the US can be fully relied upon for support is a critical one for the future. The suggestion is that in the face of such a vast threat from China, Russia isn’t even the main problem. The USSR is a thing of the past. Putin’s age and potential health issues also raise questions about the future.
The emphasis shifts towards the idea that if China were to attack Taiwan, it would change everything. This could lead to a global conflict. It’s a valid point. The current strategy is to try to weaken Russia without going to war. Instead, the US will make a proxy war. However, in the end, those with nukes will be the ones who ultimately get their way.
Finally, it’s worth considering the motivations of all the major players. Russia is actively fostering internal strife across the West through propaganda. Those that border Russia know the threat is imminent as long as Russia exists. The US should focus on the Asia-Pacific region. Europe needs to increase defense spending. China is primarily interested in Asia and, like the USA, would like to avoid war for economic reasons.