NATO’s civilian and military chiefs are making the rounds in Europe today, warning the European Union against creating a possible EU-wide military on the grounds it would “duplicate” military resources NATO already has.
A handful of EU member states, including Finland, Sweden, Austria, and Ireland, are not in NATO, so there wouldn’t be perfect overlap between an EU military and the NATO alliance.
The more likely objection is that a unified EU military would make the vast amount of superfluous military spending in Europe all the more obvious at a time when the US and NATO leadership are pushing EU member nations to spend more.
The EU is presenting a unified military as a counter to Russia, but the reality is that the EU spends many times what the Russian Federation does on military forces. Small EU nations might not realize the disparity so much now, but a unified force would make this all the more glaring, and subsequently harm NATO’s fear-based efforts to get them to spend more.
It is more like Yankee get lost.
It's adorable that these people actually think this is a possibility.
With Power and Rice and Psaki constantly slamming the Europeans to spend more and more and more it's no wonder the EU is thinking about changing things to better suit themselves. Besides, NATO has obviously outlived it's usefulness. And the Americans have become more and more pushy (arrogant).
Yep; The EU is returning the signal Ms. Nuland sent them, and who in the EU gives a skinny rat's behind what the Harem, aka 3 witches have to say?
This is the contradiction inherent in the US capitulation to Putin. Every time the EU talks about a military force, the US tries to kill it, but, as we have now seen, when the chips are down, the US leaves Europe in the lurch. Thus, the US has now so discredited NATO that some sort of European defence structure, including Russia, is certain to come into existence. With a population of 500 million, the EU is well capable of manitaining a military force sufficient for its own defence. Russia, as long as it remains an oligarch-dominated gangster state and/or neocon vassal state, would be no match for such an army. With its 145 million people, of whom about 30 million are conquered peoples who might well not be willing to fight for their colonial masters, to say nothing of the ethnic Russian population, who might not be willing to fight for the oligarchs who've been robbing them blind for the last 23 years, Russia would be a lame dwarf compared to an EU army. Add to that Russia's technological backwardness and it's easy to understand Mr Ditz's palpable fear at the prospect of such a force coming into being. The bottom line is that NATO cannot both refuse to defend Europe and prevent Europe from defending itself.
Pretty good points by Mr. Kenny; however, D-Day, and the liberation of Europe, can hardly be called "leaving Europe in the lurch"; that is 200,000 thousand American lives we are talking about!
…sure wish I could get that guy who liberated my bike to be that …um… …'visible.'
D-Day was 70 years ago. But what has the US presence done for them since then? You could argue that it deterred the Warsaw Pact (and vice versa), but without the existence of the Warsaw Pact, what use is NATO except as a source of geopolitical mischief?
In USA maffia is very active but Russia do not remind it everytime.In the democratic USA the opposition has never had the possibility to speak on TV.
I think you've got some things bass ackwards here, even if you are showing unusual insight (credit where it's due). Is it really a case of the US "capitulating" to Putin, or is it more of a case of having no viable options once Putin decided not to "capitulate" to the US over Ukraine? Also, in the case of Ukraine, is it the US leaving Europe in the lurch, or is it really a case of the US doing more than the EU wanted ("f@ck the EU"), and then finding it had bitten off more than it could chew?
As for the rest, your take is about 80% right. However, it is not a question of the US being unwilling to defend Europe against a hypothetical Russian attack, but of Europe leaving the task of it's military defense in the politically incompetent hands of the United States. A European Military would not only be able to resist any foreign assault, but would unshackle the EU from NATO's increasingly arrogant and erratic American leadership.
However, I wouldn't count on Russia being a "lame dwarf." They fought for Stalin in spite of the nature of that regime, and the Americans (at least those who volunteer) still seem willing to fight for their own corrupt corporate oligarchs and bribed (oops, well campaign financed) politicians.
As for Mr. Ditz, I detect no "palpable fear" of an EU army on his part. Why do you personalize things? Also, I think Russia would welcome an EU Army if it replaced NATO, since Russia would be dealing with adults and not adolescent cowboys in it's political leadership.
If the true intent of NATO was to protect Western Europe from Russia, surely NATO would be overjoyed having another military to join their cause. But surely, another invasion for glory and a war of aggression for plunder is their intent and they want all of the spoils of war going only to the NATO nations.
The US State Department/Breedlove-NATO axis is a tool of US intervention into the affairs of Europe, which has started a civil war on the European continent. At the time that major EU members France and Germany were negotiating a cease fire between the combatants, having them withdraw their heavy weapons from engagement, Nuland was telling Breedlove to describe increased Russian heavy weapons coming in from eastern Ukraine, and with that justification the US would provide heavy weapons to Ukraine. This outrageous US intervention into European affairs, triggered EU leaders to propose a EU army, diplomatically, with the intent of phasing out NATO, and US intervervention, which in turn, resulted in the US making a statement that it had no plans to provide weapons to Ukraine, while previously the US expressed plans to do that, and Mr. Poroshenkos prior ecstatic appearance when with US VP Biden, and SOS Kerry (was probably promised weapons) was in marked appearance to his somber appearance with Hollande and Merkel. There is still the Issue of the markedly Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland who had promised weapons to Ukraine, and who have just received a weapons delivery from US/NATO , with US/NATO flaming wars of fire in eastern Europe. This weaseling interference of the US State Department/NATO into EU affairs is probably why Norway has recently withdrawn its request for EU membership. The military is about war, and if we have politicians encouraging war, we will get it.
If this will get AMERIKA'S big warmongering nose out of Europe-totally & permanently I AM ALL for it !
Nato must leave Europ and /Or be suppressed like the Warsav pact.
The fact that a EU army-under joint French and German direction-would leave the USA out and thus give Europe back a measure of freedom, must really disturb the Atlanticists, who see NATO as the backbone of such an unnatural trend; one which keeps Europe in perpetual danger, come a confrontation between US and Russia. A EU Army would mean America looses its buffer zone between the Russians and themselves. Not all is lost, though for the Atlanticists; the British are sure to veto any such move and certainly would not be asked to participate in any real EU Army. Too much of a liability to have those have-been on board.
Why would the US need Europe as a "buffer zone?" We have no common land border with either Russia or Western Europe, even if Sarah Palin can see Putin's house from Juneau.
The EU is presenting a unified military as a counter to Russia
No, it was presented as a counter to US war mongering in Ukraine. Merkel and Hollande know what really happened a year ago. So far, they've gone along with it but things are getting much too hot for their liking. They don't want full scale war in Europe.
The Scottish National Party has it right, and the rest of the UK would do well to listen. Get rid of Trident and don't replace it with anything.