European Union Army

Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by pmaitra, Mar 14, 2015.

  1. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.

     
  2.  
  3. Prometheus

    Prometheus Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    342
    Location:
    Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India


    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.]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  4. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Re: Civil war in Ukraine

    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.]
     
    Kay, Razor and Prometheus like this.
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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]

     
    sgarg likes this.
  6. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,114
    Location:
    India
    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!
     
    pmaitra likes this.
  7. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,114
    Location:
    India
  8. jouni

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
  9. Broccoli

    Broccoli Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    Finland
    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.
     
  10. jouni

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
    Yeah, lets see if those talks with Sweden lead to something tangible.
     
  11. Broccoli

    Broccoli Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    Finland
    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.
     
  12. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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]

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

    [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..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Samar Rathi, Razor and Cadian like this.
  13. sgarg

    sgarg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    961
    good to see another finnish member here.
     
  14. DingDong

    DingDong Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    3,663
    Location:
    Delhi
    What are the chances that @jouni is actually talking to himself/herself?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  15. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Europe, especially East Europeans, have a morbid fear of the Germans.
     
  16. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,390
    Likes Received:
    2,230
    Location:
    Odessa

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

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
    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.
     
  18. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,390
    Likes Received:
    2,230
    Location:
    Odessa

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

    Broccoli Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    Finland
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  20. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2015
  21. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,390
    Likes Received:
    2,230
    Location:
    Odessa
    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.
     

Share This Page