United European Army

Well, I knew this had to happen eventually. I’ve written about this more than a year ago. See https://mixedmarriage.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/eu-militarisation/ and https://mixedmarriage.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/eu-militarisation-2/

I also wrote about it some time ago when Reinfeldt took Merkel, Cameron, and the Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte to the country residence of the Swedish prime minister at Harpsund and they went for a row on the lake. The two posts are https://mixedmarriage.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/eu-council-remains-all-powerful/ and https://mixedmarriage.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/manoeuvrings-withinthe-eu-council/.

It is also typical that Juncker proposed this, appointed by Angela Merkel who wanted him and got him. It would seem that she only needs one other large European country to support her, in the above case it was France, but it could equally be Britain, Poland, Spain or Italy. Decision-making in the EU is becoming increasingly totalitarian – there is no other word for it – as power in the EU is increasingly being centred around Germany. The appointment of Juncker is a clear example of the centralisation of power and the appointment of Barosso’s successor from among those in favour of such centralisation. The first move has already been made by Juncker: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

United European army

NKVD Officer
Briefly about the united European army, with which the Europeans tried to “scare” Russia today.The foundation of these motions consists primarily of the desire of the Europeans to get out of the dense American embrace. The USA secure its military control through the NATO structures. The USA, besides their openparticipations in the alliance structures, which was viewed as the instrument of pursuing the American national interests back in Brzezinski’s books, have a number of the levers of influence over the “collective decisions” through their European satellites, especially through Eastern European satellites, which they consciouslycounterpose against the “old Europe”, which tries to shape the amorphous union into some sort of united European empire or whatever is it that they want to get in the ned. Despite various projects, in the political respect the EU remains a quite fragmented formation, where discord and vacillation start during the moments of crisis.Without having the status of a complete military and political subject within the confines of the existing dependence on the USA, various projects of centralizing military and political structures roam among the European establishment. However, years pass but instead of a united army in Europe there is still a whole bunch of armies of varying degrees of combat readiness and a NATO superstructure, which formally combines all of this in a single system. But even there the questions of creating a joint rapid reaction force unfold extremely slowly.It is absolutely obvious that the European masters would like to have their own army, which would be controlled exclusively by Brussels and would be outside of the NATO muzzle. However, a whole number of questions arise, which are hardly solvable for the EU at this stage. Furthermore, for the EU this is a very expensive question under the conditions of the looming economic crisis (we may recall how the EU armies that participated in the aggression against Libya had to beg the Americans due to exhausting the stockpiles of missiles and precision munitions), but also primarily due to the dependency of the European structures from the alliance controlled by the USA, which in essence performs military goal setting for the EU, due to which some or their members of the alliance end up in a bandwagon of next American aggressions.This already played a cruel joke on the EU in the case of Ukraine, because a clear dependence of the EU on the decisions made in Washington was clearly revealed when the EU was forced to pull into the conflict with Russia over Ukraine. The actual role of the EU in this process ended up being subordinate, where the existing economic, political, and military instruments of the EU failed to secure the Europe’s own scenario in the Ukrainian conflict. Sad attempts to bet on Klitschko (which was sarcastically commented by the cynical American diplomats) and threatening sanctions after the USA looked quite weakly on the background of the steadfast American line, into which the Europeans were forced to integrate.
Now, as a part of the attempt to exhibit their own political subject status, the EU leaders show the idea of a united army. However this idea should bother the USA more than the RF, because Russia doesn’t really depend much on if the European armies are combined in NATO or if they are united in some joint European army controlled by Brussels. No matter what, any war between the EU and the RF will culminate in a nuclear exchange. Even the direct non-nuclear standoff (if the USA are not taken into account) doesn’t promise any rapid success to the sides. And the USA should be more worried in this respect, because the loss of military instruments of control over the European armies will lead to the loss of influence over Europe and the end of the era of “democratic coalitions led by the USA”.

It is quite natural that Russia will condemn any military motions in Europe and the USA will insist on the supremacy of the NATO structures in order to not let the Europeans get off the hook. So, it is unlikely that in the next few years Europe will be able to crawl from under the dictate of the Atlantic structures. Nevertheless, it must be noted that saber-rattling and flexing military muscles became a clear mark of recent times.

Original article: http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2081497.html (in Russian)


This entry was posted in EU Military Resources and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.