EU Defence Strategy

[ORAC]

Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/03/weu03.xml): EU defence strategy snatches stability from the jaws of victory

Defence ministers from Britain and other European Union nations will today be asked to endorse a bleak vision of future European military capabilities. According to the new European Defence Agency, traditional ideas of "victory" will have to be jettisoned in favour of limited, multi-national campaigns to restore "stability" to conflict zones, with the grudging consent of an ageing, ever more casualty-averse European population.

The vision of Europe in 20 years' time was drawn up at the invitation of defence ministers by the EU body, which exists to push for more common spending and research by EU defence ministries and industries. The paper, An Initial Long-Term Vision for European Defence Capability and Capacity Needs, paints a Europe in which plunging fertility rates leave the military struggling to recruit young men and women of fighting age, at a time when national budgets will be under unprecedented strain to pay for greying populations. At the same time, increasingly cautious voters and politicians may be unwilling to contemplate casualties, or "potentially controversial interventions abroad – in particular interventions in regions from where large numbers of immigrants have come."

Voters will also be insistent on having backing from the United Nations for operations, and on crafting large coalitions of EU member states with a heavy involvement of civilian agencies, and not just fighting units, the paper states. They will also want military operations to be environmentally friendly, where possible. The European approach can be "nested within Nato conceptual frameworks and standards", the paper says.

The tone could not be more different from the Bush administration's talk of fighting for victory in a global war on terror. The paper predicts future European defence and security operations "will be expeditionary, multinational and multi-dimensional, directed at achieving security and stability more than 'victory'."

[Maple 01]

By 'eck, that's a lot of words to say EU returns to policy of appeasement – well, it worked so well at Munich didn’t it?

[dakkg651]

Well at least Munich gave us an extra year of frantic preparation. Without that time I doubt if we could have resisted. Now that we are in a far worse state militarily than the thirties, and involved in two armed conflicts to boot.
Lets hope that the Isle of Man doesn't decide to invade. We'd be hard pushed to stop them!

[Top Right]

If someone wants a debate here, let's throw in a few thoughts.

Maybe the EU regards "victory" as a term that related to former conflicts that were based on inter-state wars - not many of these around these days, thankfully.

Maybe the EU sees "security and stability" as the only sensible way for multinational/multiethnic people to live together in certain regions where history and tribalism doesn't sit well with border lines that have often been drawn up by Western countries.

Globalisation is a fact, not something we can sit and ignore from our island state - much as it gives us better natural border protection than others enjoy.

Certainly, the level of EU ambition does not stretch to ops such as Afg - yet. And indeed some nations appear reticent to consider body bags, but they're having to become ever more used to the idea in the interests of creating stability and security in certain areas - NL's contribution is just such an example. And it's certainly not about victory in the historical sense of one side beating another to reign supreme.

General Rupert Smith's "The Utility of Force - The Art of War in the Modern World" is an enlightening read, and offers the suggestion that conflicts now (and in fact since Korea) are between peoples - not states.

Can ethnicity and beliefs be subjugated by victorious armies? Maybe the EU thinks they can't.

As for someone stopping to take time to think about globalisation, demography and future recruitment issues - well that is a serious 20-year issue, unlike so many "visions" that assume just more of the same, but different somehow.

And maybe, just maybe, the journalist chose to pick out some provocative bits from the report .....

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The UK's exports are only around 58% to the EU and our imports only around 53%. We also have that unique and valuable institution called the Commonwealth. Clearly we have significant interest in World security beyond the EU borders. On that basis, it does not seem overly wise to align and integrate ourselves with EU defence policy and capability. What may be good for the EU's (I'm sure I voted for staying in the European Common Market) interests may not be in the UK's interests.

The entire concept seems to follow the economists' dream of a World without war and the saving of assets "wasted" in its conduct. Regrettably, it's not the blood of economists that is shed if the dream fails to become a reality.

Of course alliances are important and are a force multiplier. The contribution of the alliance members, though, must be balanced. It would be folly for a country in the UK's position to be dependent on another nation for a key force element. The point about support of an ageing population from a reducing birth rate is well made but I don't think the European model is the solution: exploiting and expanding our technicalogical advantage probably is.

[Wader2]

The UK's exports are only around 58% to the EU and our imports only around 53%.

On Sunday, Christopher Broker challenged those figures. Allowing to invisibles exports to EU are near 40% and in goods alone just above 50%.

Maybe the EU sees "security and stability" as the only sensible way for multinational/multiethnic people to live together in certain regions where history and tribalism doesn't sit well with border lines that have often been drawn up by Western countries.

Is it not curious though that these multiethnic peoples fight to expand their Western imposes borders? There is never any "oh what a mistake they made not defining Kurdistan. Yes, they can have their historic borders and have their soverignty recognised on the international stage." Or, of course it was an aberation that Iberia was divided into just 3 countries. Of course Calalonia should be recognised as a nation state.

And what about independence for Sheffield?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Wader 2

Using Christopher Broker's figures, immersing ourselves in European defence would make even less sense.

[Wader2]

Wader 2

Using Christopher Broker's figures, immersing ourselves in European defence would make even less sense.

Steady up old chap. You'll have WEBF and Navaleye suggesting more SHAR and an extra CVF.

[BellEndBob]

It'll all change when the Mad Mullahs let off their bucket of sunshine, disguised as a hotdog cart, outside the Superbowl.

Sadly, we seem to prefer reacting to atrocities than preventing them.

Still, as part of a tree hugging EU defence force, at least we can come to work in skirts and wear hair-nets all day.:ok:

[Roadster280]

It'll all change when the Mad Mullahs let off their bucket of sunshine, disguised as a hotdog cart, outside the Superbowl.

Sadly, we seem to prefer reacting to atrocities than preventing them.



But if we prevent the hot-dog atrocity by current policies, it seems to create rather a lot of potential bogus hot-dog sellers, that ordinarily would be just another raghead with no political motivation. If we can't leave them to it, then all we can do is wipe them out, as they would seem to want to do to us. Meddling with them is not going to solve things. I'd prefer we left each other alone. A certain Austrian chap tried the "wiping out" approach, and didn't quite manage it. IIRC, he shot himself, and his entourage either a) did likewise, b) were hung at Nuremburg or c) ended up in South America. Lest we forget.

[West Coast]

"Well at least Munich gave us an extra year of frantic preparation. Without that time I doubt if we could have resisted"

At whose expense?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Is that a cue for another "Uncle Sam saved our a**e" presentations?

[BellEndBob]

Roadster.

I was not advocating a pre-emptive strike on Islam. Sorry if that was the impression. I agree that the shock and awe approach is proving 'troublesome' but we could start by standing up for our own cultures. It seems OK for Muslims to parade their hate in London and other cities but if we complain we are racists and inciting hatred. :rolleyes:

We should enforce our borders, welcome those who wish to live by our rules and customs and if not, allow them one of the main rights of a free society...TO LEAVE.

As to those who do us harm abroad. Target them and only them. Laying waste to Southern Lebanon and large swathes of Baghad is not big and is not clever.

Sadly, the Armed Forces of the UK are in terminal decline. We are not funded, resourced or supported. The leadership is weak, products of a bargain basement indoctrination in Business Practices and self interest. Our media has done its best to trash our reputation and the electorate has been conditioned to worship celebrity, not nationhood. The end result is that we will form a small part of a very grey, very ineffective European beauracracy staffed and run by Civil Servants, and directed by the whims of lightweight politicians.

That is why I say it will probably take an event of epic proportions, on home ground, to shake us out of our lethargy.

[tornadoken]

We are "dependent on others for key force elements". Most wars do have "bleak" outcomes, whimpering not climaxing - ask 2million Mothers of 1986 Iran/Iraq, or any of Africa's tribal conflicts.

UK has not fought solo in modern times - Corporate had much US kit+Intel. US has done so twice, ever - v.GB, 1812, Spain, 1896. Vietnam had Oz, RoK, Phils. and the invaded Ally. Since 1991 we have been trying to hold Defence spend at the level of our business competitors - 2% of our wealth, not Cold War 7%, because history tells us that Nazis and Sovs. lost by spending to death. So Ministers ration, juggle and role-share with mates. In Helmand those are Canucks, Dutch and the invaded Ally; in Iraq more. An EU team would bring in Ireland, Sweden - even Switzerland can show interest; Austria, Finland can participate, but, by Treaty, can't join NATO (until/unless Russia does). It's not a contest, UK+US, v.UK+EU, or EU-UK: we're all repelling Threats, ever-changing and outpacing the procurement cycle.

Ministers would welcome chopping big-ticket procurement, to kit our Forces only for lo-intensity: Vote Green, that's what you might get. They would be glad not to attend BN corteges: Vote Respect, that's what you will get. G8 are dealing with N.Korea by talking, and trying to deal with Iran likewise. Wish them well. It worked with Libya. But share the big stick.

[Wader2]

Mind you, closer integration might improve the willingness of the RAF to serve on the CVF if it was co-based with the French CVF in Toulon.

Why think of the saving in using shared infrastructure. It would increase UK financial integration in Europe and give eveyone a chance of 'a place in the Sun.':}

[Sunk at Narvik]

Nah- just take over Djibouti in a piece of classic C18th imperialism. Much closer to the potential C21st action:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

Nah- just take over Djibouti in a piece of classic C18th imperialism. Much closer to the potential C21st action:hmm:

Pedant mode on "C19th"

The Djibouti coasts were attended as of the II E thousand-year-old by the Arab tradesmen attracted by the geographical site of the country. With the crossroads of Africa, of the Middle East and Indian Ocean, Djibouti became an important counter of exchanges between the Arabs and Africa during the Middle Ages, that it is for the traffic of slaves or the aromatic trade. The British were the first Europeans to have had an expansionist policy in the area of the Red Sea. They settled in Aden (Yemen of the South), taken on January 16, 1839.

3.1 The French presence

It is also the geographical situation of Djibouti which aroused the interest of the French tradesmen. Since 1839, French explorers traversed the area. Anticipating the opening of Suez Canal (which took place on November 17, 1867) and, wishing to counterbalance the English presence in Aden in the Yemen of the South, France establishes in 1862, treaty with the sultans afars (represented by Dini Ahmed Abou Baker), a colony with Obock. Actually, it was about a commercial concession granted by the sultan to France for some 50.000 frank of the time. The first concession in what was destined for this moment the territory of Obock was actually yielded in 1872 to Denis de Rivoyre. Thereafter, Pierre Arnoux in 1880 came, then both founded in 1881 the free-Ethiopian Company; the same year, Soleillet and Chefneux created the French Company, but it went bankrupt in 1886, whereas Brémond founded French Foreign posts. The stake for France was then to compete with the British and the Italians and to have access to Ethiopia.

Pedant Mode Off :)

[LFFC]

The Mail 7 Oct 06 - NATO troops party while British die on the front line (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409179&in_page_id=1770)

It looks like NATO is already a "2-level" partnership. I hope that this isn't an indication of how an EU Defence Force would operate.


Most Nato troops in Kabul are not sent to the front line because their governments have refused to put their lives at risk. They protect the airport and the capital instead.

British soldiers from 3 Para Battle Group, who have seen 41 comrades die in Afghanistan since the spring, say the airport is a 'haven' for parties for Italian, Hungarian, French, German and Belgian troops.