[noir]

It's strange game because we see here the buisness political eilte (same elite that groomed Hitler to power and backed his New Order war) and the "liberal" "anti facist" elite, making one hand for the same policy.

Can't they see what the future will bring? No, they are not. They are two part of the same historical German elites.

[foxdemon]

This is actually true in a sense. But the Russians do not really have the resources to hold the territory even if they manage to penerate deep in to EU by a "blitzkrieg" like tactic. War of resources is also not something that they can handle. On top of that, this will cripple their economy. So there is literally 0 chance that they will start anything against the EU or Nato. Also Nukes.

As for the modernisation and tactics. Yes, the Russian have invested a significant ammount of resources and time in to modernising the army. Their doctrine is currently second to none. I do not know how to explain this but their doctrine is Integrated while our doctrines are fractured. We have different doctrines for different types of our armed forces. Russia on the other hand managed to create a unified doctrine for all the branches which has some innovative aspects in political, cyber and EM aspects. They not only managed to expand the scope of the doctrine but also intergrate it in to one.

I agree. The Russians have the capability but not the capacity. I think they could defeat NATO initially, simply because NATO isn’t prepared. But then, after initial success, Russian would find itself in a war they can’t win. None the less, they clearly have the plan. The Iceland bit is part of a strategy to isolate Europe by interdicting the Atlantic. So the Russians are definitely thinking about how they would defeat Europe.

But as @Drlee points out, they are living up to a past reputation. They are dreaming.

My point though, is that if the Bundeswehr was at a higher state of readiness, then the adventure would be obviously futile. A strong Germany army would stop the Russians dreaming.

It should be noted that nations do sometimes get themselves into wars they can’t win. Often due to imminent economic collapse, an authoritarian ruler might see the gamble as worth the risk. Hitter and Saddam Hussein both did this.

Security is about risk mitigation. So Germany should try to meet that NATO target.

[noir]

Remember the European and French cheer leaders of the Palestinian stone throwers?

Voila

[noir]

In The Times, British historian, Niall Ferguson, suggests Mutti "made the single biggest error in the history of the postwar German republic", after 2015 incident with Palestinian "refugee', Reem Sahwil "the chancellor's reaction was an impulsive attempt to comfort her, followed by a massive, unilateral U-turn, which she later had to reverse."

It's hard to believe the Germans are so sentimental. Still it's a question that will puzzle historians in the future.

Angela Merkel is about to pay for the ‘Mutti’ of all blunders

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ange ... -v558dw6xh

The chancellor has made many errors; the worst, on migration, may finish her
My German-born friend Peter Thiel - the world's most successful contrarian - has a favourite interview question. "What important truth", he asks tech wannabes, "do very few people agree with you on?" Thiel has made billions of dollars on the basis of such contrarian positions, not to mention many enemies. Most people in 2004 (when he invested) believed Facebook was just a Harvard undergraduate fad, but the truth was that it was destined to become one of the world's biggest companies within just over a decade. Most people in May 2016 (when he endorsed him) thought Donald Trump had little chance of becoming president, but the truth was that he was on his way to the White House. Tip: never bet against Peter.

The important truth about which very few people agree with me is that Angela Merkel has been a political disaster. The German chancellor has long been the darling of the pro-European media. In November 2015 The Economist called her "the indispensable European". A month later the Financial Times named her its "person of the year". Time magazine proclaimed her "chancellor of the free world". I could go on.

These were extraordinary misjudgments. For the plaudits were raining down on a woman who had, just months before, made the single biggest error in the history of the postwar German republic.

On German television in July 2015, Merkel had reduced a young Palestinian refugee to tears by explaining that her family might have to face deportation. "There are thousands and thousands of people in Palestinian refugee camps," the chancellor explained. "If we now say, 'You can all come' . . . we just cannot manage that." The waterworks worked. Six weeks later, Merkel opened the gates of Germany and declared: "We can manage that."

All kinds of historical explanations have been offered for Merkel's epoch-making change of mind, including her East German upbringing and her clergyman father. Who knows? Faced with Reem Sahwil's tears, the chancellor's reaction was an impulsive attempt to comfort her, followed by a massive, unilateral U-turn, which she later had to reverse. Here was one of those rarities in politics: a full 360-degree pirouette.


Often in history it is not the motives that matter, but the consequences. Since the start of 2015, Germany has received 1.38m "initial asylum applications", about a third of them from Syrians. Three-quarters of the asylum seekers are aged 30 or younger; 60% are male. About half the applications have been approved, but only around 80,000 of those denied asylum have been deported. About 86% of accepted refugees are Muslims.

The full implications of this mass influx remain to be seen. According to the Pew Research Centre, the Muslim population of Germany (which was 6% in 2016) could be anything between 8.7% and 19.7% by 2050, depending on the future rate of immigration.

The short-run consequences, however, are clear. There has been a marked increase in crime. And there has been a seismic political backlash. The crime issue is controversial, but last month a rigorous, government-commissioned study was published by the Zürich University of Applied Sciences, based on data from the state of Lower Saxony. By the end of 2016, around 750,000 of the state's 8m residents were not German citizens, and about 170,000 of them had applied for asylum.

The Zürich study reveals that asylum seekers were responsible for a surge in violent crime, which had fallen by 22% between 2007 and 2014, but rose by more than 10% from then until the end of 2016. More than 92% of that increase was attributable to the newcomers, with young men from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia overrepresented among the perpetrators.

And the victims? In nine out of 10 murders and three-quarters of cases of grievous bodily harm, they were other migrants. But in 70% of robberies and 58.6% of rape and sexual assault cases, the victims were German. Think about that.

The political backlash has only just begun, but already it has transformed the German political landscape. In last year's election, the anti-immigration party known as Alternative for Germany came third with 12.6% of the vote. The latest polls have it on 15% and rising. We are fast approaching the point when it will be the country's second-largest party after Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU). It is already large enough to make coalition-building an intractable challenge. Five months after the election, Germany still lacks a new government.

Merkel's fans like to call her "Mutti" - "Mummy". Well, this was the Mutti of all political blunders.

I could add to the case against Merkel. I believe she has reduced Germany to a condition of parlous geopolitical and military weakness. I believe she contributed significantly to the European mishandling of the Arab revolutions, which in turn triggered mass migration across the Mediterranean. I believe she did much to make the global financial crisis worse than it need have been for southern Europe, agreeing to bailouts only at the last minute, thereby maximising uncertainty about the future of the euro.

And I believe she bears as much responsibility for Brexit as any British politician, because her underestimation of the threat posed by the "leave" campaign led her to offer David Cameron risible concessions on the free movement of people when he desperately needed a real deal. Whatever Brexit may turn out to mean for Britain, I am pretty sure it will turn out to be bad for Europe and bad for Germany.

What next? The conventional wisdom is that she somehow hangs on. Maybe. A former ministerial colleague, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, once described her to me as a supreme tactician, whose "Merkel-vellian" skill at manoeuvring - her genius for maximising her options and eliminating rivals - compensated for her lack of strategy.

But we are still a week away from confirmation that the members of the Social Democratic Party will accept the "grand coalition" deal she has thrashed out with their leaders. In Germany, as elsewhere in western Europe, the growth of populist parties on both the left and the right has forced the centre-right and centre-left to set aside their 20th-century rivalry and to join forces. Yet both sides are uneasily aware that, with every passing year, their combined vote share is declining. The CDU will vote on Monday at a full party conference. The SPD's decision depends on a postal vote of all 463,000 members between February 20 and March 2.

Conventional wisdom says she scrapes through. But more than 24,000 new members have joined the SPD since the beginning of this year. It's reminiscent of what happened to Labour when an influx of new members strengthened the hand of Jeremy Corbyn against the parliamentary party. Even if the SPD does sign up for another coalition, the deal states that the parties will review it after two years. If the SPD says no, she forms a minority government. That too would be short-lived, I think.

As I said: conventional wisdom says Mutti scrapes through. But remember what Peter Thiel told you about conventional wisdom.

Niall Ferguson is the Milbank Family senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford

[Atlantis]

Britain pulls out of EU defense force

UK insists the move does not undermine commitment to Continent’s security.

LONDON — The U.K. has withdrawn its offer to lead a battle-ready EU military force after Brexit, the first concrete example of the impact of the country’s EU exit on European defense cooperation.

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, the U.K. informed the chairman of the EU military committee last Wednesday that it would no longer be the lead nation in a 1,500-strong “battlegroup” for EU defense in 2019 because of ongoing uncertainty over Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.

Britain’s decision comes despite Prime Minister Theresa May’s insistence that the U.K.’s commitment to European security is “unconditional.” The timing of the announcement has the potential to embarrass the U.K. government in the wake of Russia’s alleged use of chemical weapons in Salisbury and Britain’s subsequent diplomatic push to secure the support of its allies in Europe and the U.S.

After initial equivocation, France, Germany and the United States rowed in behind the U.K., accusing Moscow of being culpable for the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, which has left a Russian double agent, his daughter and a British policeman fighting for their lives.

“… the offer of a battlegroup in the period immediately following our exit strikes us an unnecessary complication” — Britain’s Lieutenant General George Norton

A number of EU military powers take it in turns to provide the bulk of the troops for the so-called EU battlegroup, a force established as part of a broader push to give the EU more military clout.

No battlegroup has yet deployed to a crisis zone, but they are ready if called upon. Britain was due to take over responsibility for providing the battle-ready force in the second six months of 2019, during the Brexit transition period.

The U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the roster of EU countries offering to lead battlegroups is likely to spark concern on the Continent that London’s commitment to European security is now also uncertain, despite May’s repeated reassurance that this is not the case.

‘Clarity of purpose’

In the letter informing Brussels of the U.K.’s decision, Britain’s Lieutenant General George Norton said the decision to withdraw from the program was because of the logistical problems caused by Brexit, and insisted Britain could still remain part of the program further down the line if a political agreement could be struck.

Writing to General Mikhail Kostarakos, chairman of the EU military committee, Norton said the U.K. is prepared to offer a battlegroup for the EU rota in future once the Brexit uncertainty had been cleared. He added the U.K.’s offer had always been “provisional.”

Norton said that while Britain’s withdrawal had been under discussion since September last year, it was important to clarify the decision to give the EU time to prepare.

France, Italy, Germany and Greece are the only other countries with national headquarters having sufficient capacity to command a European operation.

“Military activities, however, require clarity of purpose, and planning; not least of which involves the time that is necessary to force generate credible capabilities,” the letter states. “The U.K. believes that, for the practical purposes of the time needed for the EU and member states to identify and assign a stand-by battlegroup for the second half of 2019, a decision should not be delayed. Consequently we formally withdraw our provisional offer of a battlegroup for the period 2019-20.”

The letter goes on: “Our prime minister’s unconditional commitment to European security of course stands, but the offer of a battlegroup in the period immediately following our exit strikes us an unnecessary complication.”

Britain’s defense ministry did not respond to a request for comment before this article was published.

Any decision to deploy the battlegroup would be made by EU leaders at the European Council, which Britain will leave in March 2019. However, all lead battlegroup countries retain a veto over deployment.

The U.K. is one of only a handful of EU countries capable of providing battlegroup headquarters.

Britain also currently leads the EU’s counter-piracy mission “Atlanta” off the coast of Somalia, commanding the operation out of Northwood military headquarters in Hertfordshire.

France, Italy, Germany and Greece are the only other countries with national headquarters having sufficient capacity to command a European operation. The U.K., for example, is providing the headquarters for a Dutch/Belgian battlegroup in 2018.

London also plays an important role in Operation Sophia — the counter-smuggling operation in the Mediterranean that is commanded from Italian national headquarters — as well as stationing troops in Estonia to act as a deterrent to any military action by Russia.

Whether Britain continues its involvement in the EU battlegroup program after Brexit will depend on whether the U.K. can negotiate more involvement in decision-making and control of missions than is normally offered to third countries, U.K. officials said. If this proves impossible, officials say it is unlikely Britain will continue to take part in EU missions in the future.

If this means we no longer have to back the warmongering Brits, it is all for the best.

The Russians are far more reliable partners anyways.

[foxdemon]

What a shame! Perfectly good Anglo imperial strike fighters and the Luftwaffe isn’t allow to have them. Instead they have to get obsolete aircraft.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/german-air-force-chief-fired-for-supporting-f-35/


German Air Force Chief fired for supporting F-35




German Air Force Chief fired for supporting F-35
Luftwaffe’s Chief active support of the F-35 clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon

Jane’s says the head of Luftwaffe (German Air Force), Lt. Gen. Karl Müllner, will be leaving his post in May in large part due to his support for a German procurement of the F-35.

The news of his retirement breaking just two days after Germany’s defence secretary, Ursula von der Leyen, was sworn in for another term.


According Jane’s Gen Müllner’s outspoken public support for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as a successor to the German Tornado fleet was pivotal in the decision for his early retirement. “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favourite of the air force is,” Gen Müllner told last November.

Luftwaffe’s Chief active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon.

As we have previously reported the Luftwaffe has a shortlist of existing platforms to replace its Panavia Tornado fighter bombers from 2025 to 2030 but the service “preferred choice” is the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, a German Air Force official said at the International Fighter Conference on Nov. 8, 2017.

According to the same official in fact, the Lightning II can satisfy most of Germany’s requirements and offer other benefits as well.

“The Tornado replacement needs to be fifth-generation aircraft that can be detected as late as possible, if at all. It must be able to identify targets from a long way off and to target them as soon as possible.

“The German Ministry of Defence [MoD] is looking at several aircraft today, including the F-35 – it is commercially available already, has been ordered by many nations and is being introduced into service today, and has most of the capabilities required.”

Instead in a letter to a Greens lawmaker who had inquired about the deliberations, the German Defense Ministry said the F-35 and Boeing’s F-15 and F/A-18 fighters were secondary options.

“The indicated view of the inspector of the air force that the F-35 Lightning II is an especially suitable successor to the Tornado system is not the position of the federal government,” Deputy Defence Minister Ralf Brauksiepe wrote in the letter.

Noteworthy, given that France and Germany are expanding their cooperation on defense and security and since they said last year they would work together to develop a new European fighter, the ministry’s preference for the Typhoon is no surprise.

By contrast many German allies in Europe, including Norway, the Netherlands, Britain, Italy, Turkey and Denmark have selected the F-35 and some have received initial deliveries. Belgium is expected to make a decision this year

[Atlantis]

Traitors shouldn't be fired, they should be hanged.

We have subsidized the US defense industry long enough. It's time to take the technology back and use our money to fund our own R&D.

[Drlee]

We have subsidized the US defense industry long enough.

Absolutely. You Europeans should take over all of your defense. Start by building a robust nuclear weapons program. Then field an army capable of stopping Russia. You know, one with unified control. Then build up your navies from the puny coast guards they are now to a size that would allow you to keep your trade routes open. You will need about 300 ships.. You can afford it. A 10% VAT might get you started.

Good lord man. Get a fucking grip. The US has been funding your defense since we liberated you at the end of WWII.

[Decky]

Absolutely. You Europeans should take over all of your defense. Start by building a robust nuclear weapons program.

Europe already has 3. The UK's, France's and Russia's.

[Drlee]

I forgot. The Russians will protect you from us. That's right.

The UK is not a member of the EU for all intent and purpose though with the way trump is acting they may well reconsider. France will protect you though. There is an old saying, "going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion".

“What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against DisneyWorld and Big Macs than against the Nazis?”

[Decky]

You know that France was Europe's premier military power for centuries right? In fact they were Europe's premier military power for longer than your colony has been independent, in fact without France you would not have became independent in the first place.

[foxdemon]

Traitors shouldn't be fired, they should be hanged.

We have subsidized the US defense industry long enough. It's time to take the technology back and use our money to fund our own R&D.

The problem is that France and Germany together won’t be able to afford to develop an aircraft comparable to the F-35. Japan started to develop their own stealth fighter be then realised they weren’t going have the money to see it through. So now they are talking with American companies about developing the next gen fighter together.

But here is another point. By the time the Franco-German budget model F-35 takes off, 20 years will have past and everyone else will be bringing FA-xx aircraft into service. So Germany and France will be stuck with obsolete aircraft that can’t operate in the modern threat environment.

Even the Americans can’t afford to develop cutting edge combat jets all by themselves any more. So why paint yourselves into a corner.

[Albert]

Is not F-35 a failure anyways.

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.

The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired, serving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy – and even Britain’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy – all in one aircraft design. It’s supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – aircraft types with widely different missions. It’s marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane significantly better than anything potential adversaries could build in the next two decades. But it’s turned out to be none of those things.The Conversation

Officially begun in 2001, with roots extending back to the late 1980s, the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has failed to meet many of its original design requirements. It’s also become the most expensive defense program in world history, at around US$1.5 trillion before the fighter is phased out in 2070.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/syria ... d20aeb5085

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-fighter/

[foxdemon]

Is not F-35 a failure anyways.



http://www.news.com.au/technology/syria ... d20aeb5085

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-fighter/

Does one believe journalist articles or does one believe Air Force professionals? If the F-35 is so bad then why do Air Marshals want it? They have the knowledge to understand how it is to be used and access to the restricted information about its true capabilities.

So why do all these Air Marshals want it so bad? The F-35 is the only current aircraft that can hope to cope with modern air defences. It isn’t just the stealth but also the sensors and the way they are fused that allows the pilot to operate aggressively against intergrated air defences.

If one has a large edge in electronic warfare over a rival, older aircraft will do. For example the Israelis can feed the Syrian air defences with a false sky picture. But if there isn’t such a gap in difference in EW, then you need something like an F-35 to crack their defences.

Regarding dog fighting, the exercise cited in the article involved an F-35 operating under restricted preformance. But dog fighting isn’t that important these days. Most engagements are BVR and those that aren’t involve high off bore missiles with helmet mounted cuing.

Regarding limited missiles, new CUDA missiles are much smaller than legacy designs and more can be carried. Also, the F-35 only needs to fly stealth missions sometimes. Other times it can load up just like any other fast combat jet.

Finally, it isn’t any more expensive to operate than other top end jets (eg: Typhoon or F-15). So why not go the F-35?

It is more expensive to operate than budget jets like the Grippen and Super Hornet. Those cheaper jets are also quite reliable. A mixture of F-35s and cheap jets might work. But Germany is going expensive older gen planes. As a strike fight, the Typhoon is the worst of all worlds.

[Atlantis]

Europe already has 3. The UK's, France's and Russia's.

True, combined we would be able to stand up to US imperialism.

To make sure that won't happen, the Skripal poisoning comes in really handy.

@foxdemon, I'll take that with a grain of salt. Europe spends a lot more on defense than Russia, why do we have to spend even more?

The US is where it is because it benefited from 70 years of European brain drain and European subsidies to its military and industrial complex. We can't make that undone overnight, but a gradual switch-over from Nato to Pesco is possible. The UK and US know its possible, that's why they oppose Pesco.

Europe is doing well in launcher and aircraft technology even though the US has far bigger budgets. We still have satellites manufacturers, even though the US make 20 when we make 2.

European economies will prosper even without the City of London, and the European defense sector will bloom once we have kicked the protection racket.

Good lord man. Get a fucking grip. The US has been funding your defense since we liberated you at the end of WWII.

You got this the wrong way around. Europe has been subsidizing US defense buildup and R&D since the war. That's why you so desperately want to prevent a European army.

[foxdemon]

This article shows the problem with PESCO. The left wing factions in various member states will derail any consensus and prevent it from addressing the needs of preparing for major conflicts. So NATO remains relevant.

One might ask why the left wing Euro bubbleheads support NATO.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/pesco-is-not-about-peace-it-is-about-preparing-for-eu-wars-833488.html

PESCO is not about peace, it is about preparing for EU wars


Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - 09:36 PM
The EU's Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defence (PESCO) initiatives are not in Ireland’s interests, argues Irish MEP Luke 'Ming' Flanagan.



IN recent weeks, EU Defence Ministers, met in "PESCO format" for the first time.

They pushed plans to strengthen European Union security and defence and cooperation between the European Union and NATO, and discussed the European Defence Fund and new laws to establish a European Defence Industrial Development Programme.

None of these PESCO initiatives are in Ireland’s interests.

The Treaty on European Union's description of PESCO is vague, and deliberately so.

It mentions "more binding commitments", "with a view to the most demanding missions", to fulfil "the Union level of ambition", but what exactly is the ambition of the European Union in the use of military force sphere?

We do know that no matter what the propaganda coming from Fine Gael or what Taoiseach Varadkar says, 'the most demanding missions' have nothing to do with UN peacekeeping.

The law establishing PESCO doesn’t contain a single mention of the United Nations, nor does it refer to peacekeeping, nor even "peace".

We know that in the Lisbon Treaty debates the European Union and the Irish Government actively suppressed discussion of the implications of the Common Security and Defence Policy, including the mutual defence clause which is an integral part of PESCO.

According to Eurobarometer surveys, carried out twice a year among EU citizens, only 12% of European citizens claim to be aware of the mutual defence clause and to know what it is. This level of ignorance among EU citizens about the EU's CSDP and PESCO is no accident.


Let’s look at a few facts:

1) This legally binding EU decision mandates PESCO member states to increase defence budgets, to provide troops (on stand-by) for use in EU Battle-Groups, to join "structures partaking in European external action in the military field", and for "common funding of military CSDP operations and missions".

2) It states quite bluntly that "increasing joint and collaborative defence capability development projects, is among the binding commitments under PESCO".

3) PESCO aims to establish an EU-wide arms industry, and the EU's European Defence Agency will tell PESCO members, including Ireland, what weapons to buy.

4) International humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war, requires that all attacks be directed at military targets. Attacks cannot cause disproportionate civilian loss.

Yet, we know that in modern warfare, missiles can miss the intended targets up 90% of the time. We also know that for every one soldier killed in modern conflicts, on average, ten civilians die.
The European Union’s own European Security Strategy, adopted by the European Council in Brussels in December 2003, stated as fact that ‘since 1990, almost 4 million people have died in wars, 90% of them civilians’.

A few questions then for our Taoiseach:

1) Will the EU procure weapons including BVR or "beyond visual range" missiles?

2) Will the European Defence Agency publish the "operational pK" (probability of Kill) for the weapons it demands the PESCO member-states buy?

3) Will the Irish government support the purchase of these weapons and against whom will they be used?

4) Mindful that the US military and government pays no attention to civilian deaths in America’s wars, will the EU publish the body count of the civilians inevitably killed through the so-called "alliance of individual PESCO armies" actions in EU CSDP military missions?

Ireland should have followed the path of Denmark in relation to PESCO, and secured an opt-out to PESCO and CSDP.

As the PESCO law says: "Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark is therefore not bound by this Decision".

Ireland can have the same legally binding opt out.

The Taoiseach must reverse the decision he took in December 2017 to join PESCO and should instead re-orientate Irish foreign policy to neutrality and to what Ireland and her Defence Forces can do best to tackle conflicts and save civilian lives today, UN peacekeeping.


* Luke 'Ming' Flanagan has served as a Member of the European Parliament from Ireland since 2014. He is an Independent, but part of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left.

[Atlantis]

This article shows the problem with PESCO. The left wing factions in various member states will derail any consensus and prevent it from addressing the needs of preparing for major conflicts. So NATO remains relevant.

One might ask why the left wing Euro bubbleheads support NATO.

The far-left wants to abolish Nato just like it wants to abolish the EU. Maybe that's because they are bubbleheads.

I'm alright with abolishing Nato, but before we can do that, we'll have to get Pesco started in earnest. The left won't be the one to prevent that. It's more likely that history will abolish the left.

Anyways, Pesco is going to be a great success, just like the EU. It's strong because it's based on consensus and not on imperialism. Ultimately, imperialism can only be destructive. You guys always see missiles, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and the like to impose the will of the empire. If you see a political entity that isn't as trigger happy as you are, you think, oh Jesus! Such a failure! But in the end its always you guys that fail. You can't even pacify an impoverished little shit-hole like Afghanistan with all the power of the empire. Such a failure! The empire has become the laughingstock of the world.

[Decky]

This article shows the problem with PESCO. The left wing factions in various member states will derail any consensus and prevent it from addressing the needs of preparing for major conflicts. So NATO remains relevant.

One might ask why the left wing Euro bubbleheads support NATO.

Where do you right wing nuts get your information?

The left hate NATO and want to see it dissolved. Why would we want to see our working class continue to be sent to kill and die as auxiliaries for the Americans? We want our servicemen defending our countries not prancing around in the middle east fighting and dying for the US tax payer while being armed, trained and paid by our tax payers.

[foxdemon]

Where do you right wing nuts get your information? :?:

The left hate NATO and want to see it dissolved. Why would we want to see our working class continue to be sent to kill and die as auxiliaries for the Americans? We want our servicemen defending our countries not prancing around in the middle east fighting and dying for the US tax payer while being armed, trained and paid by our tax payers.

Your country isn’t involved in PESCO. What do you care?

But, for the left in participating member states, not supporting PESCO means supporting NATO by default, since that is the alternative. These countries have to have some form of collective defence arrangements and if PESCO is knackered by lefties with no idea, then those governments will be stuck with what they have now. Which means continuing to support the Empire.

[Decky]

But, for the left in participating member states, not supporting PESCO means supporting NATO by default, since that is the alternative. These countries have to have some form of collective defence arrangements and if PESCO is knackered by lefties with no idea, then those governments will be stuck with what they have now. Which means continuing to support the Empire.

That isn't true at all. There is absolutely an alternative. We keep doing what we have done for thousands of years. Each nation has its own military which is used to achieve its own foreign policy goals. NATO is not an alliance it is vassalage. Nations from all around the globe sacrificing their working class teenagers by throwing them into America's wars like meat into a grinder and getting nothing back in return.