Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

In Defence of Europe

It has been NATO, of course, and not the EU that has played the principle part in maintaining peace in Europe since 1949. Indeed, it is now widely recognised that the actions of the EU in the Balkans, and in Ukraine, have acted to foment conflict rather than peace. This is tacitly recognised even by the EU Empire's fervent German press outlet, Der Spiegel; "NATO always aspired to be something more than a defence alliance. It viewed itself as the protective power of liberal democracy, the West and Western principles. It was a moral framework, the foundations for their existence. But are we certain that the West is still a community of shared values? If it's not, then what is NATO defending?"

And here we have the intellectual crisis of the Neo-Illiberals. They don't like democracy being used by people who don't share their values. They are intolerant of any political system that doesn't work the way they want. They know they are right and will bully, coerce and manipulate in order to make everyone realise this. And they simply don't understand a NATO that defends democracy, universal suffrage and the secret ballot, and the right of self-determination. They want an ideological NATO, as grandiose, idealist and theocratic as the EU Federasts themselves. They want a NATO that will be the EU's armed stormfront. 

This dichotomy therefore defines the positions of Europe's actors, played out yesterday in Munich against the background of US VP Pence's speech.  

Brussels Wants to replace NATO with a militarised EU - A European military alliance as allowed for by but not yet enabled by Article 42 (2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Juncker has signalled that he sees this starting as a 'soft' military capability - airlifts, peacekeeping, border security, maritime patrol and SAR - geared at projecting power and showing the flag rather than in maintaining heavy armour pointing East. Undoubtedly this will also involve the strengthening of capacity by the EU Gendarmerie to subdue any outbreaks of democracy within the EU. Argues that up to half of existing (target) 2% defence spends should go to the EU military alliance with the remaining 1% to a reformed NATO. 

The EU's house magazine Der Spiegel echoes this approach; "In the medium-term, Europe must be capable of sufficiently defending itself and providing for its own security. What is most needed in order to make that happen is unity. If Germany and other Europeans now spend more on defence, they will also have to increase their military cooperation as well as massively expand the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. Europe's alliance should not replace NATO, but it must enable Europeans to stand by each other if the Americans will no longer do it."

And this could define Europe's flashpoint of the future. An EU nation, backed by NATO upholding liberal democracy and the UN upholding the right of self-determination, moves to break out of the EU after a clear referendum. The EU, in seeking to use whatever means possible to prevent such secession, mobilises its own military alliance, including French nukes under Brussels command.  

UK & USA Want a full 2% defence spend to go to NATO to maintain an effective military shield against Russia and also paradoxically to build co-partner forces with Russia to face Islamist threats to our common southern borders. Want no modification of NATO or UN structures and will seek to keep down or veto EU efforts at militarisation.

France Will be asked to give up her UN seat to the EU and her Nuclear potential to EU command. These issues may surface in the forthcoming election, and candidates including Mme Le Pen asked to make their positions clear

Germany Is struggling with her identity like never before. The nation has a huge inbuilt resistance to becoming a militarily strong player, but alone amongst the EU's partners has the financial strength to do so. Pouring money into Juncker's 'soft' military alliance is one option - pouring money into expanding French military capacity another, though this will stick in the craw of German voters. Germany's terrier-like resistance to giving away even a pfennig of her savings may well act in the UK / US interest - for without German gold, the EU's ambitions will come to nought.


Anonymous said...

Defence of the EU..................hmm lets see here, Mogherini is, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy............SECURITY?

It really, truly is a charade.

Just who are they kidding?

To say that, this signorina Frederica Mogherini is ignorant does ignoramuses a disservice. Alack then to putting Mogherini in charge of EU foreign affairs conjures a historical analogy akin to promoting Eva Braun to Field Marshall and putting her in charge of the defence of Stalingrad.

The EU certainly knows how to dig them up, on a scale rating federal delusion, of gormlessness and vacant political idiocy Mogherini is right up there at the top, her mental vacancy its size is measured in light years.

After Baroness 'blithering idiot' Ashton, I didn't think there could be found a worse candidate for EU Foreign secretary aka "High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy"............."Security Policy" !? Mogherini, all she is a dupe and empty headed Socialista a victim, alumnus of the eyetie brand school of Communism; of brainwashing and groupthink straight out of central casting 'our village is missing its idiot'.

She is prone to weeping tears of faux grief and what does she know of human nature? Let alone Weltpolitik and being out on the world stage given to making things in Europe whether it be cajoling the new American President, assuaging the Russian President...... a whole lot worse.

Of course bliar thinks the light shines down from EU Kommissars and its "high representatives" but then bliar, clegg, mandelson, major, caMORON et al are all barking mad howling at the moon federalists - go figure.

Raedwald said...

I neglected in the post to mention the possibility of Herr Schulz replacing Merkel - a fully paid up member of the EU Nomenklatura Schulz will be the one to loosen German purse strings to shit a mountain of gold in the EU's direction ...

Anonymous said...

" Schulz will be the one to loosen German purse strings to shit a mountain of gold in the EU's direction ..."

Aye and it's probably the only thing which would actually waken the German people - try to separate them from their savings and assumed but not future insured gelt.

rapscallion said...

Having two "security" structures like NATO and an EU force is dangerous nonsense. It only serves to split your forces - something you should never do. Thankfully we in Britain won't get involved in any EU Army etc.

I really can't see the French giving up their UN seat and allowing Brussels to gets it's grubby little mitts on the French Force de Frappe.

The real problem as ever, lies with Germany. Having been burned badly twice they've obviously realised that military adventures are not the way ahead, and that far more can be achieved by economic hegemony - which they already pretty much have. Yes, the Germans are "funny" about money, the wheelbarrows of money to buy a loaf of bread if not fresh in their minds is something they all know about, and they have absolutely no desire to repeat that particular set of events. EU foreign policy is German foreign policy by other means and this youtube video elaborates that point -

Whether the EU crumbles this year or in 10 years, the issue of NATO is not going away. We do have to re-think what it is for. The Europeans cannot be trusted with it on their own, and therefore it needs American backing and support.

The US might not like this, but it will prove a helluva lot cheaper in both the short and long terms. What the EU should do and won't is to come to an understanding with Russia - and stick to it. It will reassure the Russians who have been invaded twice from the west and curtail any German/EU moves East.

No situation is ideal, but Europe is at peace (relatively speaking), perhaps acceptance of the status quo vis-a-vis Europe, Russia and the US is best left that way.

John M said...

I find the whole concept of being lectured by the Germans on military responsibilities rather hilarious, because whenever there's a fight to be had, the one thing you can depend on is that the Germans are not going to commit anybody to the effort, preferring instead to clasp thier hands to thier chests and weel about how thier history prevents them getting involved.

Dave_G said...

In times of economic crisis it is usual to increase spending on your military, if only to give lie to your countries 'growth' figures.

No co-incidence that the USA and China have been doing so recently and for the EU to follow suit is the 'natural' course of events.

Of course, having all those weapons and not planning to use them would be an awful waste of resources would it not?

Anonymous said...

Raedwald said:

'France Will be asked to give up her UN seat to the EU and her Nuclear potential to EU command. These issues may surface in the forthcoming election, and candidates including Mme Le Pen asked to make their positions clear.'

More than enough on their plate at the moment:

France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface


Cascadian said...

Ask yourself, who is Europe's enemy?

Who is creating the most internal disturbance and economic damage?

It is surely NOT Russia, not even Turkey (at the moment). The major threat is now the embedded jihadis of Islam with their well dispersed arsenal mosques, and their families milking the welfare systems for all they are worth. Once again the politicians ignore the unsavoury truth.

The 2% funding issue is a ruse, nobody can look at the "military" within Europe and see any kind of cohesive, fighting units. Most of them go home at 5pm and take weekends off, if they are issued firearms they are not issued bullets. A more flaccid "military" cannot be imagined. Britains "military" for example is little more than chocolate box, fancy dress units suitable for little more than parading. It will take a major shift in thinking and funding to change this, 2% will not be anywhere near adequate.

I am disappointed in Pence and Mattis once again allowing the EU to "promise" some future increase at some future unknown time when magically the other members will start producing budget surpluses. Especially in the case of Germany who have already announced that it's entire surplus will be absorbed in providing welfare to the islamic incursion for the foreseeable future.

One can but conclude that there is no serious attempt to maintain the welfare systems for the people who have contributed into them, and submission to Islam is in fact part of the plan. You don't need a "military" for appeasement.

Cascadian said...

And right on cue, Schultz (potentially the next leader of Germany) announces his appeasement platform.

You don't need a "military" for appeasement.