Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nato and Europe a gradual split?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rommel View Post
    Customary or compulsory sir? My will to contribute positively to this forum, my posts and my advanced apologies for my poor English as it is not my mother language is all you need to know until I feel like otherwise. That goes for you "Officer of Engineers", fuck you too sir and have a good day, night, whatever.
    Your contribution is poor. Your knowledge is non-existing. And your 9 months does not trump my LCols.

    So again, who the fuck are you to say that we were lucky. The Germans were lucky they didn't die on English shores.

    Comment


    • #17
      :pop:

      Waits for another round of BoB nonsense, with maps, production rates, casualties, what ifs...

      ... then remembers this has something to do with NATO, Europe, Poland and UK.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #18
        We've got our differences settled through PM.

        Now to topic.

        Europe does not need another HQ. This is the 3rd such hq. Except for kosovo, these hqs never stood up when needed. Afghanistan, Lebabon, Libya, new hqs were raised with Americans or individual governments taking charge.

        Europe doesn't need this hq. It needs the RRF that this hq and others before it is suppose to command. An hq that does not even have a paper command is another feel good dog and pony show

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by cyppok View Post
          You mean if they start WW3? since that is apparently the point once you go superpower you get to enforce your will by military means. Based on his perception.

          Apparently only Poland existed in the East, no other countries mattered to win WW2, I seem to remember USSR being there but I am sure it has been edited out of the European history books.
          A simple bit of reading comprehension in English would make it clear that he's talking about 1939. :bang:

          The USSR didn't do anything worthy until 1941.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Europe does not need another HQ. This is the 3rd such hq.
            Actually it's the 8th - in parallel, not sequential. Seven national ones and Mons as the NATO contribution. NATO is downsizing due to its diminishing level of importance anyway, closing down HQs. In my opinion they should just transfer Mons (ex-SHAPE) from NATO to EUMS. Benefit being that it'd be pretty much a stone throw away from EUMS HQ.

            As for forces, we have them. We just do not have them organized under a joint military HQ. Give operational command over EUROFOR, Eurocorps, CJEF, EATC and the EUBG to EUMS and we're talking. And if we really want NATO to be worth something in a European context give it operational command over NFOR and at least the "spare" QRFs not bound to NATO duties too.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
              A simple bit of reading comprehension in English would make it clear that he's talking about 1939. :bang:

              The USSR didn't do anything worthy until 1941.
              Military unity could make EU a superpower: Kaczynski — EUbusiness.com - EU Business News(from last year a different politician but the point being it resonates in the country on both fronts of the political divide this issue is inline)...
              (my comprehension is fine the communique was about the future and Eu becoming superpower to exert more influence)


              I don't think so. The whole summit was made to create a group of countries that would lead and essentially run the EU as a board of directors on behalf of everyone in the sphere of foreign and military policy.https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10078.19.0.0/world/military/eu-needs-military-to-become-a-superpower-says-poland

              Poland’s foreign minister Radek Sikorski was surprisingly clear on his reasons for wanting a military. “If the EU wants to become a superpower, and Poland supports this, then we must have the capability to exert influence in our neighborhood. … Sometimes we must use force to back our diplomacy,” he said, according to the EU Observer.
              NATO will gradually loose some assets in Europe because long term the military will be used to back their own foreign policy agenda. The whole goal to get EU-armed forces up and running through a joint HQ is to first win more say in the NATO-EU relationship ergo the push for united voice in it to make it a 50-50 partnership (I figure) instead of US and bi-lateral links which is dominated by the US relationship.

              Short term this is a very slow process but you could make it out on the horizon.

              All of the continental powers want this because it creates a game changing atmosphere with them in the drivers seat. They can dominate and have a more forceful foreign policy in regions of their interest Mediteranian, Russia, and Africa with far more weight than before. The price will be very steep though because in some sense they will want to keep the NATO alliance going to keep some influence outside through the US relationship, they just don't want to pay for it by sharing influence in the near abroad and where they wish to exert more themselves.
              Last edited by cyppok; 07 Dec 12,, 15:56.
              Originally from Sochi, Russia.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by cyppok View Post
                Military unity could make EU a superpower: Kaczynski — EUbusiness.com - EU Business News(from last year a different politician but the point being it resonates in the country on both fronts of the political divide this issue is inline)...
                (my comprehension is fine the communique was about the future and Eu becoming superpower to exert more influence)


                I don't think so. The whole summit was made to create a group of countries that would lead and essentially run the EU as a board of directors on behalf of everyone in the sphere of foreign and military policy.https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10078.19.0.0/world/military/eu-needs-military-to-become-a-superpower-says-poland



                NATO will gradually loose some assets in Europe because long term the military will be used to back their own foreign policy agenda. The whole goal to get EU-armed forces up and running through a joint HQ is to first win more say in the NATO-EU relationship ergo the push for united voice in it to make it a 50-50 partnership (I figure) instead of US and bi-lateral links which is dominated by the US relationship.

                Short term this is a very slow process but you could make it out on the horizon.

                All of the continental powers want this because it creates a game changing atmosphere with them in the drivers seat. They can dominate and have a more forceful foreign policy in regions of their interest Mediteranian, Russia, and Africa with far more weight than before. The price will be very steep though because in some sense they will want to keep the NATO alliance going to keep some influence outside through the US relationship, they just don't want to pay for it by sharing influence in the near abroad and where they wish to exert more themselves.
                And that doesn't have anything to do with the original observation about Poland buying time in 1939 for the Allies.

                Comment

                Working...
                X