• EU launches defense pact
    34 replies, posted
[QUOTE]BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union nations, now unfettered by Britain’s decision to quit, achieved a 70-year-old ambition on Thursday to integrate their defenses, launching a pact between 25 EU governments to fund, develop and deploy armed forces together. European Council President Donald Tusk deemed the move “bad news for our enemies”. First blocked by the French parliament in the 1950s and later by Britain, which feared creation of an EU army, the pact aims to end the squandering of billions of euros by splintered defense policies. It is also aimed at lowering Europe’s heavy reliance on the United States. “More than half a century ago, an ambitious vision of the European Defence Community was created but what was missing was the unity and courage to put it into practice,” Tusk, who chairs EU summits, said of the failed 1950s attempt. “The dream was at odds with reality. Today this dream becomes reality,” he said in a speech in front of EU leaders and military personnel from each of the 25 countries involved. Denmark, which has an opt out from EU defense matters, and Malta, were the only EU countries not to sign up, along with Brexiting Britain. French President Emmanuel Macron, whose election victory in May gave new impetus to efforts to revive defense cooperation after Britons voted in 2016 to leave the bloc, hailed “concrete progress.” Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the pact would make the EU more agile abroad and would support NATO. The pact, called Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, is meant as a show of unity and a tangible step in EU integration, diplomats said, particularly after Britain’s decision to leave. Caught off guard by Russia’s Crimea annexation in 2014 and facing threats ranging from state-sponsored computer hackers to militant attacks, EU governments say the pact is justified by EU surveys showing most citizens want the bloc to provide security. EU governments proved unable to act as a group in the 1990s Balkan wars and relied on U.S.-led NATO to stop the bloodshed on their doorstep.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence/bad-news-for-our-enemies-eu-launches-defense-pact-idUSKBN1E82BA?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a3303a204d301771ca820c1&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook"]Reuters[/URL]. I would've preferred Denmark actually be part of this, and I'm quite disappointed we've opted out.
Lookit that [URL="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d7ykxx/us-power-will-decline-under-trump-says-futurist-who-predicted-soviet-collapse"]American influence[/URL] evaporating before our eyes. It's not gone, by far, but it sure as hell is diminishing. Seriously though, while I think it's great news (America has kinda sucked especially hard this last year), it's pretty much what Putin (allegedly) wanted. Not sure he thought it through though, now the "enemy" is closer to home. That said, a united EU would be the third largest military in the world, and would in general be better at pushing an agenda than all the smaller countries alone. And I must admit I find the idea of stronger European influence better than Russian/Chinese/American these days.
This gives me a lot of hope, this is good. The less the EU depends on the US, especially while it continuously goes full retard, the better in the long run.
I'm all for this. The european military co-operation has been a thing for a while now (NBG etc), and it was only a matter of time before it became unified. Will be interesting to see whether all nations will keep their respective primary military doctrine or it will be a total make-over. I'm not too worried about Denmark not being a part of it. They might join later if/when the project is underway and stabilised. Edit: What I wonder, however, is how it will work in regards to NATO. If non-NATO nations will be dragged into NATO conflicts.
[QUOTE=Kazumi;52977700]I'm not too worried about Denmark not being a part of it. They might join later if/when the project is underway and stabilised.[/QUOTE] It's unfortunately unlikely Denmark will join later, unless national policy changes. Denmark has always been infamously skeptical towards the EU, so it would take sudden and sweeping changes in attitude to change that.
I dream of the European military's uniting and staying under NATO, it'd be the best for the organization.
[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52977714]I dream of the European military's uniting and staying under NATO, it'd be the best for the organization.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's any risk of Europe breaking with NATO unless EU's relation to the US changes drastically. Like, why would you when our interests align so much of the time?
Unless the Europeans increase their defence spending and procure more and less varied equipment, not much is going to change in regards to our actual ability to defend Europe This is basically NATO without its two largest partners
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52977789]Unless the Europeans increase their defence spending and procure more and less varied equipment, not much is going to change in regards to our actual ability to defend Europe This is basically NATO without its two largest partners[/QUOTE] Most EU members have begun increasing their defense budget ever since Russia annexed Crimea. True, there's still a lot of work ahead, but the EU has the capacity to actually make a formidable, collective defense.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52977789]Unless the Europeans increase their defence spending and procure more and less varied equipment, not much is going to change in regards to our actual ability to defend Europe This is basically NATO without its two largest partners[/QUOTE] Spending doesn't have to increase for this to be a boon to European defense, just the very fact of coordinating, streamlining and combining the various EU-state defenses has the potential to be inherently more efficient and cost-effective. A few hundred billion a year can go a long way for one coordinated military, but its at risk of squandering when splintered among 27 different military forces. I for one welcome this change with cautious optimism. I think it provides a model for how diverse nations with varied peoples can come together to ensure collective security. If more and more nations of the world followed suit we could be closer to ensuring global peace.
a step closer to world unity
[QUOTE=WrathOfCat;52977958]a step closer to world unity[/QUOTE] Not really. The EU has its own interests to defend and intervene in, doesn't mean closer to world unity at all.
I hope this doesn't fuck up European economies too badly with all the increased defense spending. I don't want Europeans to end up like us and spending all their money on their military so other countries can afford to have universal healthcare and progressive programs. And I know this won't lead to the US spending less on defense.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52978102]I hope this doesn't fuck up European economies too badly with all the increased defense spending. I don't want Europeans to end up like us and spending all their money on their military so other countries can afford to have universal healthcare and progressive programs. And I know this won't lead to the US spending less on defense.[/QUOTE] I think the spending increases are only a couple percent at most, nothing insane like the US.
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;52978115]I think the spending increases are only a couple percent at most, nothing insane like the US.[/QUOTE] That's how it starts. After WW2, Truman was planning to get rid of our stockpile of bombs but then the cold war kept escalating
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52978209]That's how it starts. After WW2, Truman was planning to get rid of our stockpile of bombs but then the cold war kept escalating[/QUOTE] Modern Day EU =/= Post WW2 militarization and the US.
EU will have a long road before they match the strenght of Russia. (EU without the UK)
[QUOTE=Mifil;52978945]EU will have a long road before they match the strenght of Russia. (EU without the UK)[/QUOTE] Yeah, it'd probably take a reasonable amount of disarmament for the European countries to get down on Russia's level. Granted, throwing the UK out helped level the playing field a bit.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52978945]EU will have a long road before they match the strenght of Russia. (EU without the UK)[/QUOTE] Binkov Disagrees. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7j6xU-Fjo[/media] Russia's only advantages are that they have more SAM defenses and they have more nukes, but by the time nukes are getting used the US would join in anyways.
Wedlp, that means I am gonna party then. Can't wait for further EU progress.
[QUOTE=Riller;52980474]Yeah, it'd probably take a reasonable amount of disarmament for the European countries to get down on Russia's level. Granted, throwing the UK out helped level the playing field a bit.[/QUOTE] Clever. However, this video mentions the 100% support for war. What if let's say some countries "betray" the pact? It's just speculation at this point, what would happen. You can be 100% one of the sides win and the other won't.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52980569]Clever. However, this video mentions the 100% support for war. What if let's say some countries "betray" the pact? It's just speculation at this point, what would happen. You can be 100% one of the sides win and the other won't.[/QUOTE] You're right. What if some Russian General betrays the motherland? What if he's in charge of the psyops division and can kill using his psychic phone? What if he uses a network of psychic beacons to enslave the American populace so they walk into meat grinders to generate money? That's fucking terrifying. He might even enslave Einstein and build a teleporter/time machine known as the chronosphere device. You're right,we should be worried, anything could happen. What if Russia can't give their 100%, just theoretically mind you, not like they have to keep an army in cechnya to stop terrorism/invasion and an army in Syria to protect their investment. Not like it'll happen anyway, war with Europe would ruin Russia and ruin Eastern Europe. Neither side (Cept nutty nationalists) want to fight. It'd have to be a tragic accident for war to break out.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;52980482]Binkov Disagrees. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7j6xU-Fjo[/media] Russia's only advantages are that they have more SAM defenses and they have more nukes, but by the time nukes are getting used the US would join in anyways.[/QUOTE] But this video [i]does include[/i] the UK. His previous video is about a more realistic EU which isn't as willing/prepared for a war, which has Russia defeating the EU quite handily. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc49Zot93QQ[/media] Also one thing that neither Binkov nor anyone here seems to take into account: Trump might aid Russia rather than EU in a war.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52982009]Trump doesn't own the USA lmao [editline]16th December 2017[/editline] No other significant American official would go that far under any circumstance short of EU first-striking Russia or something Actually, not even Trump[/QUOTE] The current US administration's interests align a lot more with Moscow's than the Brussels', and there's blatant evidence of Russian interference in their own ranks.
[QUOTE=Drury;52982016]The current US administration's interests align a lot more with Moscow's than the Brussels', and there's blatant evidence of Russian interference in their own ranks.[/QUOTE] Only the executive branch has that Russia connection. Other 2 would probs be pro eu (ie pro nati, pro ally etc) USA certainly wouldn't join or officially help Russia, and I say officially only because unofficially some spineless gimps who have been bought by Russia might leak info.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52982083]Admin's interests are less important than the country's. Absurdity of Trump Presidency cloud your judgement, but Trump administration isn't a complete Moscow puppet, and Trump doesn't own the administration. His influence is weak compared to the Republican establishment, while neither side can beat one another, there is no way in hell any administration official can explain standing with Moscow against Brussels in any act of Russian aggression to the voters.[/QUOTE] Regardless it is obvious that republican and european values do not match. If we are to keep european values regarding liberty, social security and indeed our very freedom, it is a path we must be prepared to walk alone. With or without america. This defense pact is good because it is a clear message to anyone that whatever happens we are willing to stand united. Even if usa is not willing or capable of assisting.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52981018]You're right. What if some Russian General betrays the motherland? What if he's in charge of the psyops division and can kill using his psychic phone? What if he uses a network of psychic beacons to enslave the American populace so they walk into meat grinders to generate money? That's fucking terrifying. He might even enslave Einstein and build a teleporter/time machine known as the chronosphere device. You're right,we should be worried, anything could happen. What if Russia can't give their 100%, just theoretically mind you, not like they have to keep an army in cechnya to stop terrorism/invasion and an army in Syria to protect their investment. Not like it'll happen anyway, war with Europe would ruin Russia and ruin Eastern Europe. Neither side (Cept nutty nationalists) want to fight. It'd have to be a tragic accident for war to break out.[/QUOTE] Shaping my argument in a way that in becomes viewed as ridiculous is porbably not a good idea. Speculation is fun, but it doesn't belong in a discussion that should solely be based on statistics, political situstion and [I]possible[/I] occurences and complications. I'm repeating myself but it appears it need to be said twice. It can go one or the other way. However, you're right. Both sides avoid wars because it would destroy their economies, shorten their sphere of influence, lead to unneeded deaths, destroy infrastructure etc. Don't take my post the wrong way, I'm not here to dispute the fact that Russia might lose, I'm just stating that there's a possibility of Russia winning the war against the EU. It's just propability at this point. Also, a little reminder. Ridiculization was probably not a good way to discuss this topic.
It's about time Europe took care of itself. I really hope this results in the US reexamining its military expenses for protecting Europe.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52982708]It's about time Europe took care of itself. I really hope this results in the US reexamining its military expenses for protecting Europe.[/QUOTE] I doubt the US is gonna budge on it's European defence even if the EU kicks ups it's own defence, they're not protecting Europe, they're protecting their interests and projecting influence.
[QUOTE=Drury;52982004]Also one thing that neither Binkov nor anyone here seems to take into account: Trump might aid Russia rather than EU in a war.[/QUOTE] I do not feel like congress would go along with that. Trump's power isn't unlimited. [editline]16th December 2017[/editline] I definitely feel that declaring war on the EU would make republicans finally drop Trump
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.