Euroarmy - this is not a renovation. Understand necessary!
Not even a week passed before the European Parliament, albeit with a small majority, but adopted a resolution on the creation of a unified European army. The ideas that had been in the air since Trump’s unexpected victory in the US presidential elections began to receive some legal form.
Oh, how scared European politicians are the simple words of the American president about paying for military protection! It was scared. After all, it is no secret to anyone that, with the possible exception of Germany, there are no serious armies in European states. Yes, and the Bundeswehr in its current state, of course, is different from the superamii of the Baltic countries, but, nevertheless, "unfit".
But the question of validity will analyze below.
NATO? Americans are increasingly showing "teeth." They do not intend to pay for Europeans. To be completely objective, the United States simply decided to make money with the hands of Trump on the protection of Europeans. A sort of euroChOP: “US Army, we will protect you anywhere and from anyone!” Normal approach of a normal businessman.
Another factor that pushes Europe towards its own army is precisely the charge for the American army. The fact is that 2% of GDP, this fee is not limited. And pragmatic Europeans consider money as good as Americans. There comes a time when “feeding your army” becomes more profitable than “feeding someone else's”. And in order to feed the army, you must have it.
In general, the idea of pan-European armed forces has been vital since the very idea of the European Union was born. That is from the 60-ies of the last century.
And today, the European Union has its own strengths ... It is difficult to say what the forces are, but they exist.
There is a multinational 1,5 rapid response team of thousands of people. There is a German-French brigade, a battalion manned in Scandinavia, and a newly created Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian peacekeeping battalion.
It seems to be all ...
Strange, but many of those who should really deal with defense issues, including in Russia, did not understand the importance of the decision of the European Parliament. What is the European army? Who will be in this army? Who is she going to fight with? Good questions. And who will give them intelligible answers is not yet clear. But certainly not Mr. Juncker.
But let's just try to understand what the pan-European army is. And what will it be suitable for (if it will be).
Remember, how many times did Europe collect the pan-European army? It is common European. It is not necessary to have seven genius in the forehead to answer this question. There were only two such armies! One was created by Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. And the second is Adolf Hitler. And both of these armies were not created for defense.
You can also recall the experience of the army of Austria-Hungary in the First World War. There were all there too, Germans, Czechs, Austrians, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks ... Those who have free time can spend it in search of victories of this camp.
Very often in the comments on this issue, a sensible thought slips. The army is not only soldiers with machine guns and other weapons. It is also a huge life support system for this military mechanism. It is clear that in a normal army there are several support soldiers for one soldier on the front line. And to create such a system from scratch is not the matter of one year or even ten years.
All right Creating such a life support system for the army really takes time. Even with sufficient funds. It is necessary not only to look for the location of parts, arsenals, warehouses, airfields. We need to build them! But this is only theoretically. And practically?
There is practically a military infrastructure in Europe. This is not only military bases, etc., that today belongs to NATO. This is what remains of the former Europe. From the time when European countries had armies. Not what the whole world is laughing about today, like the Baltic "armed forces", but normal armies. Yes, today this infrastructure is largely lost. In many ways, destroyed. But in many ways it is preserved. Especially in Germany and France.
According to expert estimates, it will take from 5 to 7 years to recreate the life support system of the European army using the means that NATO has. Without use - from 7 to 9-10 years. And through these years we will get an army of a united Europe! Well, not us, they will get.
I foresee objections. The EU is on the verge of a big restructuring, and possibly decay. Fully admit this thought. Only he stands on this threshold since its inception. Worth and will stand. Exit from the UK to the UK? And what does that prove? Nothing at all. Is it only that the British felt in time the change in the mood of American society? And then with great stretch.
The small countries of Europe are well aware that alone they no one calls them in any way. And the mood of society within these countries is increasingly “smelling” of nationalist moods. Peoples no longer want to be pan-European. They want to be Germans, Italians, French, Czechs ... They want to have their own history. How do Russians, Chinese, Americans have it ...
And it’s not a fact that even new threats like ISIL (banned in the Russian Federation) will serve to rally states, and the united armed forces will become a kind of foundation for unification. Rather, a village like Greece or Macedonia is easier to defend on your own. But you have to defend something, and not someone else there ...
And here a contradiction appears. Not a contradiction between countries. The contradiction between the existence of NATO and the EU army. Which, whether Europeans or Americans want it or not, plays on the side of Russia. On the one hand, a third force appears in Europe, which theoretically will strengthen the NATO bloc in opposition to Russia. So, will strengthen the United States in the struggle for supremacy in European politics.
And on the other hand? On the other hand, where is the guarantee that the European army will be an obedient tool in the hands of NATO and the United States? Where is the guarantee that the Europeans will want to serve the Americans in the future, and not ask them out? After all, not only we have voices about the occupying forces in Europe. This is openly talked about in leading European countries. Rich Germany no longer wants to run errands for the United States. She wants more independence.
It is unlikely that the United States will calmly respond to European initiatives. Are there any real ways to leave the situation as it is today? Maybe there is. And this is not only (and more correctly - not so much) Trump’s political decision. These are wonderful economic levers that Washington owns.
Over the years that have passed since the introduction of the single European currency, we were inspired by the idea that “oyro” is a competitor to the dollar. A currency that can withstand an American on equal terms. Only one detail related to the euro, try not to mention. And the detail is substantial. What keeps the euro? How is this currency secured? Ultimately, where is the gold of European countries stored?
So if desired, the United States can bring down the euro overnight. And what is the result? As a result, we get Europe, which simply has no money for the construction of a modern army. Europe, which can only rely on itself. Allies? Who? Americans as the authors of the "mess" disappear. Russia? After all that has happened over the years? Yes, and build an army against yourself? China? The Chinese are waiting for the "corpse of the enemy to pass by." And so on all positions.
In general, despite the fact that the idea of creating a unified army of Europe is a failure today, we should think about it. In order not to miss the initiative. The situation described above is today. And what will happen tomorrow? And what if the US supports the creation of a European army? It is like the "appendage" to NATO. Trump as a true businessman has so far done his business in his usual style. Demand everything, and then give up to the necessary features. The partner will be happy that he could at least slightly conquer you, and you will be with profit.
Formally, today NATO does not oppose Euro-Initiatives. Formally and for now. What will happen next - time will tell. But the fact that Americans just will not leave Europe is a fact. Lose control of Europe? It is unlikely that the United States will go to such nonsense.
Easier to make pay. Moreover, many experts are unanimous in saying that Europe has no money today to create a full-fledged army.
And, most importantly, against whom? Against Russia?
Let everyone answer the question: is it really scary for Russia to have this idea of creating an Euro-army? And will this army be dangerous for our armed forces?
Oh, how scared European politicians are the simple words of the American president about paying for military protection! It was scared. After all, it is no secret to anyone that, with the possible exception of Germany, there are no serious armies in European states. Yes, and the Bundeswehr in its current state, of course, is different from the superamii of the Baltic countries, but, nevertheless, "unfit".
But the question of validity will analyze below.
NATO? Americans are increasingly showing "teeth." They do not intend to pay for Europeans. To be completely objective, the United States simply decided to make money with the hands of Trump on the protection of Europeans. A sort of euroChOP: “US Army, we will protect you anywhere and from anyone!” Normal approach of a normal businessman.
Another factor that pushes Europe towards its own army is precisely the charge for the American army. The fact is that 2% of GDP, this fee is not limited. And pragmatic Europeans consider money as good as Americans. There comes a time when “feeding your army” becomes more profitable than “feeding someone else's”. And in order to feed the army, you must have it.
In general, the idea of pan-European armed forces has been vital since the very idea of the European Union was born. That is from the 60-ies of the last century.
And today, the European Union has its own strengths ... It is difficult to say what the forces are, but they exist.
There is a multinational 1,5 rapid response team of thousands of people. There is a German-French brigade, a battalion manned in Scandinavia, and a newly created Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian peacekeeping battalion.
It seems to be all ...
Strange, but many of those who should really deal with defense issues, including in Russia, did not understand the importance of the decision of the European Parliament. What is the European army? Who will be in this army? Who is she going to fight with? Good questions. And who will give them intelligible answers is not yet clear. But certainly not Mr. Juncker.
But let's just try to understand what the pan-European army is. And what will it be suitable for (if it will be).
Remember, how many times did Europe collect the pan-European army? It is common European. It is not necessary to have seven genius in the forehead to answer this question. There were only two such armies! One was created by Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. And the second is Adolf Hitler. And both of these armies were not created for defense.
You can also recall the experience of the army of Austria-Hungary in the First World War. There were all there too, Germans, Czechs, Austrians, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks ... Those who have free time can spend it in search of victories of this camp.
Very often in the comments on this issue, a sensible thought slips. The army is not only soldiers with machine guns and other weapons. It is also a huge life support system for this military mechanism. It is clear that in a normal army there are several support soldiers for one soldier on the front line. And to create such a system from scratch is not the matter of one year or even ten years.
All right Creating such a life support system for the army really takes time. Even with sufficient funds. It is necessary not only to look for the location of parts, arsenals, warehouses, airfields. We need to build them! But this is only theoretically. And practically?
There is practically a military infrastructure in Europe. This is not only military bases, etc., that today belongs to NATO. This is what remains of the former Europe. From the time when European countries had armies. Not what the whole world is laughing about today, like the Baltic "armed forces", but normal armies. Yes, today this infrastructure is largely lost. In many ways, destroyed. But in many ways it is preserved. Especially in Germany and France.
According to expert estimates, it will take from 5 to 7 years to recreate the life support system of the European army using the means that NATO has. Without use - from 7 to 9-10 years. And through these years we will get an army of a united Europe! Well, not us, they will get.
I foresee objections. The EU is on the verge of a big restructuring, and possibly decay. Fully admit this thought. Only he stands on this threshold since its inception. Worth and will stand. Exit from the UK to the UK? And what does that prove? Nothing at all. Is it only that the British felt in time the change in the mood of American society? And then with great stretch.
The small countries of Europe are well aware that alone they no one calls them in any way. And the mood of society within these countries is increasingly “smelling” of nationalist moods. Peoples no longer want to be pan-European. They want to be Germans, Italians, French, Czechs ... They want to have their own history. How do Russians, Chinese, Americans have it ...
And it’s not a fact that even new threats like ISIL (banned in the Russian Federation) will serve to rally states, and the united armed forces will become a kind of foundation for unification. Rather, a village like Greece or Macedonia is easier to defend on your own. But you have to defend something, and not someone else there ...
And here a contradiction appears. Not a contradiction between countries. The contradiction between the existence of NATO and the EU army. Which, whether Europeans or Americans want it or not, plays on the side of Russia. On the one hand, a third force appears in Europe, which theoretically will strengthen the NATO bloc in opposition to Russia. So, will strengthen the United States in the struggle for supremacy in European politics.
And on the other hand? On the other hand, where is the guarantee that the European army will be an obedient tool in the hands of NATO and the United States? Where is the guarantee that the Europeans will want to serve the Americans in the future, and not ask them out? After all, not only we have voices about the occupying forces in Europe. This is openly talked about in leading European countries. Rich Germany no longer wants to run errands for the United States. She wants more independence.
It is unlikely that the United States will calmly respond to European initiatives. Are there any real ways to leave the situation as it is today? Maybe there is. And this is not only (and more correctly - not so much) Trump’s political decision. These are wonderful economic levers that Washington owns.
Over the years that have passed since the introduction of the single European currency, we were inspired by the idea that “oyro” is a competitor to the dollar. A currency that can withstand an American on equal terms. Only one detail related to the euro, try not to mention. And the detail is substantial. What keeps the euro? How is this currency secured? Ultimately, where is the gold of European countries stored?
So if desired, the United States can bring down the euro overnight. And what is the result? As a result, we get Europe, which simply has no money for the construction of a modern army. Europe, which can only rely on itself. Allies? Who? Americans as the authors of the "mess" disappear. Russia? After all that has happened over the years? Yes, and build an army against yourself? China? The Chinese are waiting for the "corpse of the enemy to pass by." And so on all positions.
In general, despite the fact that the idea of creating a unified army of Europe is a failure today, we should think about it. In order not to miss the initiative. The situation described above is today. And what will happen tomorrow? And what if the US supports the creation of a European army? It is like the "appendage" to NATO. Trump as a true businessman has so far done his business in his usual style. Demand everything, and then give up to the necessary features. The partner will be happy that he could at least slightly conquer you, and you will be with profit.
Formally, today NATO does not oppose Euro-Initiatives. Formally and for now. What will happen next - time will tell. But the fact that Americans just will not leave Europe is a fact. Lose control of Europe? It is unlikely that the United States will go to such nonsense.
Easier to make pay. Moreover, many experts are unanimous in saying that Europe has no money today to create a full-fledged army.
And, most importantly, against whom? Against Russia?
Let everyone answer the question: is it really scary for Russia to have this idea of creating an Euro-army? And will this army be dangerous for our armed forces?
Information