For or against EU military force and why?

Higgins86 said:

U know Ay nik?

Been massively reduced now but in the 90s and early 2000s it was a treasure chest of Intel.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know it. I'll PM in you on how I know it.

Higgins86 said:

Never had you down as a Putin apologist, guess it shouldn't surprise me based on your anti American stance.

Click to expand...

His are very typical of anti America emotions and arguments a wide range of dissatisfied populists in Europe hold and preach. Most of them are more or less Putin apologists others resent US power and European weakness they believe to be caused thereof. Often they see a natural fit with Russians' raw materials supplying the factories in the homeland. It is very much the fascination that fed German policies in the 1930s and is quite disquieting.

austrianecon said:

Oh of course.. but even the US has a habit of supplying it's enemies and then facing the brunt of it. It's the game of if you are the enemy of my enemy you are my friend.

Click to expand...

Well, if you sell the guy that kills someone's son the rockets. ...
But now the EU are building their own military to oppose the US, when it turns its back on Europe as President Holland just said at the Bratislava with more honesty than usual and possibly than intended.

I too share the sentiment that it would be redundant. The countries that are capable of military expansion can already do it, but there isn't the incentive to do so because of U.S. defense treaties. The U.S. also has a mutual interest in being present as a deterrent to Russia, and now Middle Eastern powers. The U.S. will never be hands off for this reason, unless the U.S. as a country comes to an end. EU security is our security. Yeah, maybe they need us more than we need them, but whenever the EU falls apart it drags the whole world into it, so there is mutual security in staying put.

Europe's issues aren't resource related, they are culture related. People accuse the U.S. of being a young, immature country... which I suppose is true in some ways... but Europe has the disadvantage of old cultural rivalries that are still entrenched. Really, most of its defense problems could be resolved by building more bridges with Russia (and Russia with Europe), but they've had a couple millennia of kicking each other around so it's difficult to transcend.

My biggest beef with the European elite is that they never change. Same old crap, same old story repackaged over and over... and the youngins like the U.S. have to come bail them out. That's the problem with old power and old money. They don't want to let go. So a united EU military would just be version 50.0. What Europe needs is a core shift in power. Not in government, but in power. Their aristocracy have remained virtually unchanged for over 500 years. The Church is part of that too. We could have a global revolution in governance if these people were dethroned.

Higgins86 said:

~ the mere hint of CIA involvement would be denied heavily.

Click to expand...

Except that Edward Snowden has already stated that half the running costs recently are paid for by the US National Security Agency.

Britain will veto measures to build an EU army for as long as it remains a member of the union, the defence secretary has warned.
Sir Michael Fallon’s comments came as it emerged that France and Germany had drawn up a timetable to create a “common military force” that would rival Nato in army capability. Link.

Click to expand...

UK to continue to block plans for EU army while we remain a member of the EU.

However, while it may be as claimed "sour grapes" after being passed over for promotion, head of Joint Forces Command, Gen Sir Richard Barrons said -

Gen Sir Richard Barrons said:

critical technical and logistical capabilities had been "iteratively stripped out.
Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort. Link.

Click to expand...

So, in reality while we can be a pain in the ass to Germany and France in their plans to develop and build the capabilities of an EU army, we are not going to be able to do anything about it once we trigger Article 50 and leave the EU. And if we are now not even capable of defending the UK homeland - why have we been blocking the development of a military that would defend Europe?

Higgins86 said:

I think that Russian aggression in the region had been growing and that by forcing out one of his puppets Putin was forced into invading a sovereign state, something he had already done in Georgia.

Click to expand...

This kind of bull**** pisses me of. There was no puppet of Putin in Ukraine.. it was a legit democratically elected government. Now that does not mean it was not pro-Russia, and anti-Western.. but the fact remains the government was legally elected in a clean election (well as clean as you can get in Ukraine).

As for Georgia, a whole other set of issues apply to this area, here again it was triggered by abuses against Russian speaking peoples under Georgian nationalist rule. You can not on one hand condemn the actions of Russia and Putin and totally ignore the actions of the other side.

Putin is all about making Russia great again which is why him and trump are apparently such good friends. He enforces his vision and anyone that stands in the way is taken care of. I mean the Russian elections are coming up and in the previous election we saw mass protests against potential voter fraud. This election cycle we see no protests and the majority of his previous opposition are either dead, in jail or have fled.

Click to expand...

I dont disagree.

I would tread carefully if I was you when defending the actions of a tyrant.

Click to expand...

I am not defending them, I am explaining them and some what I understand them. Sevastapol is critical for Russia and any threat to this port has to be quelled. But in no way do I defend his action in Eastern Ukraine or else where as the motivations there are more "land grabby" than actual strategtic. Although one could argue that Russia needs a land bridge to Sevastapol... which means taking some of Eastern Ukraine.

Infinite Chaos said:

As such, I am against an EU only military.

Click to expand...

Which very much lessens the ability of any "central control". That is, answers the question: Who puts to use Military Force, where, when and why?

All these three questions must be asked/answered before any force can be even contemplated.

Besides, it is a bit silly to think there is no EU Military Force. There is one, it's just the sum of the parts - and Europeans make less of it than Americans do of theirs. European Defense budgets are far, far less than that of the US. (See the Defense-spending Map here.)

No force in Europe is under any single command, and as I intimated above, that is because contemporaneous with an EU Military Force one must have a process that determines its usage. Meaning, specifically, a European presidency (which presently does not exist) that can decide the answers to the three questions posed above, and answer them cogently to all country leaders to obtain a consensus.

That's the way Europe works (without a President for the moment), and it is the way any democracy should work with deliberation.

Europe will likely never resemble the US. Language barriers will probably keep politics contained at a national level. So, the use of a military-force will not at all be like that of the US. Where the PotUS decides, more or less, when and where to employ it.

American presidents seem to like getting into wars (often with no real reason). Reagan was like that, Dubya as well. Whilst there was perhaps a reason to get bin-Laden in Afghanistan there was none (except the oil) to go into Iraq. Anyway, for all the money spent, they finally got bin-Laden in his own bedroom.

(Count on The Dork to find some good reason to invade somewhere within the first six months of his administration.)

Dubya got Iraq all wrong, but, then, he was bent on recovering the two Colt 45s that his father had gifted Hussein. (And I'll bet, this day, that they are both hanging on a wall somewhere in his home.)

THAT is the problem of "Presidential Excess" that America has never really mastered. If we could not depend upon a Johnson to tell the truth about what happened in the Bay of Tonkin that he employed to justify widening the Vietnam War (or a Dubya for Iraq), why should we accept that a PotUS decides when/where "Billy and Betty" go off to war and come home in body-bags where they are interred with honors.

It would have been far better had they never left, had kids, and a nice house out in the 'burbs - and I can repeat the same for any EU-country as well.

Nothing has changed. "Make love, not war" unless really-'n-truly necessary ...

Abbazorkzog said:

Why go to the trouble? Just expand and reinforce the existing EU Battlegroups. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Without consensus of the tax-payers in each of the EU states.

One is begging for troubles. First, the EU needs consensus in the matter - and it is nowhere near that level of agreement ...

PeteEU said:

This kind of bull**** pisses me of. There was no puppet of Putin in Ukraine..

Click to expand...

There was one, by the name of Yanukovich - who is presently living very comfortably in Moscow.

See here: Ousted Ukraine Officials Enjoy Life of Luxury in Moscow - excerpt:

One year ago [Feb., 2014], when Ukraine's beleaguered fourth President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev, he had limited options in terms of where he could seek refuge.

His exit from the capital on Feb. 21 was preceded by three dark days in which 77 protesters and 18 police officers died in street clashes in circumstances that are still not entirely clear, many of them shot by snipers. The deaths were the tragic climax of mass-scale street protests sparked three months earlier over Yanukovych's decision to postpone the signing of an Association Agreement with the European Union.

While Yanukovych argued that he had fled out of fear for his personal safety, his power base in Kiev had effectively collapsed, with most major government buildings occupied by protesters.

On Feb. 21 he flew by helicopter to Ukraine's second-largest city of Kharkiv in a last-ditch attempt to retain at least some scraps of his waning power over the country, according to news reports and the recent book "Maidan: The Untold Story," published in Ukraine this week to coincide with the first anniversary of the climax of the popular uprising in central Kiev that swept away the government.

After realizing that he had lost the support of even his closest allies, he reportedly then flew to the city of Donetsk, now the capital of the self-proclaimed separatist Donetsk People's Republic. From there, he attempted to fly to Russia, but his plane was not given permission to take off. He then drove to Crimea, which would be annexed by Russia less than a month later.

From Crimea, Yanukovych was escorted to Russian territory by military boat and on Feb. 25, together with Ukraine's former Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka and former Interior Minister Vitaly Zakharchenko, he was already ensconced on the 11th floor of Moscow's luxurious Hotel Ukraina, according to the book.

All three men, together with another trio of disgraced former officials, are now included on the EU sanctions list because they are wanted in Ukraine in connection with the embezzlement of state funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine. They are also all reportedly now living in Moscow.

Click to expand...

'Nuff said, or you want to tell me how it's all "lies, lies, lies" ... ?
_________________

Lafayette said:

There was one, by the name of Yanukovich - who is presently living very comfortably in Moscow.

See here: Ousted Ukraine Officials Enjoy Life of Luxury in Moscow - excerpt:


'Nuff said, or you want to tell me how it's all "lies, lies, lies" ... ?
_________________

Click to expand...

He was elected by the Ukrainian people in a free and fair election.... a puppet is someone who was put in place by outside forces.. Yanukovic was not.

PeteEU said:

He was elected by the Ukrainian people in a free and fair election.... a puppet is someone who was put in place by outside forces.. Yanukovic was not.

Click to expand...

Cut the BS, will you? You are banging on a hollow-drum.

The guy does not dare come back to the Ukraine, given the pillaging that occurred under his reign.

See the post-mortem evidence as described here, here, and here ...
_________________

Lafayette said:

Cut the BS, will you? You are banging on a hollow-drum.

The guy does not dare come back to the Ukraine, given the pillaging that occurred under his reign.

See the post-mortem evidence as described here, here, and here ...
_________________

Click to expand...

BS? Are you denying that he was a legally democratically elected leader of Ukraine? And who the **** wants that toad back? No one... that is not and never had been the point. The point is, the US/EU fed a revolution against a democratically elected leader, who happened to be a toad and support their main "adversary"...And that toad was replaced by a government whos only remains in power because the neo-Nazi elements are kept "happy". Once that goes away, then most Ukrainians probably would welcome the toad and his puppet master back.

PeteEU said:

The point is, the US/EU fed a revolution against a democratically elected leader, who happened to be a toad and support their main "adversary"...And that toad was replaced by a government whos only remains in power because the neo-Nazi elements are kept "happy". Once that goes away, then most Ukrainians probably would welcome the toad and his puppet master back.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt Yanukovych will be welcomed back to the Ukraine. Not if the Ukraine wants the EU in its future.

Yanukovich pillaged the Ukraine before leaving, which is why he was ousted resulting from popular sentiment to be rid of him.

From here: How Yanukovych Pillaged Ukraine - excerpt:

These questions and confusion are magnified due to the speed with which Yanukovych went from ordering the massacre of protestors to disappearing from his palatial estates (security cameras caught him and his bodyguards fleeing to helicopters which spirited him to eastern Ukraine), and to ultimately resurfacing in Russia. In his wake he left not only confusion, anger and the bodies of numerous Ukrainians—protestors and police alike—but also numerous documents, documents which, in his haste, he was unable to get rid of (or amateurishly tried to) and detail the almost incomprehensible level of pillaging of the Ukrainian economy and government.

The documents, and the incoming government, detail—an initial—report of at least $37 billion vanishing from state coffers (supposedly through fraudulent loans), and a total of $70 billion being sent out of the country to offshore locations during Yanukovych’s three year rule.

Click to expand...

The guy was a crook, why should the Ukrainians want him back?

As for the Nazi's keeping the present government in power, I'd like to see your sources regarding that POV ...
_______________________

Lafayette said:

I seriously doubt Yanukovych will be welcomed back to the Ukraine. Not if the Ukraine wants the EU in its future.

Yanukovich pillaged the Ukraine before leaving, which is why he was ousted resulting from popular sentiment to be rid of him.

From here: How Yanukovych Pillaged Ukraine - excerpt:



The guy was a crook, why should the Ukrainians want him back?

As for the Nazi's keeping the present government in power, I'd like to see your sources regarding that POV ...
_______________________

Click to expand...

Lesser of evils.. who knows.. But how about admitting that he was a legally elected and democratically elected..

PeteEU said:

Lesser of evils.. who knows.. But how about admitting that he was a legally elected and democratically elected..

Click to expand...

Yes, and so?

He was/is also a crook ...
____________________

The EU is getting weaker

The EU can not afford a military force. The socialists have spent everybody else money already and now they will no longer have our massive contribution i dont see how they can afford it also it undermines NATO. Lets face it EU is finished gravy trains coming to a end at last.