European Army
From the Belarus hijack thread….
FR4978 ATH-VNO diverted, escorted to Minsk, alleged bomb threat – but was it?
FR4978 ATH-VNO diverted, escorted to Minsk, alleged bomb threat – but was it?
Are we seeing the same here?
Like Hitler, Putin is a chancer, as are all invaders essentially. They may well lose the gamble, but so does everybody else in the end.
By definition Pistons statement is unproveable - if there was no aggression was that because the potential target had the correct military forces or was it due to pressures within the aggressor or pressure from outside or maybe they never had any plans to invade in the first place- we'll never know.
Pistons's premise depends on a major conflict occurring. He is entitled to use that as a start point of a logical sequence. Where he goes wrong is the continuation of that train of thought..
As for Putin at the moment, yes, the "distraction from domestic problems" might be needed [dreadful Vaccine take-up] but I doubt if the hijack is news in Russia so this is not a classic distraction.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as the 30-30-30-30 (30 battalions, 30 fighter squadrons and 30 surface combatants generated for coordinated operations within 30 days) goal is decades in the realization (if ever) the idea of single European integrated Army is a similar flight of fancy.
The US is only member of NATO capable of this level of response, and the reality is the appetite for doing this wealthy NATO members (as opposed to the Eastern Euros/Balts) is slowing crumbling and has been for a decade or longer.
There seems to be a slice of the EU population who thinks that current EU out-of-area operations are even mildly representative of major combat operations, or these operations (NESTOR, Mali, ATALANTA) aren't a real lift to the EU military staff.
Meanwhile, lots of low-hanging Euro defense reform fruit (like a EU military Schengen) goes untended.
NATO is the defense guarantor of Europe, period. It will be, regardless of how much "lets pretend" is played in Brussels or Strasbourg.
Further, the Euros would be well advised to put some new tires and an oil change into the 1993 Mondeo that is their defense capacity now, vice pretending its a McLaren.
The US is only member of NATO capable of this level of response, and the reality is the appetite for doing this wealthy NATO members (as opposed to the Eastern Euros/Balts) is slowing crumbling and has been for a decade or longer.
There seems to be a slice of the EU population who thinks that current EU out-of-area operations are even mildly representative of major combat operations, or these operations (NESTOR, Mali, ATALANTA) aren't a real lift to the EU military staff.
Meanwhile, lots of low-hanging Euro defense reform fruit (like a EU military Schengen) goes untended.
NATO is the defense guarantor of Europe, period. It will be, regardless of how much "lets pretend" is played in Brussels or Strasbourg.
Further, the Euros would be well advised to put some new tires and an oil change into the 1993 Mondeo that is their defense capacity now, vice pretending its a McLaren.
As long as the 30-30-30-30 (30 battalions, 30 fighter squadrons and 30 surface combatants generated for coordinated operations within 30 days) goal is decades in the realization (if ever) the idea of single European integrated Army is a similar flight of fancy.
The US is only member of NATO capable of this level of response, and the reality is the appetite for doing this wealthy NATO members (as opposed to the Eastern Euros/Balts) is slowing crumbling and has been for a decade or longer.
There seems to be a slice of the EU population who thinks that current EU out-of-area operations are even mildly representative of major combat operations, or these operations (NESTOR, Mali, ATALANTA) aren't a real lift to the EU military staff.
Meanwhile, lots of low-hanging Euro defense reform fruit (like a EU military Schengen) goes untended.
NATO is the defense guarantor of Europe, period. It will be, regardless of how much "lets pretend" is played in Brussels or Strasbourg.
Further, the Euros would be well advised to put some new tires and an oil change into the 1993 Mondeo that is their defense capacity now, vice pretending its a McLaren.
The US is only member of NATO capable of this level of response, and the reality is the appetite for doing this wealthy NATO members (as opposed to the Eastern Euros/Balts) is slowing crumbling and has been for a decade or longer.
There seems to be a slice of the EU population who thinks that current EU out-of-area operations are even mildly representative of major combat operations, or these operations (NESTOR, Mali, ATALANTA) aren't a real lift to the EU military staff.
Meanwhile, lots of low-hanging Euro defense reform fruit (like a EU military Schengen) goes untended.
NATO is the defense guarantor of Europe, period. It will be, regardless of how much "lets pretend" is played in Brussels or Strasbourg.
Further, the Euros would be well advised to put some new tires and an oil change into the 1993 Mondeo that is their defense capacity now, vice pretending its a McLaren.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness to the European politicians, there is no indications that increased military spending will provide any benefit
The actual problems such as an un-integrated Islamic minority, sub replacement birth rates and block obsolescence of European industry in the face of Chinese competition are not subject to military solutions.
Indeed, increased military spending towards some arbitrarily set 2% of GNP seems irrational at best.
All of Europe would be better off if Russia and its resources were fully integrated into Europe, rather than having it pushed into a reluctant alliance with China.
Is this so hard to see?
The actual problems such as an un-integrated Islamic minority, sub replacement birth rates and block obsolescence of European industry in the face of Chinese competition are not subject to military solutions.
Indeed, increased military spending towards some arbitrarily set 2% of GNP seems irrational at best.
All of Europe would be better off if Russia and its resources were fully integrated into Europe, rather than having it pushed into a reluctant alliance with China.
Is this so hard to see?
Russia, firstly, has all of the problems (an large and possibly hostile Islamic population, low birth rates and essentially dying or dead value-added design/manufacturing sector) at a level that makes Europe look positively dynamic.
Second, the decision maker(s) (to be charitable) have no intention to serve in Heaven when they can reign in Hell, as far as the actual costs of European integration to realize any benefit, decades in the future.
The Russian alliance with China is borne of necessity, but even it just represents another brick in the wall of self-defeating Russian foreign policy that has at its base some insane notion of a once and future MittelEuropa superarmy marching under some modern Polish Charles the XII because really what the US and Western Europe want to do is some regime change in Moscow. Really, the Russian elite believes a version of reality like this, which is one of the few ways anyone who routinely selects the correct shoe/foot combination would believe the Baltic states are some proto-fascist lodgment for the 23 remaining operational panzers to roll into downtown St. Petersburg, versus an indefensible resource sump for Western defense investment.
Ultimately, Russian political and economic integration into Europe will only happen if the Russian elite decides they want Russia to be a normal country, and that will require a fundamental, perhaps impossible shift in the Russian psyche.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said the following, and when.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But to answer your question this was being said under the Obama administration if I am not mistaken. And they are completely right.
I’m completely for spending a minimum of 2 percent on Defense as was being agreed by NATO members. But that’s just a number. You still end up wasting an insane amount of money by developing, procuring and reinventing everything 27 times. If the EU wants to remain a soft power it has to become a hard power as well. Therefore I believe that further integration has become inevitable. In which shape and form exactly is yet to be decided.
What you have now are 27 member states who all have a different view on their defense strategies, different material, procedures etc.
The other end of the spectrum is one EU Military being orchestrated from Brussels. This is so far fetched that I can’t see that happen in the next few decades if ever.
The logical solution is somewhere in the middle.
Russia in the EU? Never say never but really???
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I’m completely for spending a minimum of 2 percent on Defense as was being agreed by NATO members. But that’s just a number. You still end up wasting an insane amount of money by developing, procuring and reinventing everything 27 times.
The vast majority of the European nations buy off the shelf, the only real exception being France which, after Suez, made th3 strategic decision to never rely on the USA again.
Even the UK, once a major force in designing and equipping its only forces, has hardly done so since the 1960s, it bought the F-4 and E-3, the C-130 and Chinook etc. The main tank, apart from the French is the German Leopard. The largest fighter fleet in European NATO service is the F-16.
Yes, nations combined to build the Tornado and Typhoon - but mainly as the multinational contracts provided an insurance against politicians salami slicing orders once the industrial benefits had been gained. If you want an example of that in action I’d point to the current state of UK F-35 orders…
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with that is that it is blatantly untrue.
The vast majority of the European nations buy off the shelf, the only real exception being France which, after Suez, made th3 strategic decision to never rely on the USA again.
Even the UK, once a major force in designing and equipping its only forces, has hardly done so since the 1960s, it bought the F-4 and E-3, the C-130 and Chinook etc. The main tank, apart from the French is the German Leopard. The largest fighter fleet in European NATO service is the F-16.
Yes, nations combined to build the Tornado and Typhoon - but mainly as the multinational contracts provided an insurance against politicians salami slicing orders once the industrial benefits had been gained. If you want an example of that in action I’d point to the current state of UK F-35 orders…
The vast majority of the European nations buy off the shelf, the only real exception being France which, after Suez, made th3 strategic decision to never rely on the USA again.
Even the UK, once a major force in designing and equipping its only forces, has hardly done so since the 1960s, it bought the F-4 and E-3, the C-130 and Chinook etc. The main tank, apart from the French is the German Leopard. The largest fighter fleet in European NATO service is the F-16.
Yes, nations combined to build the Tornado and Typhoon - but mainly as the multinational contracts provided an insurance against politicians salami slicing orders once the industrial benefits had been gained. If you want an example of that in action I’d point to the current state of UK F-35 orders…
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Procurement...
Better integration of procurement both as a requirements/design and manufacturing outcome was exactly what PESCO was designed to produce. Now, certain European nations wanted to hijack that into a protectionist captive market, entirely to exclude US defense concerns (while knowing that the reverse wasn't likely to be true.) They have good individual strategic reasons for doing so, but certainly it was going to make smaller European nations a bill-payer for that one nation's strategic end of procurement "independence."
Again, less a standing European Army and more PESCO is better use of EU defense clock-cycles IMO. Its unlikely that any level of defense integration will allow for critical military capacity to be a shared/pooled asset (the requirements for air policing/air sovereignty vs. airlift or offensive vs. defensive cyber capacity, for two examples.) Nations will want their critical defense requirement flagged and under their direct control.
Better integration of procurement both as a requirements/design and manufacturing outcome was exactly what PESCO was designed to produce. Now, certain European nations wanted to hijack that into a protectionist captive market, entirely to exclude US defense concerns (while knowing that the reverse wasn't likely to be true.) They have good individual strategic reasons for doing so, but certainly it was going to make smaller European nations a bill-payer for that one nation's strategic end of procurement "independence."
Again, less a standing European Army and more PESCO is better use of EU defense clock-cycles IMO. Its unlikely that any level of defense integration will allow for critical military capacity to be a shared/pooled asset (the requirements for air policing/air sovereignty vs. airlift or offensive vs. defensive cyber capacity, for two examples.) Nations will want their critical defense requirement flagged and under their direct control.
While the problems you point out are real, the solution you posit is simply not realistic in the space-time continuum in which I live.
Russia, firstly, has all of the problems (an large and possibly hostile Islamic population, low birth rates and essentially dying or dead value-added design/manufacturing sector) at a level that makes Europe look positively dynamic.
Second, the decision maker(s) (to be charitable) have no intention to serve in Heaven when they can reign in Hell, as far as the actual costs of European integration to realize any benefit, decades in the future.
The Russian alliance with China is borne of necessity, but even it just represents another brick in the wall of self-defeating Russian foreign policy that has at its base some insane notion of a once and future MittelEuropa superarmy marching under some modern Polish Charles the XII because really what the US and Western Europe want to do is some regime change in Moscow. Really, the Russian elite believes a version of reality like this, which is one of the few ways anyone who routinely selects the correct shoe/foot combination would believe the Baltic states are some proto-fascist lodgment for the 23 remaining operational panzers to roll into downtown St. Petersburg, versus an indefensible resource sump for Western defense investment.
Ultimately, Russian political and economic integration into Europe will only happen if the Russian elite decides they want Russia to be a normal country, and that will require a fundamental, perhaps impossible shift in the Russian psyche.
Russia, firstly, has all of the problems (an large and possibly hostile Islamic population, low birth rates and essentially dying or dead value-added design/manufacturing sector) at a level that makes Europe look positively dynamic.
Second, the decision maker(s) (to be charitable) have no intention to serve in Heaven when they can reign in Hell, as far as the actual costs of European integration to realize any benefit, decades in the future.
The Russian alliance with China is borne of necessity, but even it just represents another brick in the wall of self-defeating Russian foreign policy that has at its base some insane notion of a once and future MittelEuropa superarmy marching under some modern Polish Charles the XII because really what the US and Western Europe want to do is some regime change in Moscow. Really, the Russian elite believes a version of reality like this, which is one of the few ways anyone who routinely selects the correct shoe/foot combination would believe the Baltic states are some proto-fascist lodgment for the 23 remaining operational panzers to roll into downtown St. Petersburg, versus an indefensible resource sump for Western defense investment.
Ultimately, Russian political and economic integration into Europe will only happen if the Russian elite decides they want Russia to be a normal country, and that will require a fundamental, perhaps impossible shift in the Russian psyche.
My take is that the European integration effort (aka Nord Stream 2) is getting red lights from the US and from local European politicians. That makes Moscow's stance easier to understand.
What I cannot understand is that none of these politicians has dared stick his/her head above the parapet to say the truth, that Europe needs Russia to save itself from irrelevance.
What I cannot understand is that none of these politicians has dared stick his/her head above the parapet to say the truth, that Europe needs Russia to save itself from irrelevance..
My long-held suspicion is that the NATO arms industry [all of it] has ALWAYS needed the Russian Bear to justify existence, even when the Bear had bad teeth. As it has now.
My long-held suspicion is that the NATO arms industry [all of it] has ALWAYS needed the Russian Bear to justify existence, even when the Bear had bad teeth. As it has now.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you believe that intelligent people ruling Russia are so bereft of sense that they would prefer to ride a dying system to a serious restructuring?
My take is that the European integration effort (aka Nord Stream 2) is getting red lights from the US and from local European politicians. That makes Moscow's stance easier to understand.
What I cannot understand is that none of these politicians has dared stick his/her head above the parapet to say the truth, that Europe needs Russia to save itself from irrelevance.
My take is that the European integration effort (aka Nord Stream 2) is getting red lights from the US and from local European politicians. That makes Moscow's stance easier to understand.
What I cannot understand is that none of these politicians has dared stick his/her head above the parapet to say the truth, that Europe needs Russia to save itself from irrelevance.
Why the Russians do odd stuff for no reason, like hosing down European towns with nerve gas, assassinating dissidents, denying obvious government connections to things like MH17, blowing up ammo dumps, threatening capitals with nuclear weapons, engaging in cartoonishly stupid attempted coup d' etat?
I don't know. I mean, maybe Putin DOES want European integration, but his actions are those of a barely deterred strongman. Frankly, those aren't the actions of a person engaged in the serious work of political and economic integration. Frankly, its a near maddening level of provocative behavior that no General Secretary of the Soviet Union would have dreamt to try.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I cannot understand is that none of these politicians has dared stick his/her head above the parapet to say the truth, that Europe needs Russia to save itself from irrelevance..
My long-held suspicion is that the NATO arms industry [all of it] has ALWAYS needed the Russian Bear to justify existence, even when the Bear had bad teeth. As it has now.
My long-held suspicion is that the NATO arms industry [all of it] has ALWAYS needed the Russian Bear to justify existence, even when the Bear had bad teeth. As it has now.
.... and Paris.
My take is that the European integration effort (aka Nord Stream 2) is getting red lights from the US and from local European politicians
That makes Moscow's stance easier to understand.
Last edited by dead_pan; 26th May 2021 at 08:04.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No they don’t. That’s why the French are actually advocating for an EU Defense integration.
But it’s not only on the continent where defense spending went down significantly: the UK went from 4.93 percent in 1984 to 1.74 percent in 2019. Paris spent more on its defense.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...defense-budget
But it’s not only on the continent where defense spending went down significantly: the UK went from 4.93 percent in 1984 to 1.74 percent in 2019. Paris spent more on its defense.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...defense-budget
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
A think tank which has the backing and ear of influential Democratic Party executives*.
https://www.politico.eu/article/repo...-nato-defense/
Biden urged to push EU to be a military power
It’s time for the EU to become a global military power — and for the U.S. to stop thwarting Europe’s ambitions on defense.
That’s according to a new report by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with close ties to the Biden administration.
The report, obtained by POLITICO in advance of its release on Wednesday, urges President Joe Biden to encourage the EU to develop hard-power military capabilities and calls on him to abandon decades of opposition to EU defense integration by previous U.S. leaders, under the guise of preventing wasteful duplication with NATO — which remains orthodox thinking for most American military commanders, and even for many EU governments….
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center...rican_Progress
The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal[2] viewpoint on economic and social issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clintonadministrations and for Hillary Clinton's campaigns.[3] The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who has served as White House Chief of Staff to U.S. President Bill Clinton and as the chairman of the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.[4] Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the boarduntil he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.[5]
https://www.politico.eu/article/repo...-nato-defense/
Biden urged to push EU to be a military power
It’s time for the EU to become a global military power — and for the U.S. to stop thwarting Europe’s ambitions on defense.
That’s according to a new report by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with close ties to the Biden administration.
The report, obtained by POLITICO in advance of its release on Wednesday, urges President Joe Biden to encourage the EU to develop hard-power military capabilities and calls on him to abandon decades of opposition to EU defense integration by previous U.S. leaders, under the guise of preventing wasteful duplication with NATO — which remains orthodox thinking for most American military commanders, and even for many EU governments….
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center...rican_Progress
The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal[2] viewpoint on economic and social issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clintonadministrations and for Hillary Clinton's campaigns.[3] The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who has served as White House Chief of Staff to U.S. President Bill Clinton and as the chairman of the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.[4] Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the boarduntil he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.[5]
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
…The PESCO third state rule was established end of 2020, the UK parliament started to discuss this early 2021, which means there are now 4 PESCO third party states: US, Canada, Norway, UK.
In theory Australia or New Zealand could join as well.
In theory Australia or New Zealand could join as well.
Interesting that this moribund thread has been dead for well over a year while Europe has faced a real war on its continent. PESCO is yet another indication that the EU offers nothing for its own security, never mind that of Europe. NATO is the guarantor of European defence, it always has been since its inception, despite EU sullenness, despite US isolationists. It's not that NATO needs the Russian bear, it's the Russian bear that creates the need for NATO. I don't see any change to that any time soon, no matter what happens in the Ukraine or the wider world. Time for the EU to confront its own prejudices and support NATO to the hilt.