Military Review

London is blocking the creation evroarmii defending US interests

33
London is blocking the creation evroarmii defending US interestsUK strongly opposes the attempt to create a unified European army - the idea, advocated by France and Germany. And despite the fact that the British government is trying to prevent the country's exit from the EU. Why the one hand, London, in fact, repels the European Union, and on the other - it tends to remain in the?


Britain promised to veto any attempts to create a single army of the European Union. This was stated by the Minister of Defense of Great Britain Michael Fallon, arguing that "there is no possibility of creating an EU army."

“Americans are confident that a unified army will increase the independence of the EU from the United States. They can't let that happen. ”

The statement of the head of the British Ministry of Defense was made in the midst of preparations for the referendum, in which residents of the United Kingdom must say “yes” or “no” to preserve the country as part of the European Union. The referendum is scheduled for June 23.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron has recently been actively campaigning against Brexit (leaving the EU) - having agreed to the fact that the self-exclusion of Britain from the European Union is supposedly beneficial to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, the Minister of Defense in Cameron’s office came out sharply against one of the measures designed to preserve and strengthen the European Union. What is the reason?

"To hint Russia"


The idea of ​​creating an EU army, we recall, was set forth in the expert report of Javier Solana, the former head of the European Council, the former NATO Secretary General, and now the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The report spoke of the need to develop a new security strategy for Europe. Solana expressed a hypothetical possibility of conducting military operations outside the EU and creating the headquarters of the command of the European army in Brussels.

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, said in an interview with the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag that the European Union needed its army. “Such an army would help us implement a common foreign and security policy,” he noted. According to him, the EU with such an army will be able to respond to threats to member states of the community or neighboring countries. These threats, Juncker believes, come primarily from Russia.

Keywords: NATO, Great Britain, European Union, Russia and Great Britain, Germany, EU, army, referendum in Great Britain
“The EU army is needed not to activate it immediately, but to hint Russia that we are serious about protecting the values ​​of the European Union,” said Juncker, adding that NATO is not suitable for this, because not all members of the alliance are part of The EU.
But obviously premature to consider an application Juncker evidence of a certain plan. In Brussels, the differences on this issue are clearly present.

At the end of May, the head of European diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, refuted all the assumptions about the creation of a “European army.” According to her, Brussels does not have any plans to create its own armed forces, these rumors are completely fiction.

The bogey of the Fourth Reich


The idea of ​​creating an EU army is being lobbied by Germany (in connection with which some observers talk about this as much as Berlin’s desire to create the Fourth Reich). In March, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the desirability of creating a single army of the European Union.


How do the military capabilities of Russia and NATO

These same views are shared by German Defense Minister Ursula von der Lyayen. Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the foreign policy committee of the Bundestag, proposes to put such ideas into practice. At first, we can talk about the creation of a unified general staff to coordinate the actions of the armed forces. “Our defense capabilities will not be sufficient from the point of view of security policy as long as we maintain the armies of individual states, which, moreover, for the most part do and buy the same thing, only in small quantities,” said Rettgen. According to the British Financial Times, in July Germany intends to make an official proposal to create a joint European General Staff.
Not only Germany is actively supporting the all-European army. In late April, Czech President Milos Zeman called for the creation of a single army of the European Union, the need for which he explained the serious problems with the protection of the external borders of the organization during the migration crisis.

United States unprofitable united army of Europe

The position of Britain is dictated by the absolute following in the wake of American policy, which views the EU’s unified army as a threat to its influence, political analyst and associate professor at the Department of International Security of the RSUH, Yevsey Vasiliev, said in a commentary to the VIEW newspaper.


How the United States controls the entire planet

“The United Kingdom, when it comes to EU security issues, always and consistently acts as an ally of the United States. The United States is unprofitable for a unified army in Europe, as this will reduce the dependence of Brussels on Washington. Hence the position of London. ”

“Let me remind you that before 2011 there was a project called the Brussels Pact (or the Western European Union), which many saw as an alternative to NATO. In addition, the OSCE has a security organization with its own peacekeeping forces. On the other hand, the EU is difficult to pursue an independent policy when there are several tens of thousands of American soldiers on its territory within NATO, ”the political scientist added.

The “Brussels Pact” mentioned by the interlocutor was created as early as 1948 with the participation of Great Britain, France and the Benelux countries in the order of “collective self-defense” against the “Soviet threat”, but with an eye to creating united armed forces of Western Europe. However, the North Atlantic Alliance, a US-oriented NATO bloc created a year later in 1949, completely replaced the Western European Union, and the first attempt to create a military pact independent of the Americans was foiled.

Alexander Kamkin, a researcher at the Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences, an EU specialist, also believes that "a special role in the position of London is played by the special relationship between the two Anglo-Saxon countries - the United States and Great Britain. “Washington and, as a result, London does not want the EU to move away from the United States. The Americans are confident that a single army will increase the independence of the EU from the United States. And they can't let that happen. Part of the EU establishment, in turn, is trying in every way to get out of the dictates of Washington, ”Kamkin said in an interview with the newspaper.

“First, Britain has special relationships and rights within the European Union. Secondly, the idea of ​​a unified EU army is supported by countries competing with Great Britain - France and Germany, the expert said. - In addition, the creation of a unified army is not beneficial for the British and American military industrial complex. Now the majority of armies of EU countries buy British or American weapon. If a single army is created, then there will be a need to use European weapons. ”
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/world/2016/6/14/815932.html
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. jjj
    jjj 16 June 2016 15: 36
    +8
    The creation of the European army will mean the rejection of Europe from NATO
    1. AlexTires
      AlexTires 16 June 2016 15: 39
      +13
      Quote: jjj
      The creation of the European army will mean the rejection of Europe from NATO

      Regardless of the course of events, the American NATO contingent from Europe will not go anywhere, even if European countries try to "hint" to them about it ...!
      1. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 16 June 2016 16: 21
        +8
        Quote: AlexTires
        Regardless of the course of events, the American NATO contingent from Europe will not go anywhere, even if European countries try to "hint" to them about it ...!

        It would be interesting to see how the European Union (well, at least suppose) would try to expose American troops from Europe ...

        I think no popcorn would be enough to watch such a comedy.
        1. cniza
          cniza 16 June 2016 16: 52
          +8
          Europe is occupied by the USA, what army, who will allow them.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Corsair
          Corsair 17 June 2016 14: 03
          0
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          It would be interesting to see how the European Union (well, at least, suppose) tried to expose American troops from Europe ...

          what They could probably have been exposed, but only if, first of all, they had untied their banks and corresponding structures from the decisions and positions of the American government and courts. For for all sorts of steps to the right to the left of the general line, the Europeans are immediately beaten with a Faberge with a sickle (Volkswagen and fines to the largest EU banks by the decision of American courts are an example). In general, Americans can afford it if they cannot force them into words, but they would not fight.
      2. iliitchitch
        iliitchitch 16 June 2016 16: 45
        +4
        Quote: AlexTires
        Regardless of the course of events, the American NATO contingent from Europe will not go anywhere, even if European countries try to "hint" to them about it ...!


        States in Europe are like Ukrainians in Crimea. We rented a room to them, so they dirtied it so that it took about 50 years to wash it. Until the polite people asked to leave, they would have crap. And in Europe there are no "polite" ones, so there is no EU army, and there won't be.
      3. sisa29
        sisa29 16 June 2016 16: 53
        +2
        The NATO Army is the army of the American Empire. And as history shows, all empires die, sooner or later the American empire will die, and with it NATO, Unfortunately, probably not during our lifetime
    2. vlad66
      vlad66 16 June 2016 15: 47
      +13
      Quote: jjj
      The creation of the European army will mean the rejection of Europe from NATO

      This is what mattresses are afraid of
      Now most of the armies of the EU countries are buying British or American weapons. If a single army is created, then there will be a need to use European weapons. ”
      Therefore, mattresses and:
      On the other hand, it’s difficult for the EU to pursue an independent policy when there are several tens of thousands of American soldiers on its territory within NATO. ”
      1. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 16 June 2016 16: 29
        +10
        Quote: vlad66
        Quote: jjj
        The creation of the European army will mean the rejection of Europe from NATO

        This is what mattresses are afraid of
        Everything seems to me to be thought - are leaders in Europe SO stupid that they do not understand that NATO, as a military-political bloc, has become obsolete at the time of its creation? That he initially solved the same problems that he is solving now - he defends the interests of America without protecting anyone else and is a mechanism for promoting the products of the American military-industrial complex in the arms market. AND NOTHING MORE!

        Incidentally, I have more than once or twice heard from the West the opinion that NATO was created to counter the aggressive military bloc of the Warsaw Pact. What can I say? Just call Sergei Viktorovich with his brilliant "D ...., B .....!"
        1. vlad66
          vlad66 16 June 2016 18: 02
          +10
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          By the way, more than once or twice I have heard from the West the opinion that NATO was created to counter the aggressive military bloc of the Warsaw Pact. What can I say? Just call Sergei Viktorovich with his brilliant "D ...., B ....

          A colleague, NATO was created primarily for the occupation of Europe and for servicing the American and British military-industrial complex and transnational companies, and since such a policy requires a scarecrow, it was announced that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries are an evil empire, everything is exactly the same today, only The Warsaw Pact collapsed, while NATO is expanding, and Russia is declared an evil empire.
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 17 June 2016 14: 12
            0
            Quote: vlad66
            A colleague, NATO, was created primarily for the occupation of Europe and for servicing the American and English military-industrial complex and multinational companies,

            hi I’ll correct it a little, NATO appeared 6 years earlier than the USSR created the Warsaw Pact, that is, just the opposite, in contrast to NATO, the USSR carried out such cooperation. NATO itself appeared purely as a counterweight to the USSR, at first nobody took into account small countries near our borders, given the historical facts of the passage / passage of these countries by the Germans almost in a matter of days.
            Z.Y. I also think that during the WWII period, the Americans strongly promoted their defense industry and related industries and there was no desire to slow them down (receive losses), urgently needed a sales market and while ours were licking their wounds, the Americans voluntarily forced themselves to create such a market.
    3. tiredwithall
      tiredwithall 16 June 2016 15: 47
      +3
      Quote: jjj
      The creation of the European army will mean the rejection of Europe from NATO

      Do not contrast them like that. The problem is not so antagonistic. It is about family relationships within a tangle of money owners. Here you can see some confrontation between the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. As long as there is China, Russia and Iran, they will be united in NATO either in its current form or in a united one. Do not forget that the EU is a project developed and implemented by the CIA. Just part of the participants against expanding the scope of the current project.
      1. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 16 June 2016 16: 31
        +4
        Quote: tiredwithall
        Do not forget that the EU is a project developed and implemented by the CIA.

        But you never know the CIA has projects that traditionally "at a certain moment something went wrong"! Bin Laden alone, with all the Taliban put together, is worth it! And about ISIS and it’s awkward to speak ...

        They are already used to it - today we are feeding on the sly, we create a problem for the rest, and tomorrow we do not know what to do with this monster, we declare it a scoundrel and lead the struggle (independently, however, not strongly substituting and involving as many suckers as possible in the "coalition") ....
    4. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 16 June 2016 15: 50
      +2
      The United Kingdom only matters its own security, and NATO is its guarantee. The creation of the EU army, without reference to Britain’s membership in the EU, is a threat to the continental blockade or the limitation of the military capabilities of its army and navy.

      In fact, the EU is an economic consequence of NATO and its strategists. Therefore, EVERYTHING in the EU will be done based on the needs and requirements of NATO.
    5. Samen
      Samen 16 June 2016 16: 18
      +2
      Obviously, the striped occupation of Europe is unlikely to be dropped in the next decade. Therefore: talking about a single army of the EU is an idle talk!
    6. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 16 June 2016 16: 39
      +1
      Quote: jjj
      The creation of the European army will mean the rejection of Europe from NATO

      And this is not the worst. The USA will fly out of Europe, here is the sadness of the Angles.
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. siberalt
      siberalt 16 June 2016 16: 54
      +2
      Neither NATO nor the Euro army in Europe is needed by anyone. One has outlived itself politically, and the other will collect spiders in one jar without a real goal, except for a quarrel over who is more important when their regulator, the USA, leaves. Anyway, the first sign of state sovereignty is its own army. Britain has always considered itself superior to France and Germany by head and does not want to be even equal with them. English arrogance and pomp are just as tense in Western Europe as Polish in Eastern Europe.
  2. oldseaman1957
    oldseaman1957 16 June 2016 15: 36
    +2
    Anglo-Saxons. What else is there to add? They must be crushed!
  3. AlexTires
    AlexTires 16 June 2016 15: 37
    +5
    The Euroarmy is one of the works of science fiction writers. Not in this world. Europe is doomed to be under the hood of America - its military bases and special services, and still pay the States a considerable tribute for dubious security. But America is far away, and the threats are near. And in a good Europe it was necessary to enter into military alliances with strong neighbors.
    In fact, the EU is an economic consequence of NATO and its strategists. Therefore, EVERYTHING in the EU will be done based on the needs and requirements of NATO. As they say - their number six, and they live with this burden, but apparently live - not for long ...
  4. Berber
    Berber 16 June 2016 15: 39
    +4
    For us, in a strategic plan, both have disadvantages. Having a good army of a potential enemy close by is slightly unnerving. But if Europe has more sovereignty, it will be easier for us to negotiate, because it is easier to negotiate without intermediaries.
    1. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 16 June 2016 15: 52
      +3
      Quote: BerBer
      Having a good army of a potential enemy close by is slightly unnerving.


      Will not be unnerving.
      Historically, all the combined armies of Europe have shown complete incompetence. People are too different there.
  5. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 16 June 2016 15: 49
    +2
    Useless. Europe will not create a single army, will not agree. Immediately after World War II, there was still some chance. And now it’s definitely useless. The authors themselves say that most of the weapons are English or overseas. What to do and what to replace? And who will command? Greeks Poles - do not tell my sneakers. Finns - Italians? The same topic.
    Although, it should be noted, the idea itself is not bad, not bad ...
  6. Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov 16 June 2016 15: 52
    +2
    Sly Europeans. Under the sauce "Russia is coming!" - wanted to create an independent allied army from the States.
    YES it wasn’t there. The hook sits so deep (since the age of 45) - that any body movements to freedom - immediately pull the fishing line. So much so that you won’t move.
  7. Prisoner
    Prisoner 16 June 2016 16: 14
    +2
    "And this despite the fact that the British government is trying to prevent the country from leaving the EU." (c) England as a traitor in a partisan detachment. The main rat working in the EU for Washington.
  8. dmitriyruss
    dmitriyruss 16 June 2016 16: 16
    +2
    London in a week, after the referendum, it will be possible before the European army as a striker to the capsule in the "on safety" mode
  9. Abbra
    Abbra 16 June 2016 16: 36
    +2
    Anglo-Saxons, their mother ...
  10. cap
    cap 16 June 2016 16: 43
    +1
    “The United Kingdom, when it comes to EU security issues, always and consistently acts as an ally of the United States. The United States is unprofitable for a unified army in Europe, as this will reduce the dependence of Brussels on Washington. Hence the position of London. ”

    Who would doubt. In one pipe blow.
    All rhetoric comes down to one postulate: Russia is the enemy!
  11. BOB044
    BOB044 16 June 2016 16: 59
    +1
    London is blocking the creation evroarmii defending US interests
    The chain dog must defend the interests of the owner.
  12. HAM
    HAM 16 June 2016 17: 51
    +1
    The EU Army is needed not to engage it immediately, but to hint to Russia that we take defense seriously of values European Union ”,

    We do not need such "values" for nothing ...
    Anglo-Saxons will stay in the EU, given a "referendum" show to show "democracy" in action for .....
    EU army will not be, the Yankees just hiccup louder, the Germans give up.
    Killary will "mistress" of the planet, everything has already been decided in a small club ...
  13. bad
    bad 16 June 2016 22: 45
    0
    Why, on the one hand, does London, in fact, repel the European Union, and, on the other, seek to remain in it?
    ..historically, the British try to pit everyone against everyone and sit not even on two but on several chairs and at the same time managing not to break the seat and not pinch the "economy" laughing
  14. neo1200
    neo1200 16 June 2016 22: 47
    0
    The united army of Europe is blocked by Great Britain solely on the basis of its interests, since it is itself unprofitable to strengthen the countries of continental Europe. Yes, actually now the armies of the European states are a wretched sight. Not a single European aria is capable of waging a serious war.
  15. Wolka
    Wolka 17 June 2016 06: 50
    0
    the Englishwoman, as always, in her repertoire, craps and craps, bluffs about leaving the EU, but she will come out to cooperate with Russia in circumvention of sanctions, pursuing her interests, but prettyly pushing the Yankees into Russophobic hysteria