European Union Army

[pmaitra]

Making NATO Defunct: Is EU Army Intended to Reduce US Influence in Europe?

It's being sold as a counter to Russia, but a key characteristic of an EU army would be that it would not include the US? Is that the whole point?

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (RT) [SOURCE]

This article originally appeared at RT.

Would a mega EU army need Yankees in Europe?

An EU military force is being justified as protection from Russia, but it may also be a way of reducing US influence as the EU and Germany come to loggerheads with the US and NATO over Ukraine.

While speaking to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced the time has come for the creation of a unified EU military force. Juncker used rhetoric about "defending the values of the European Union" and nuanced anti-Russian polemics to promote the creation of European army, which would convey a message to Moscow.

The polemics and arguments for an EU Army may be based around Russia, but the idea is really directed against the US. The underlying story here is the tensions that are developing between the US, on one side, and the EU and Germany, on the other side. This is why Germany reacted enthusiastically to the proposal, putting its support behind a joint EU armed force.

Previously, the EU military force was seriously mulled over was during the buildup to the illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg met to discuss it as an alternative to US-dominated NATO. The idea has been resurrected again under similar circumstances. In 2003, the friction was over the US-led invasion of Iraq. In 2015, it is because of the mounting friction between Germany and the US over the crisis in Ukraine.

Re-think in Berlin and Paris?

To understand the events behind the call for a common EU military, we have to look at the events stretching from November 2014 until March 2015. They started when Germany and France began showing signs that they were having second thoughts about the warpath that the US and NATO were taking them down in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

Franco-German differences with the US began to emerge after Tony Blinken, US President Barak Obama's former Deputy National Security Advisor and current Deputy Secretary of State and the number two diplomat at the US Department of State, announced that the Pentagon was going to send arms into Ukraine at a hearing of the US Congress about his nomination, that was held on November 19, 2014. As the Fiscal Times put it, "Washington treated Russia and the Europeans to a one-two punch when it revealed its thinking about arming Ukraine."

The Russian Foreign Ministry responded to Blinken by announcing that if the Pentagon poured weapons into Ukraine, Washington would not only seriously escalate the conflict, but it would be a serious signal from the US that will change the dynamics of the conflict inside Ukraine.

Realizing that things could escalate out of control, the French and German response was to initiate a peace offence through diplomatic talks that would eventually lead to a new ceasefire agreement in Minsk, Belarus under the "Normandy Format" consisting of the representatives of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine.

Pessimists may argue that France and Germany opted for diplomacy in February 2015, because the rebels in East Ukraine or Novorossiya, as they call it, were beating Kiev's forces. In other words, the primary motivation of diplomacy was to save the government in Kiev from collapsing without a fair settlement in the East. This may be true to an extent, but the Franco-German pair also does not want to see Europe turned into an inferno that reduces everyone in it to ashes.

Trans-Atlantic differences were visible at the Munich Security Conference in February. US Senator Robert Corker, the chair of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, commented during a question-and-answer session with German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel that it was believed in the US Congress that Berlin was preventing Washington from publicly ratcheting up US and NATO military aid to the authorities in Kiev.

Chancellor Merkel was explicit in her response when she told Senator Corker that the simmering crisis in Ukraine could not be resolved by military means and the US approach would go nowhere and make the situation in Ukraine much worse. When Merkel was pressed on militarizing the conflict in Ukraine by the British MP Malcolm Rifkind, the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the British Parliament, she said that sending more arms to Kiev was useless and unrealistic. Merkel told the British MP "to look reality in the eye." The German Chancellor also pointed out that there cannot be security in Europe without Russia.

Germany's public position at the Munich Security Conference flew in the face of US demands to get its European allies to militarize the conflict in Ukraine. While US Secretary of State John Kerry went out of his way at the gathering to reassure the media and the public that there was no rift between Washington and the Franco-German side, it was widely reported that the warmonger Senator John McCain lost his cool while he was in Bavaria. Reportedly, he called the Franco-German peace initiative "Moscow bullshit." He would then criticize Angela Merkel in an interview with the German channel Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which would prompt calls by German MP Peter Tauber, the secretary-general of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), for an apology from Senator McCain.

German resentment of US control of NATO

Back in February, Bloomberg wrote: "For all the alarmist rhetoric about Russian barbarians at the gate, NATO countries are reluctant to put their money where their mouth is. Only the countries closest to Russia's borders are increasing their military spending this year, while other, bigger ones are making cuts. Regardless of what their leaders say about Vladimir Putin, they don't seem to believe he's a real threat to the West."

Washington, however, did not give up. When the Franco-German peace offensive began in February, General Philip Breedlove — who is the supreme commander of NATO's military forces —said in Munich that "I don't think that we should preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option" in Ukraine. General Breedlove is a US Air Force flag officer who takes his orders from the US government, thus subordinating NATO's military structure to US command. While Berlin and Paris were trying to deescalate, Washington was upping the ante using Breedlove and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

After speaking to the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives, General Breedlove would claim that Russian aggression was increasing in Ukraine. Germany, however, would rebut Breedlove's statements calling them "dangerous propaganda."

"German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)," Der Spiegel reported on March 6.

While Berlin has tried to downplay the reports about a rift with NATO over General Breedlove's misleading comments, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier candidly admitted that it was true that the Germans disagreed with the US and NATO while he was in Latvia on March 7. What Steinmeier actually did was diplomatically rebuked and dismissed both the US and NATO statements about the 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine.

In Latvia, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini added her voice to Steinmeier's. She told reporters in Riga that the EU will pursue a realistic approach with Moscow and will not be pushed or pulled by anyone into a confrontational relationship with Russia. This was a tacit message to Washington: the EU realizes that there can be no peace in Europe without Russia and does not want to be positioned as a US pawn against Moscow.

Destabilizing Eurasia

Germany itself is the ultimate prize for the US in the conflict in Ukraine, because Berlin has huge sway in the direction that the EU turns. The US will continue to stoke the flames in Ukraine to destabilize Europe and Eurasia. It will do what it can to prevent the EU and Russia from coming together and forming a "Common Economic Space" from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which is dismissed as some type of alternative universe in the Washington Beltway.

The Fiscal Times put it best about the different announcements by US officials to send arms to Ukraine."Given the choreographed rollout, Washington analysts say, in all likelihood this is a public-opinion exercise intended to assure support for a weapons program that is already well into the planning stages," the news outlet wrote on February 9.

After the Munich Security Conference it was actually revealed that clandestine arms shipments were already being made to Kiev. Russian President Vladimir Putin would let this be publicly known at a joint press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Budapest when he said that weapons were already secretly being sent to the Kiev authorities.

In the same month a report, named Preserving Ukraine's Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do, was released arguing for the need to send arms to Ukraine — ranging from spare parts and missiles to heavy personnel — as a means of ultimately fighting Russia. This report was authored by a triumvirate of leading US think-tanks, the Brookings Institute, the Atlantic Council, and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs — the two former being from the detached ivory tower "think-tankistan" that is the Washington Beltway. This is the same clique that has advocated for the invasions of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

Watch out NATO! United EU military in the horizon?

It is in the context of divisions between the EU and Washington that the calls for an EU military force are being made by both the European Commission and Germany.

The EU and Germans realize there is not much they can do to hamper Washington as long as it has a say in EU and European security. Both Berlin and a cross-section of the EU have been resentful of how Washington is using NATO to advance its interests and to influence the events inside Europe. If not a form of pressure in behind the door negotiations with Washington, the calls for an EU military are designed to reduce Washington's influence in Europe and possibly make NATO defunct.

An EU army that would cancel out NATO would have a heavy strategic cost for the US. In this context, Washington would lose its western perch in Eurasia. It "would automatically spell the end of America's participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard," in the words of former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The intelligentsias in the US are already alarmed at the risks that an EU military would pose to American influence. The American Jewish Committee's influential Commentary Magazine, which is affiliated to the neo-cons in the Washington Beltway, has asked, as the title of the article by Seth Mandel illustrates, "Why Is Germany Undermining NATO?" This is while the Washington Examiner has asked, as the title of the article by Hoskingson says, "Whatever happened to US influence?"

This is why Washington's vassals in the EU — specifically Britain, Poland, and the three Baltic states — have all been very vocal in their opposition to the idea of a common EU military force. While Paris has been reluctant to join the calls for an EU army, French opposition politician Marine Le Pen has announced that the time has come for France to come out of the shadow of the United States.

British Prime Minister David Cameron's government responded to Jean-Claude Juncker by slamming his idea as an outrageous fantasy, declaring that the military is a national responsibility and not an EU responsibility. Poland and Latvia also reacted skeptically towards the proposal. These statements all serve US interests in preserving NATO as a tool for its influence in Europe and Eurasia.

10 Downing Street has contradicted itself about the military being a national issue and not a collective issue. Just as recently as 2010, London signed treaties to essentially create joint naval units with France and to share aircraft carriers in what is an amalgamation of military. Moreover, the British military and military-industrial sectors are all integrated to varying degrees with the US.

There are some very important questions here. Are the calls for an EU military, meant to pressure the US or is there a real attempt to curb Washington's influence inside Europe? And are moves being made by Berlin and its partners to evict Washington from Europe by deactivating NATO through a common EU military?

 

[Prometheus]

@jouni
This is a EU discussion on 11/MAR/2015. that too coming from a British delegate, while Finnish are eager to Finnish themselves!

In my opinion, if the EU wants to be economically independent and sovereign, it must be able to protect its interests, and for that, a military is necessary. If it outsources its security to the US, then it will also surrender its sovereignty to the US.

There is no charity. No country does anything out of benevolence. There is always self interest at play.

Well that explains it! in that case. All this while, I was wondering why would the British ( virtually the USA's 51st state) be opposing a US policy to attack Russia. .... well maybe what the British delegate here was trying to do here was just an eyewash and just preventing the EU from forming its own army ... so that they are forever dependent on the US and so that the EU will ALWAYS be be forced to forward the US foreign policies.

[MOD Edit: Post copied from here and appended/re-ordered.]

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Civil war in Ukraine

Well that explains it! in that case. All this while, I was wondering why would the British ( virtually the USA's 51st state) be opposing a US policy to attack Russia. .... well maybe what the British delegate here was trying to do here was just an eyewash and just preventing the EU from forming its own army ... so that they are independent of the US and so that the EU will ALWAYS be dependent on US and be forced to forward their policies

UK is like an appendage to the EU. It serves the purpose of dragging the EU down every time it tries to get up and learn to stand on its own feet. It is like tying a brick to your leg and then trying to run.

The UK does contribute a lot to the EU GDP, and a lot of trade is handled through London. However, there is a catch. If you look at manufacturing, UK is nowhere close to other western European countries. That is the catch. The UK has a very extensive banking and finance sector. A lot of the revenue generated is just by playing with numbers. Much of the GDP figures that UK contributes are simply pen-pushing and paper-pushing.

Yet another thing that keeps London relevant is Bank of England. It is the bank "of England," but the people of England have very little control over it. In practice, it functions like a private bank. It is a counterpart of the Bank of International Settlements. Basically, they have vaults, where they store gold bars, and these gold bars act as collateral for all the money that is tossed around, and works in very intimate collaboration with the Federal Reserve of the US, and you probably know that the Federal Reserve is also a private bank, and the US Dollar is a currency issued by the Federal Reserve, and hence is a currency that is issued, essentially by a private company.

The US government borrows dollars from this bank. How does it do that? The US Treasury sells bonds (Treasury bonds, or government bonds) to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve in turn "prints" money (much of the printing is done electronically, i.e., the virtual money is created and they live in computer servers) and gives to the Treasury, who then uses that money to pay the bills the government accumulates, while they collect revenue via tax and other proceeds, and returns some dollars back to the Federal Reserve, which does not pay back the loan's principal, but does pay back the loan's interest. This is the tip of the iceberg, and of the conundrum that "debt is money and money is debt" concept, which right now is on the decline.

Similarly, the Bank of England plays a similar role in the UK. Both the banks are backed by financiers, who you will rarely hear about. These banks wield considerable influence over the US and UK governments, due to the fact that these governments of so called "wealthy" countries owe an exorbitant amount of money to these banks and their financiers. Politicians, therefore, would rarely go against these banks in a major way.

Now, you might say, what if the government chooses to take over these banks? That will not happen, because, these banks have most likely hedged against the possibility by trading with Treasury bonds or government bonds, and any attempt at nationalization of these bonds will result in the international financial markets being flooded with Treasury bonds, which will bring down the credibility of the respective government that attempts a nationalization. This, in turn will result in loss of trade, and there will be financial collapse in the country whose government attempts a nationalization.

This is the reason why the US and UK work closely together.

It is unclear whether the UK is the 51st state of the US, or the US is still a financial colony of the UK.

Similarly, the Swiss Banks have remained largely safe throughout the two World Wars. That is also another financial hub that is of interest to financiers. Even if one financier might finance one belligerent and another finance the opposing belligerent, they both can have a common interest in Switzerland, and its safety.


[MOD Edit: Post copied from here and appended/re-ordered.]

 

[pmaitra]

Europe Doesn't Need an Army: It Needs a Better Foreign Policy

The CEPS Task Force Report on "More Union in European Defence" advocates for the creation of a European Army. But is a more militarized Europe the answer?

Gilbert Doctorow [SOURCE]

Could an EU Army replace NATO?

Earlier this year the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), one of the most authoritative think tanks in Brussels, issued a 25 page brochure entitled "More Union in European Defence," making the case for concrete steps to be taken by the European Member States in the direction of forming a European Army.

The timeliness of this tightly argued report cannot be overstated. Within weeks of its appearance, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker issued a call for the creation of just such an Army.

In what follows I will critique this report, which might appear to be an unreasonably ambitious challenge for someone who is not a security professional were it not for two factors. First, the report itself is a model of transparency and integrity. It incorporates counter-arguments to its recommendations which, to a neutral reader, outweigh by far the recommended course of action. Second, there is an inexplicable flaw in the composition of the panel of experts responsible for the report.

To be sure, chair of this CEPS Task Force is Javier Solana, one of Europe's best names in the field. Solana was NATO Secretary General from 1995-1999, followed directly by 10 years of service as the EU High Representative for Common Foreign Policy and Security Policy. Two of his close assistants from the past, Nick Witney and Helmar Linnenkamp, join him on the Task Force. Then there is also a second former NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

With all due respect, the aforementioned were all deeply involved in creating the circumstances that today find Europe in an extremely dangerous confrontation with Russia over Ukraine specifically and, more broadly, over the security architecture governing the Continent. Javier Solana helped formulate and implement NATO expansion to the former Warsaw Bloc countries and former Soviet Republics of the Baltics; he helped formulate and implement the EU's Eastern Partnership policy. Both programs ultimately crossed Russia's red lines.

The Task Force also includes a former President of one Member State, Latvia, a Baltic country that is at the forefront of those that have provoked and fueled the present crisis. The remainder of the panel includes several politicians from centrist parties; and a good number of experts from various European think tanks and universities in various spheres of international affairs including security and defense policy, financial regulation, EU international law. There even appears to be one expert in Middle Eastern studies with a knowledge of Arabic.

What is missing is precisely any expertise on Russia out of the 19 members of the Task Force. This is not merely an anomaly, it is a fatal flaw given that the entire logic for more integrated European armed forces and a better common defense is precisely the Russian challenge that has arisen ever since the onset of the Ukraine crisis and Russian annexation of (or 'reunification with') Crimea one year ago.

I will return to this point later. For now let us move on to the question of internal contradictions in the Report between the exposition of the defense and security problem Europe currently faces, the proposed way forward and the potent obstacles to any moves down the road recommended.

The Report sets out a remarkably frank analysis of the status quo, meaning the failings of common defense today, the wastefulness of the 190 billion euro aggregate spending by European Member States and the lack of coordination in R&D, the lack of timely information sharing about budgeting for national armed forces. It is also very explicit about the forces, economic and political, working against any change. These begin with the ongoing economic travails of Europe which began in 2008 and have led to belt-tightening budgets which resist calls to higher defense spending, namely to reach the hoped-for 2% of GDP. Add to this the problems facing those who would add to Brussels' competences in the face of the wave of Euroskepticism that has swept across European populations thanks to pain from the austerity and the Euro crisis, which violate the EU's founding principle of solidarity. But current financial strains aside, the Report recognizes the sovereignty issues of the Member States that work against their pooling force capabilities. And the sovereignty is not just a matter of stubbornness or jealousy by each state of its assets; it is differing perceptions of security threats and resources required. It is not by chance that France has traditionally looked South at threats and Germany has looked East.

The Report nonetheless bravely formulates what it considers to be realizable objectives to make things better, if not to move directly to the stated objective of a European Defense Union.

That being said, it is up to the reader to decide whether objective obstacles to a common defense outweigh the subjective wishes of the authors of the report, however reasonable and modest they may seem taken in the abstract.

At this point I must invoke the anecdote of the Grand Vizier giving his Sultan the roll call list of reasons why there could be no 21 gun salute that day, finally coming to the single reason trumping all others: that there was no gunpowder available.

The 'no gunpowder' in the present case is the immediate reaction of the UK government to Commission President Juncker's call for an EU Army: Britain absolutely refuses to sign up; Britain has its own defense interests, in Gibraltar, in the Falklands and elsewhere which it will not make subject to the very different interests of European Commissioners. And without British participation, no European Defense Union, no European Army is thinkable.

We must remember that the populists in UKIP are holding David Cameron's feet to the fire on this. No sooner did Jean-Claude Juncker make his address on the European Army than Nigel Farage came out and said "I told you so," meaning that this kind aggrandizement of power by Brussels at the expense of the Member States was precisely why the UK should leave the Union.

Meanwhile, there is another wholly separate line of reasoning that one can apply against the argumentation for a European Defense Union and European Army. This is to peel away the well-defined and agreed upon military threat or potential for threat posed by the Russian armed forces today and look back a bit at the political dimension which brought us to the present state of affairs. For there can be no doubt that had the European Union pursued a more politically astute foreign policy and taken proper cognizance of Russian national interests upon which it impinged by snatching up Ukraine between November 2013 and February 2014 as it did, we would not be in a New Cold War today. There was no talk whatsoever of an aggressive Russian foreign policy, of threats of hybrid warfare, or of the Baltics being overrun prior to 22 February 2014. None.

Similarly, if I may clean out the stables, the other security threat identified in the CEPS Report as justifying a European Defense Union and European Army, the one in North Africa, is the direct result of the EU's wrongheaded foreign policy and military choices during the Arab Spring, and particularly the EU's military intervention in Libya leading to the murder of Colonel Gaddafi and the subsequent state of chaos spreading out to the East and West along the Mediterranean and south through the Sahel into Mali.

There are those who interpret the notion of creating a European Army as a sign of the growing rift between the Old Continent and the United States. In effect, from the very beginning of the confrontation with Russia over Ukraine there have been voices in the United States Congress calling for armed assistance to the Ukrainian side. This was not greeted with any enthusiasm in Europe, which went along with the alternative response to "Russian aggression" by imposing ever more punishing sanctions on Russian leaders and on key economic sectors in Russia. This hidden divergence in policy came into the open in early February 2015, when in view of the pending disastrous defeat of the Ukrainian army at Debaltseve, Washington hawks publicly placed great pressure on President Obama to kick aside restraint and send lethal weapons to Kiev. This real threat and the escalation of violence it would provoke in Eastern Ukraine led to a remarkable demarche by Chancellor Merkel that was denounced by the American hawks and put in the public arena the widening chasm in diplomatic and military policies between Europe and the United States.

In this context, talk of a European Army which would support NATO but have a separate identity not subject to control by Washington may have seemed to be reasonable and timely to its proponents. Regrettably or not, as I say, a European Defense Union or European Army is simply not feasible.

That leaves Europe with the unpalatable choice of submitting to a US diktat on arming Ukraine and facing a hot war on its borders that might suck the EU into an unpredictable, likely unwinnable open war with Russia.

What is to be done, then, about this cul de sac into which European military strategy is headed?

I would suggest that when you cannot move forward, think of backing up. To be specific, threats which have emerged due to poorly conceived and under-informed foreign policy can be put back in their box only by revising that foreign policy in such manner as to remove the sources of conflict. In this case, the solution is recognition of Ukraine as a neutral power that belongs neither to the EU sphere of influence nor is a candidate for NATO membership. It also means revisiting the nationalities policies of Estonia and Latvia, which were known to violate European principles of human rights with respect to their Russian speaking populations when they had been largely stripped of citizenship by the post-Soviet governments. The solution of convenience and back room deals among European officials that led to their blind eye to this festering abuse in 2004 when the new Member States joined the Union must be reversed. That alone is the sustainable solution to alleged fifth columns of Moscow in the Baltics alluded to obliquely in the CEPS report.

These solutions to the perceived Russian threat are possible only when Europe taps into the relevant expertise coming from area studies and does not rely on fatuous notions such as Angela Merkel's supposedly deft hand with Russia because she commands the language. Europe can and must do better.

 

[sorcerer]

Seriously.. I thought it was a joke thread..Since its the clowns we are talking about....clowns like Jens Stoltenberg.

The EU and Whose Army?


Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, has correctly identified a serious problem: Europe's military and diplomatic ineptitude, most prominently on display in its weak and disorganized response to the crisis in Ukraine. Unfortunately, his proposed solution -- an EU military force -- is unworkable, impolitic and unwise.



European military budgets are declining at a time of multiplying threats, and even the most capable of Europe's armed forces -- the U.K.'s, for example -- are being hollowed out.

At the same time, Europe spends 190 billion euros ($200 billion) a year on defense, and collectively boasts 1.5 million troops. That's about the same number as the U.S. has, and more than twice as many as Russia.

Yet there is so much duplication and waste that, in terms of deployable force, the European Union's capabilities remain comparatively meager. Worse, any common military or diplomatic response requires unanimity among 28 countries -- which, as Javier Solana, the EU's former chief diplomat, points out, have different threat perceptions and security interests. Solana is similarly calling for a common EU command, though not an army.

Where Juncker and Solana go wrong is in viewing these fissures as some kind of aberration. They are core facts. The idea of an EU army ever being deployed against Russian President Vladimir Putin is risible, because unanimity among Cypriots, Greeks, Italians and Austrians on the need to fight Russia is unimaginable. That's one reason the EU's Battlegroups -- rapid-reaction battalions that have been operational since 2007 -- have never been deployed.

Worse, to the extent that an EU army would have any meaning, it would divert available troops and equipment from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- an alliance that's much more likely to take action. And however complementary to NATO that EU officials say their parallel institutions would be, competition would be inevitable.

Europe has been talking about creating a common military since 1950 (France killed the idea back then), and for a decade, the European Defense Agency has been tasked with pooling capabilities and coordinating production among Europe's defense industries. It hasn't achieved much. That doesn't bode well for any attempt to form a pan-European force, which would require sacrificing national sovereignty over the decision to put soldiers in harm's way.

A more practical recommendation, made this week by Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, would be for European nations to simply meet their commitments to NATO. The task force Solana recently chaired on the subject also offered good ideas, including creating a single market for Europe's defense industries. But what Europe most needs is the political will to give NATO the military capabilities it requires -- not a new layer of helmeted bureaucrats to staff a permanent command in Brussels, much less its own military.

More generally, Juncker's and Solana's proposals play into exactly the kind of disillusionment so many Europeans are feeling about grand EU projects. In the midst of an economic crisis prolonged and deepened by a common currency, the last thing Europeans need is a fight over a common military.

The EU and Whose Army?


Euro and European Military...both devalued!

 

[sorcerer]

https://vimeo.com/50525122

https://vimeo.com/50525123

 

[jouni]

Finnish politicos divided over proposed joint EU army | Yle Uutiset | yle.fi

I am happy with Finland-Sweden military alliance, that is enough against Russia.

 

[Broccoli]

Finnish politicos divided over proposed joint EU army | Yle Uutiset | yle.fi

I am happy with Finland-Sweden military alliance, that is enough against Russia.

There isn't any formal alliance between Finland Sweden and that's the problem... there is no mini Article 5.


Russians seem to really scared about united Europe but then again it's understandable since really united EU would make Russia much weaker.

 

[jouni]

There isn't any formal alliance between Finland Sweden and that's the problem... there is no mini Article 5.


Russians seem to really scared about united Europe but then again it's understandable since really united EU would make Russia much weaker.

Yeah, lets see if those talks with Sweden lead to something tangible.

 

[Broccoli]

Yeah, lets see if those talks with Sweden lead to something tangible.

To me it seems they just want to use Finland as a buffer zone and sell some of Swedish manufactured hardware in name of this "alliance"... if Swedes are being serious they are going to form bigger land forces but we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[pmaitra]

This article refers to geopolitical goals of the US. I am posting this in this thread so as to see what role a European Union Army can play in either augmenting or attenuating such efforts.
[HR][/HR]
Stratfor Chairman Straight-Talking: US Policy Is Driven by Imperative to Stop Coalition between Germany and Russia

George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor ("shadow CIA"), in a must watch video, openly declares that the primordial interest of the US over the centuries has been to to stop an alliance between Russia and Germany.

Damir Marinovich [SOURCE]

US cordon sanitaire that separates Germany and Russia. Will Ukraine join it?

George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor, or what is called by many "private/shadow CIA" for its well known connections and close cooperation with the CIA, gave a very interesting speech to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs on subject Europe: Destined for Conflict? in February of this year.

This speech came after another interesting interview where he admits that the overthrow of Yanukovych was "the most blatant coup in history" and among other things the American "payback" for Russian involvement in Syria.

In my humble opinion, this is one of the most important speeches in years I've heard, blatantly presenting neo-con perspective that dictates Washington's foreign policy.

I very much respect Friedman for his straight-talk and honesty on how the United States should maintain the role of global hegemon. In his speech he cut out all the nonsense and deceiving buzzwords like "spreading democracy and freedom," "promoting human rights" and also gibberish propaganda talk about "bad Russia," and "Putin, the bloodthirsty invader and dictator." He is the only honest spokesman of the Empire.

He recognizes that Russia has legitimate interest for its sphere of influence. However, he doesn't hide that US is trying to geopolitically defeat and humiliate Russia and limit its sphere of influence.

Even though I fundamentally disagree with him about genuine American national and geopolitical interest in decades to come, his realpolitik gives us unique insight.

Friedman's key points:

1. The primordial interest of the United States for centuries (WWI, WWII and the Cold War) has been to stop a coalition between Germany and Russia.
2. US is the only ally Ukraine (the Kiev regime) has.
3. General Ben Hodges, Chief of US army in Europe, not only officially announced that the US would train Ukrainian troops, but also awarded medals to foreign, in this case, Ukrainian soldiers which is against the US army protocol. He's showing that the Ukrainian Army is "our" army.
4. US is positioning troops, armaments, artillery and other equipment in the Baltic, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
5. The US will deliver weapons to Ukraine.
6. In all of this the US acted in the context outside NATO because any NATO members state can veto any action.
7. US is preparing a "Cordon Sanitaire" around Russia. Russia knows it and believes the US wants to break the Russian Federation.
8. We are back to the "old game" (Cold War).
9. The United States controls all the oceans of the world and because of that we get to invade people and they don't get to invade us. Maintaining control of the sea and space is the foundation of American power.
10. The best US policy is "divide et impera," what Reagan did with Iran and Iraq - fund both sides so they will fight each other and not fight us. It is cynical and not moral, but it works.
11. The US cannot occupy Eurasia. We can support various contending powers so they concentrate on themselves with political, economic, and military support.
12. In extreme cases we can do what we have done in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan - "spoiling attacks." A spoiling attack is not intended to defeat the enemy, it is to throw them off balance like we did with al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
13. The US can not constantly intervene in Eurasia; it must selectively intervene.
14. The US has staged a series of coloured revolutions throughout the Russian periphery. It was the US statement of intent to destroy Russia.
15. The purpose of "the invasion of Georgia" was to show how much an American guarantee is worth and it is message to the Ukrainians: Do you want to be American ally? So did the Georgians... Enjoy...
16. The question for the Russians will be whether they'll be able to retain a buffer zone that is at least neutral in Ukraine or will the West penetrate so far in Ukraine as to be 500 kilometers from Moscow.
17. For Russia the status of the Ukraine is an existential threat.
18. It is not an accident that the US "final solution" is to create an "Intermarium" ("Between-seas") area from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea.
19. Germany is in very peculiar position and they have a very complex relationship with Russians.
20. The Germans themselves don't know what to do and haven't made up their mind.
21. For the US, the primordial fear is German capital and technology and Russian natural resources and manpower. This combination for centuries has scared the United States.
22. Whoever can tell me what the Germans will do will tell me the next 20 years of the history.
23. The main problem of Germany is that it is enormously economically powerful and geopolitically very fragile and doesn't know how to reconcile two.
24. "The German Question" is coming up again. That's the next question we need to address, and we don't know how to address it, we don't know what they're going to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbjhbDF4VI4

[HR][/HR]
Comments on the article:

Tobias Winters Vtran "¢ 4 hours ago

I assume you're referring to Merkel. She's much more intelligent than many people give her credit for. She's the leader of an economic powerhouse and a (German) PhD in physics. Neither of those two things are easy to accomplish by being stupid. She, and by extension Germany, stand in the middle of two superpowers. Her objective to let them wear each other down and not get shot in crossfire while doing it. Until now, siding with the US has been the obvious choice. As Russia strengthens itself, I think that is bound to change. Give her a little time.

Boris Jaruselski "¢ 14 hours ago

While true in it's core, ...several arguments are somewhat far fetched and CHINA is left out COMPLETELY!

That the US always was 'afraid' of the Germans' technological might, I think is best illustrated in the DEPORTATION of German scientist and engineers at the end of WWII, ...by their TENS OF THOUSANDS! And the subsequent 'flowering period' of the 1950's in the US, including their ability to 'position' themselves as the 'global police', is to the LARGEST extent thanks to those deported German specialists.

But the 'union' between Russia and Germany was, is, and will be rather 'problematic', and the 'problem' is chiefly with the Russians, ...for a VERY good reason: HISTORY! Russia isn't likely to accept Germany at 'equal footings', ...EVER, ...only as more or less a 'junior partner', since Russia wields the power of the resources and energy, without which Germany couldn't possible even EXIST, let alone provide any of their technological know-how.

And this is were China comes in, ...as the sort of 'glue': China has the ECONOMIC might which can CRIPPLE Germany, ...without one single 'shot' being fired, ...something Germany is only too keenly aware of, ...and as such China can 'function' as the 'guarantor' for Russia's safety and souvreignty, ...NOT of course, that Russia would really NEED that guarantee at all, but as a internationally recognized means of keeping the Germans from wanting to 're-live' their 'glory days'!

And the US' 'endevour' to create that 'cordon sanitaire' is only STRATEGICALLY relevant, ...but in REALITY, Germany has overtaken the US BY STRIDES, as the economic ties between the countries of the 'cordon sanitaire' and Germany have already developed to such a degree, that should Germany merely 'sneeze', ...ALL of these 'cordon sanitaire' countries are GOING TO CATCH A COLD!

Philip Andrews "¢ 14 hours ago

He's missing half the story. George (I've been a Stratfor member then follower for years) sees things as the US preventing the Nazis and the Soviets coming together. His family (Hungarian Jews) escaped both the Nazis and the Soviets and got to the US. Therefore, his worldview is coloured by this. Except that the SU no longer exists and Germany is always in two minds about Russia, as is Russia about Germany. Stratfor sees China in a confused way. Its always saying how China is declining, slowing down. Yet how much of a threat China poses the US. China mil spending is about ¼ of the US, so extremely threatening"¦ Neocons would be worried if some kid on a donkey in Mongolia said he was Genghis Khan. They'd probably drone kill him or cruise missile him, just to be sure"¦ This is pure USSD/Neocon speak.

The Neocons are terrified of China Russia getting together so have to indulge in China and Putin bashing to an almost pathological degree. However, neocons (and GF is a sort of NC), are confused by Germany. Germany is with the US/NATO up to a point but has more historical ties to Russia. So the US NCs never know which way Germany is turning. As China and Russia come together more successfully and the US NCs become more hysterical esp. re Putin and the Ukr Germany may find her interest more in the Chinese-Russian East than in a psychotically uncertain neocon warmongering West. So, as I said only half the story...

[HR][/HR]

Commentary:

• Apropos point 2, the US has always preferred dictators over democratically elected governments. Dictators are easy to work with. They offer a "single window service," and are adept at repressing their own people, while democracies tend to force their leadership not to sacrifice the interests of the people while dealing with the US. This is a reason why the US prefers to work with Dictator Petro Poroshenko and Deputy Dictator Arsenic "Nuland's Boy" Yatz, over President Viktor Yanukovich.
• Apropos point 3, the fact that the US Army, without a doubt a prestigious institution at least for an American general, is breaking its protocol, indicates a degree of desperation on part of the US.
• Apropos points 7 and 9, the US has not been very successful, because, with the advent of technology (nuclear powered ice-breakers), Russia is able to keep the northern sea routes open, and no longer yearns to access the Indian Ocean as much the Tsars did. This does not, however, take away Russia's imperative to have control over its Black Sea Fleet, which is based in Crimea. People live on land, and not on water. This makes it easier to control the seas than to control nations. Just like the US is the most formidable naval power, Russia is the most formidable land power, and has centuries of experience in controlling a large and varied assortment of ethnicities under one super-nation. A glance at the countries in the "between the seas" region in the map in the article shows that these countries pose the only challenge to Germany and Russia coming together and leveraging an overwhelming geographic advantage they are blessed with. You guessed it right – the geographical advantage is that Asia and Europe are connected across a massive land mass, which from the current political lens, is the countries that fall within the "between the seas" region. Technically, it is the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, and the Caucasian Mountains that divide Asia and Europe, but we are looking at it from the political angle.
• Apropos point 15, I recall a remark by some author, it is true that Russia's intervention in Georgia has served the purpose. Now, the current Georgian government, which is friendlier towards Russia, and is on the lookout for its fugitive US installed Dictator Mikhail Saakashvili for his excesses while he was in power. Moreover, the current dictator of the Kiev Regime, Petro Poroshenko, has acted in a very indecisive manner, trying to keep the Ukro-Nazis at bay on one side, and the NovoRossiyan militia on the other side, knowing fully well, that the US can, if it so wishes, increase its support for the Ukro-Nazis, and Russia can, if it so wishes, increase the support for the NovoRossiyan militia. It appears this is inevitable.
• Now, in this scenario, the situation in Ukraine will deteriorate, and this poses a threat to the European Union. Several members of the European Union, who are also NATO members, have grown resentful towards both these organizations. At this point, what purpose with the European Union Army serve? Will it be used to suppress the people of the European Union, or will it serve the purpose of making NATO defunct, and eventually snatching Europe from the vassalhood of the US to the vassalhood of Germany?

[HR][/HR] @Ray Sir, @Razor, @sgarg, @AVERAGE INDIAN, @Cadian, @Akim, @sorcerer, et al..

 

[sgarg]

There isn't any formal alliance between Finland Sweden and that's the problem... there is no mini Article 5.


Russians seem to really scared about united Europe but then again it's understandable since really united EU would make Russia much weaker.

good to see another finnish member here.

 

[DingDong]

good to see another finnish member here.

What are the chances that @jouni is actually talking to himself/herself?

 

[Ray]

Europe, especially East Europeans, have a morbid fear of the Germans.

 

[Akim]

Europe, especially East Europeans, have a morbid fear of the Germans.

He justified. 2 times in the 20th century, the Germans invaded on Slavic territory.

 

[jouni]

Germany is the heart of EU, without Germany there would be no EU. If in the future Ukraine and Belarus join EU, it would get over 50 million new consumer giving new lifeblood to EU and also make it almost double the size of US population wise. For this to happen, you need a strong army with German army as its base both tactically and technically. Get those Leo 3 blueprints out and start manufacturing.

 

[Akim]

Germany is the heart of EU, without Germany there would be no EU. If in the future Ukraine and Belarus join EU, it would get over 50 million new consumer giving new lifeblood to EU and also make it almost double the size of US population wise. For this to happen, you need a strong army with German army as its base both tactically and technically. Get those Leo 3 blueprints out and start manufacturing.

The idea of a union European army is still the Roman Empire, but it never materializes.

 

[Broccoli]

What are the chances that @jouni is actually talking to himself/herself?

I guess there is a change that I could be an android build by Jouni and only think I live my own life while. Like those Nexus 6 androids from Blade Runner.

But i'm quite sure that my memories are real and not implanted by someone else.

 

[Ray]

He justified. 2 times in the 20th century, the Germans invaded on Slavic territory.

You bet it.

Europe is afraid of the Germans.

And Germans only understand no Ideology but Deutschland Uber Alles,

That is why an East German called Merkel can be their popular Chancellor and damn ideology.

Europe quakes at the very thought of Germany and its strident jingoism.

They are the born and genetically endowed leaders of Europe.

Slavs and others, in comparisons, are merely lazy Johnny Come Latelies.

 

[Akim]

You bet it.

Europe is afraid of the Germans.

And Germans only understand no Ideology but Deutschland Uber Alles,

That is why an East German called Merkel can be their popular Chancellor and damn ideology.

Europe quakes at the very thought of Germany and its strident jingoism.

They are the born and genetically endowed leaders of Europe.

Slavs and others, in comparisons, are merely lazy Johnny Come Latelies.

All this time frame. In the 19th century Europe was afraid of France, in the 18th century Sweden and Russia. Where you receive an aggressive leader this country is dangerous.