Defying US, Paris and Berlin stand firm on EU defence pact - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14889646
Every passing day proves that I was right to support Trump and Brexit. It has been the wake-up call Europe needed.

The protection racket run by the US has outlived its usefulness. Today, it is the primary cause for instability and terror in the world. US expansionism is responsible for the conflicts in Europe's Eastern and the Southern neighborhoods. As the US keeps on increasing its defense budget, instability increases. Most conflicts cannot be solved by military means and the nuclear arsenals are perfectly useless in most conflicts. Yet the US is reducing its non-military aid and diplomatic corps.

A multi-ethnic EU is best placed to solve problems by soft power, and by coordinating its defense activities, Europe has more than enough economic means to match Russia by conventional means. Europe will also benefit by investing more in aerospace and defense R&D in which the US has an unfair advantage.

The US/UK want Europe to spend more on defense, yet they don't want Europe to have any control. They also want to keep Europe from developing its own technology so that their arms industries can continue to dominate global markets.

In opening remarks at the Munich Security Conference, French Defence Minister Florence Parly and her German counterpart Ursula von der Leyen said the EU plan posed no threat to NATO.

But they stressed that the European Union needed the "autonomy" to respond to security threats, even while bolstering their commitments to the NATO alliance.

"When we are threatened in our own neighbourhood, particularly to the south, we have to be able to respond, even when the United States or the (NATO) alliance would like to be less implicated," Parly said.

Von der Leyen also took a swipe at Washington for cutting its aid and diplomacy budgets, reminding "our American friends" that they have "precious commitments beyond military means".

The EU announced in December a permanent structured cooperation on defence agreement, known as PESCO, aimed at developing new military equipment and improving cooperation and decision-making.

Senior US officials voiced doubts about the EU plan this week, fearing it could draw resources away from NATO or become a "protectionist" umbrella for European defence manufacturers.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has cautiously welcomed the EU's efforts to step up its defence initiatives, but warned that these must not undermine the transatlantic alliance or duplicate its work.

Batting away those concerns, Parly said "those who try to say it's either the EU or NATO: it's a false debate".

But EU nations must be ready to act "without asking the United States to come to our aid, without asking them to divert their ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities or their supply craft from other missions," she added.

Von der Leyen agreed that building up Europe's military autonomy was compatible with shoring up the NATO alliance.

"It is about a Europe that can also add more weight militarily so that it can be more autonomous and carry more responsibility -- also within NATO," she said.

- 'Wake-up call' -

The European Union launched PESCO with much fanfare in December, spurred into action by Brexit, the migrant crisis, a more assertive Russia and an unpredictable White House.

"This was the wake-up call we needed to understand that we had to change something and stand on our own two feet," von der Leyen said.

The pact, signed by 25 EU members, aims to get member states to cooperate more closely in spending on defence and developing new military equipment.


At a gathering of EU foreign ministers in Sofia, the bloc's foreign policy chief was also at pains to allay concerns about PESCO.

Federica Mogherini said talks with NATO defence ministers including US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis on Wednesday had allowed her to give reassurances that the EU plan did not seek to replace the alliance.

But she dismissed a call by Mattis for written assurances that common defence was solely a job for NATO, saying this was already "clearly stated in black and white in the EU treaties".

- Soft power -

Stoltenberg, also at the Munich gathering, reiterated that the EU's defence pact should "not compete (with) but complement the efforts of NATO".

He noted that once Britain leaves the EU, 80 percent of NATO's defence expenditure will come from states outside the bloc, underscoring the importance of non-EU allies in the battle against security threats.

"The EU cannot protect Europe by itself," he said.

European members of NATO have in recent months promised to step up their defence spending following complaints from US President Donald Trump they were not pulling their weight in the military alliance.

France in particular has announced plans to bolster its expenditure, earmarking nearly 300 billion euros ($370 billion) of investments by 2025.

That would take France's defence budget to the NATO goal of two percent of GDP -- a target that few alliance members currently meet -- compared with about 1.8 percent today.

Germany has also vowed to spend more on defence but remains well off the two percent target, much to the irritation of the Trump administration.

In her speech in the southern city of Munich, Von der Leyen rebuffed the US criticism by highlighting the need for aid work and other so-called "soft power" as well as military might.

"We watch with concern as some partners are ever more reducing their funding for diplomacy and development cooperation or for the United Nations," she said.

In its 2019 budget, the Trump administration has proposed lifting defence spending by 10 percent to $686 billion, while slashing the State Department's budget
.
#14889669
Atlantis wrote:A multi-ethnic EU is best placed to solve problems by soft power, and by coordinating its defense activities, Europe has more than enough economic means to match Russia by conventional means.

Europe shouldn't match Russia, there should be reconciliation between them, especially if Trump and Brexit mean a crack in Transatlantic relations. Maybe not under Putin but after him. How much sense does the antagonism between Merkel and Putin make when there is cooperation between the two countries like that?
Wikipedia wrote:Trans-Eurasia Logistics is a joint venture between German and Russian rail companies Deutsche Bahn and RZhD, operating container freight trains between Germany and China via Russia. The first such train arrived in Hamburg from Xiangtan on October 6, 2008, taking 17 days to make the trip.

Image
#14889672
Beren wrote:Europe shouldn't match Russia, there should be reconciliation between them, especially if Trump and Brexit mean a break in Transatlantic relations. Maybe not under Putin but after him.


I perfectly agree. Russia needs to be part of any European peace architecture, but it always takes two to tango and as long as there is no progress on Minsk 2, any rapprochement is unrealistic.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that the EU could easily match Russian conventional means if it had to. Thus, what I said was more a way of preempting the warmongers which seem to dominate current debate.

How much sense does the antagonism between Merkel and Putin make when there is cooperation between the two countries like that?


That's nonsense, Merkel like her party are in favor of improved relations with Russia. In fact, East Germans generally have a much more positive attitude towards Russia. But that's not something she can decide on her own. There are numerous factors to take into consideration, notably hawks in Washington, Warsaw, the Baltics, etc.

I think what has to happen is that the EU leans on Kiev and on Moscow equally to come to a solution. So far, the West has been too soft on Kiev.
#14889731
Beren wrote:I'm sure they are, however, it doesn't seem like there is good chemistry between Merkel and Putin.

All that talk about "chemistry between leaders" is very much overrated. It's a convenient shortcut for the public that doesn't understand the complexity of political and/or economic processes.

If Schroeder and Putin cooperated well, it's not because of a back-slapping comradery of men, it is because they had common interests in opposing the Iraq war and in fostering economic ties and bringing Russia into the fold of European politics.

In the meantime, the situation has changed. As the sanctions have shown, Europe can prosper even without Russia, while the Russian economy is deeper drawn into the swamp of corruption, fossil fuels are gradually being replace by renewable energy, and Putin's 19th century power games cannot be reconciled with Realpolitik.

When all is said and done, Merkel understands Putin better than Schroeder, even though you can be sure that Schroeder is still lurking in the background ready to use his contacts whenever it is needed for Merkel's politics.

After the chaos left by Yeltsin, Russia needed Putin; however, he has outlived his usefulness and corruption can only get worse.

The problem of Russia goes deeper than Putin. Like in Turkey, a majority of the voters is stuck in pre-modern times and prefers authoritarianism over liberal democracy. That's why Russia won't change easily, even in the post-Putin period.
#14889775
Atlantis wrote:All that talk about "chemistry between leaders" is very much overrated. It's a convenient shortcut for the public that doesn't understand the complexity of political and/or economic processes.

I'm sure it's not completely personal, but it must be hard to get on well with Putin if both Obama and Merkel have failed trying. Like Stalin's death changed a lot in the USSR, it will be easier to deal with Russia after Putin's retired and been replaced with someone younger and more liberal who never served in the ranks of the KGB, and it will be also easier with cracks in the Transatlantic relationship, I guess. However, there's a possibility as well that it gets even worse when Putin leaves.
#14889862
The US wants Europe to spend more on defense, but it wants the money to go to US defense contractors not to develop European technology. In the last half a century Europeans have sent untold billions of dollars to the US for American defense contractors to develop the technology that dominates global markets.

Except for the UK, which has a privileged position in the US, European contractors are virtually excluded from US bidding, while US contractors take it for granted to sell to Europe. Moreover, in the non-Western world, political pressure from Washington often clinches a deal in favor of US companies at the expense of European companies, even if the latter have the better product.

Pesco needs to prioritize the development of European technology, instead of subsidizing our competitors. And Europeans need to get better access to bidding for contracts in the US.

U.S. Sounds Alarm Over EU Push for Deeper Defense Cooperation

The U.S. warned the European Union about discriminating against American companies as the bloc’s national governments press ahead with plans for more defense cooperation, highlighting potential friction in trans-Atlantic relations.

The shot across the EU bow over defense procurement follows vocal demands by U.S. President Donald Trump for European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to step up military spending.

In a bid to bolster Europe’s military strength, European governments have come up with 17 projects that mark the first use of EU-treaty provisions on enhanced security and defense cooperation among member countries. The project is dubbed PESCO.

“Certainly we do not want this to be a protectionist vehicle for the EU and we are going to watch carefully because, if that becomes the case, then it could splinter the strong security alliance that we have,” Kay Bailey Hutchison, the U.S. envoy to NATO, told reporters on Tuesday in Brussels. “We want the Europeans to have capabilities and strength, but not to fence off American products.”

Future Procurement

The comments signal a possible tussle when NATO defense ministers meet this week to discuss military budgets and deeper EU security cooperation. U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis is scheduled to take part in the Feb. 14-15 gathering in the Belgian capital.

Hutchison sounded the alarm over possibly protectionist procurement in the future while praising allies including Germany for moving toward a pledge by NATO members to increase defense spending to at least 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2024.

The key in the EU’s joint-defense efforts is to act as a complement to NATO and to ensure a “very transparent sharing of information, sharing of opportunity,” she said.

“So far, there’s a fair process in procurement, we want to have a fair process,” Hutchison said. “It’s very important that there be transparency and openness in all of those areas where PESCO would be in a bidding process. That’s to be determined. It has not been set yet.”
#14889968
Atlantis wrote:Every passing day proves that I was right to support Trump and Brexit. It has been the wake-up call Europe needed.

The protection racket run by the US has outlived its usefulness. Today, it is the primary cause for instability and terror in the world. US expansionism is responsible for the conflicts in Europe's Eastern and the Southern neighborhoods. As the US keeps on increasing its defense budget, instability increases. Most conflicts cannot be solved by military means and the nuclear arsenals are perfectly useless in most conflicts. Yet the US is reducing its non-military aid and diplomatic corps.

A multi-ethnic EU is best placed to solve problems by soft power, and by coordinating its defense activities, Europe has more than enough economic means to match Russia by conventional means. Europe will also benefit by investing more in aerospace and defense R&D in which the US has an unfair advantage.

The US/UK want Europe to spend more on defense, yet they don't want Europe to have any control. They also want to keep Europe from developing its own technology so that their arms industries can continue to dominate global markets.



Germany could free itself to all these experimental EUtopean dreams because the Americans paid their defence needs instead, mainly in the reconstruction years during the Cold War.

[KS edit: Rule 3]
#14890003
noir wrote:Germany could free itself to all these experimental EUtopean dreams because the Americans paid their defence needs instead, mainly in the reconstruction years during the Cold War.


A lot of MENA immigrants simply aren’t interested in liberal democracy. This is obvious yet there is a clear double standard in German thinking as shown by this comment:

The problem of Russia goes deeper than Putin. Like in Turkey, a majority of the voters is stuck in pre-modern times and prefers authoritarianism over liberal democracy. That's why Russia won't change easily, even in the post-Putin period


Should we take that as an admission that Germany has a problem with multikulti.


Regarding the idea of a EU defence pact, this isn’t really a bad idea on the face of it. In the Cold War years America was strong because they had a lot of strong allies. In the last 20 years America’s major allies have declined in econmic and military power. A more self sufficient EU might help to restore European fortunes and take some of the burden off the USA.

Yet I am quite sure the Germans will stuff it up with their usual egotistical antics. They just seem to ruin everything they touch. If they could just accept the French should take the lead, it might work out.
#14890025
foxdemon wrote:A lot of MENA immigrants simply aren’t interested in liberal democracy. This is obvious yet there is a clear double standard in German thinking as shown by this comment:



Should we take that as an admission that Germany has a problem with multikulti.


Regarding the idea of a EU defence pact, this isn’t really a bad idea on the face of it. In the Cold War years America was strong because they had a lot of strong allies. In the last 20 years America’s major allies have declined in econmic and military power. A more self sufficient EU might help to restore European fortunes and take some of the burden off the USA.

Yet I am quite sure the Germans will stuff it up with their usual egotistical antics. They just seem to ruin everything they touch. If they could just accept the French should take the lead, it might work out.


It's 68ers blind spot. What they call Multiculti is receipt for civil war.
#14890041
Atlantis wrote:The US wants Europe to spend more on defense, but it wants the money to go to US defense contractors not to develop European technology.

Sure, they mean Europe to finance their warmachine rather than her own while they "defend" us against Russia. :excited:

US military spending and American military presence throughout the world are overstretched, so Europe should do that anyway.

Soundtrack

"Roads end getting nearer
We cover distance but not together"
#14890061
The US wants Europe to spend more on defense, but it wants the money to go to US defense contractors not to develop European technology. In the last half a century Europeans have sent untold billions of dollars to the US for American defense contractors to develop the technology that dominates global markets.


This is quite true. Though I am all for my country pursuing industrial sales overseas, there is no denying this.

Sure, they mean Europe to finance their warmachine rather than her own while they "defend" us against Russia.


We are not looking so good in that regard these days. If I was a European.......

Europe can vastly expand its military capabilities. Russia will be thrilled to have the US out of the business of protecting it. A strong Europe on Russia's southern border is just what the doctor ordered.

There are many of us in the US who favor a stronger role for Europe.
#14890065
They defended it against the USSR. Not that the USSR ever intended to invade Western Europe, which they would have done only if the West had provoked them to do.


Uh. No. The USSR had a large invasion army stationed on its southern borders for decades. Far larger than any army of defense would have been. It held on to its vassal Warsaw states when, if there was no intention of expanding, there was no need to do.

Russia can't invade Europe now but there was a time that they could have with a pretty good chance of success but for US tactical nuclear weapons. And not to put to fine a point on it, they just did a nifty job of snagging some lovely territory in Crimea.
#14890068
Drlee wrote:Uh. No. The USSR had a large invasion army stationed on its southern borders for decades. Far larger than any army of defense would have been. It held on to its vassal Warsaw states when, if there was no intention of expanding, there was no need to do.

They were ready and capable of doing it if the Cold War gets hot, but there was no such intention on their part. They were rather interested in selling their oil and gas, just like now.
#14890071
The German elites are expert in conflicting one against the other? They were greatly responsible for inciting America against USSR

During the Cold War

Hans Kohn in the Christian Science Monitor of September 19, 1955, wrote;
“The new conflict between Communist East and Democratic West, was directly Hitler’s work. Communism had been contained in Europe by the barrier of intermediary states from Finland to Rumania. Hitler destroyed this barrier and brought Stalin’s rule into Central Europe, first by his accord with Stalin in 1939 and then by his attack upon Stalin in 1941.”

“It is one of the most disturbing factors in present-day Germany when some Germans reproach the Western powers for not having sided with Germany against Russia, and even add that it should have been done in defense of Western civilization. The Germans, and not the West, destroyed Poland and paved Stalin’s road westward. The Germans were then as much opposed to the West and Western civilization as the Russians were. Through German fault, the whole of continental Europe, with the exception of the two small enclaves of Sweden and Switzerland, was early in 1941 under the control of totalitarian powers, hostile to the individual liberalism, the freedom of thought, and the spirit of tolerance of the West. . . .”
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]