Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

Yeah, yeah, they said the same in 1936... ;)
 
Excuse if already posted.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Britain confirms withdrawal from EU military missions, diplomats say . . .

68903487_1283983641774267_6132828409488736256_n.jpg
 
I would not be surprised at all if the UK returns to CSDP Ops as a "third nation". More and more nations, even located far and away like NZ, are getting partner status to join CSDP Ops and it would not be in the UK's interest to leave that box unchecked.

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP ...

eeas.europa.eu › topics › common-security-and-defenc...

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) enables the Union to take a leading role in peace-keeping operations, conflict prevention and in the strengthening of the international security. It is an integral part of the EU's comprehensive approach towards crisis management, drawing on civilian and military assets.

 
You have got civilian and military Ops/msn on that slide.

The MIL ops/msn are only the 3 EUTM, Atalanta, Irini and Althea.
My dear french friend! Mon ami! I hope I find you well and in good health. I mentioned explicitly some minor Deployments in the francophone part of Africa to secure this flank.
 
My dear french friend! Mon ami! I hope I find you well and in good health. I mentioned explicitly some minor Deployments in the francophone part of Africa to secure this flank.

All is well thank you, hope it's the same for you.

I do not wish to undermine your effort at synthesizing the complex EU CSDP Op layout.

I merely wanted to point out that on all those mission and operations indicated on the map, only 6 are military Ops or Msn. All the others are so called "civilian" missions, coming under the remit of the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC).

 
Last edited:
My dear french friend! Mon ami! I hope I find you well and in good health. I mentioned explicitly some minor Deployments in the francophone part of Africa to secure this flank.
All is well thank you, hope it's the same for you.

I do not wish to undermine your effort
at synthesizing the complex EU CSDP Op layout . . .
A clear and somewhat telling example for all of us to see, and appreciate, of how the Franco-German relationship flourishes . . . with mutual respect and appreciation . . . in the shared, genuine held, hope and desire, that they don’t ever again start “knocking-lumps” out of each other ;) .
 
Germany in particular, are against participating in

Yes but we all know why. It was illegal in the grundgeseltzer approved by the occupying powers. But they’d also learned a valuable lesson from the apres fist lot when German troops were used by the Allies in the Russian civil war. It may appear to have been inconvenient, but tough.
 
All is well thank you, hope it's the same for you.

I do not wish to undermine your effort at synthesizing the complex EU CSDP Op layout.

I merely wanted to point out that on all those mission and operations indicated on the map, only 6 are military Ops or Msn. All the others are so called "civilian" missions, coming under the remit of the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC).

Thank you too and no harm done here. In short the first delicate steps towards the establishment of the so-called EU Army, a project which I question from the bottom of my heart and whose purpose is beyond my comprehension.

What will become of this project, responsible to a non-democratically elected Commission, in an organisation without the characteristics of a state under international law, without a constitution but with a relatively powerless parliament?
I am not necessarily convinced that this event will end well, but perhaps that is just my overflowing cynicism.
 
Yes but we all know why. It was illegal in the grundgeseltzer approved by the occupying powers. But they’d also learned a valuable lesson from the apres fist lot when German troops were used by the Allies in the Russian civil war. It may appear to have been inconvenient, but tough.

This argument is getting really, really old. This is shying away from responsibilities. Things have moved on since 1945...the rearmament of Germany barely 10 years after its occupation shows that "militaristic Germany" is a thing of the past even though the German society has pre-disposition for discipline.

I think Germany's politicians and business leaders are much more dangerous than its officer corps, especially when they take unilateral decisions like in the beginning of the Balkans conflict when they recognized Slovenia and Croatia or when they let in 1,000,000 migrants without consideration for their neighbours and the impact it will have on the fabric of Western societies.
 
Missing the point yet again - is this deliberate?

Of course the EU wanted the UK in - we provided the gravy. My point is, had they acquiesced to Cameron's very modest requests, the referendum could have been avoided. Tusk is your culprit, he set out to humiliate Cameron and sent him home to the UK with a sore bottom. To many voters wavering between Leave of Remain, that was the last straw.

Tusk's hubris in 2015 has been echoed through the negotiations by every member of the EU Council, Barnier, Verhoftwat et al. They have sought a deal that the UK could never accept as a sovereign state and tried to bully, coerce and intimidate their way to victory (as they see it). Their whole negotiation strategy has been based on brinkmanship and still is. Boris knows this and is fully prepared to call their bluff.

You accept the EU's negotiation strategy without question but scold Johnson for adopting the only reasonable counter-argument to get a result the UK can accept. I don't think you understand how negotiations work at this level, do you?
You don't appear to have a grasp of integrity, trust, international law, diplomacy or mutual benefits. Negotiations at any level are best conducted without a revolver and a list of unrealistic demands.
 
Thank you too and no harm done here. In short the first delicate steps towards the establishment of the so-called EU Army, a project which I question from the bottom of my heart and whose purpose is beyond my comprehension.

What will become of this project, responsible to a non-democratically elected Commission, in an organisation without the characteristics of a state under international law, without a constitution but with a relatively powerless parliament?
I am not necessarily convinced that this event will end well, but perhaps that is just my overflowing cynicism.

The term "EU Army" is a red herring; there is no more NATO Army than there is an EU Army.

I can't see the CSDP progressing much in the coming years; if Trump gets reelected, it will help a little bit but the momentum of the 2015-2018 period when defense managed to reach the top of the EU agenda is fading away.

The minute Trump is gone, most European will fall back to default setting: let's hide behind the US and who needs an autonomous defense when somebody is seemingly doing it for you.

It's very convenient for nations with no independent strategic vision; all they need to do is to buy US hardware and do as told by the US. I understand they see no value added in CSDP since they are happy to just be US clients and do as they are told.
 
A clear and somewhat telling example for all of us to see, and appreciate, of how the Franco-German relationship flourishes . . . with mutual respect and appreciation . . . in the shared, genuine held, hope and desire, that they don’t ever again start “knocking-lumps” out of each other ;) .

On the French MIL side there is a strong desire that the German forces manage to find a middle ground between "let's conquer Europe" and "let's have a working group on how not to harm LGBTQ+ soldiers' feelings"....

If this initial hurdle is passed, Germany could be an exceptional partner because it has all that is needed to be a Tier 1 MIL actor. Then, especially within the frame of CSDP Ops, there is always the suspicion that France is trying to revive its past colonial glory at the expense of the EU's budget. Considering the number of nations getting involved in Africa today, this is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

Nevertheless, when France pushed to launch an EU Op in CAR in 2014, Germany was one of the main opponent; time was lost...and the Russians proposed their service to CAR and are now well established there.
 
You don't appear to have a grasp of integrity, trust, international law, diplomacy or mutual benefits. Negotiations at any level are best conducted without a revolver and a list of unrealistic demands.

. . . as your much vaunted EU have so ably demonstrated on many, many occasions.*





*some aspects of that statement are incorrect.
 
This argument is getting really, really old. This is shying away from responsibilities. Things have moved on since 1945...the rearmament of Germany barely 10 years after its occupation shows that "militaristic Germany" is a thing of the past even though the German society has pre-disposition for discipline.

I think Germany's politicians and business leaders are much more dangerous than its officer corps, especially when they take unilateral decisions like in the beginning of the Balkans conflict when they recognized Slovenia and Croatia or when they let in 1,000,000 migrants without consideration for their neighbours and the impact it will have on the fabric of Western societies.
The rearmament of Germany in 1956 served only two purposes, sufficient boots on the ground against the Russian threat and security from Germany. "Double containment" as Rolf Steininger, a historian, put it.
The rearmament was met with great resistance from significant parts of the German population. One should be honest enough to mention that the Bundeswehr was designed as a pure defence army. A foreign mission was a "never ever" and the first actual "out-of-area" missions UNOSOM II or UNPROFOR led to huge discussions. It is not possible to ignore and undo decades of re-education and point out responsibilities. As Willy Brandt, refugee, part-time resistance fighter and later chancellor of the FRG put it in this words:"War must never again be allowed to break out from German soil." In good parts of the population and politics it is deeply rooted in the belief that an army is bad , and soldiers are murdering Nazis or right-wing extremists.

German politicians or business leaders may be incompetent and dangerous, but they can hardly be accused of doing something which in France is part of the raison d'état and raison d'être of the state, the protection of their own interests.
It is only too clear that the significantly more than one million refugees are certainly not in German interest, but Merkel has been influenced by a crying refugee girl and the violent reaction to her coolness towards this girl.

On closer inspection, French politicians are not immune to these problems either, if you look at Macron's handling of BREXIT or the little Whoopsidaises with the Turks over Libya.
 

WightMivvi

Old-Salt
You don't appear to have a grasp of integrity, trust, international law, diplomacy or mutual benefits. Negotiations at any level are best conducted without a revolver and a list of unrealistic demands.
I agree. It’s much better to pretend to negotiate whilst quietly encouraging dissident elements within your opponent’s country to undermine and weaken the government, knowing that an opponent who is on their knees are more likely to concede to your demands (even unrealistic ones).

That way, you don’t need a revolver or a list. You just wait for them to supplicant themselves to you then graciously throw them a few crumbs from the cake you wanted whilst you eat it.

Of course, the problem with that approach is that if your opponent gets all their excrement in one sock, you’re suddenly royally stuffed and have to switch to a totally new and chaotic last-minute plan...
 
The term "EU Army" is a red herring; there is no more NATO Army than there is an EU Army.

I can't see the CSDP progressing much in the coming years; if Trump gets reelected, it will help a little bit but the momentum of the 2015-2018 period when defense managed to reach the top of the EU agenda is fading away.

The minute Trump is gone, most European will fall back to default setting: let's hide behind the US and who needs an autonomous defense when somebody is seemingly doing it for you.

It's very convenient for nations with no independent strategic vision; all they need to do is to buy US hardware and do as told by the US. I understand they see no value added in CSDP since they are happy to just be US clients and do as they are told.
You are forgetting the desire of many politicians in Brussels for the "United States of Europe" and everything that goes with it.
Ever closer union is not just lip service.
 
I do not deny the historical context. I, and many others, think it is time to move on and that to systematically hide behind events of 75 years ago is no longer possible.

Regarding your view of French politicians, I have no qualms about them; but when a situation arises when quick decision is needed, even with potential for severe political fall outs, they do not hesitate.

Hundreds if not thousands of German citizens have been evacuated from all kinds of hotspots around the world thanks to French forces since 1945 and thanks to French politicians who give orders and act decisively without delay.

Regarding the comparison between Macron and Merkel, I can't see your point. Merkel has started a huge crisis by letting in over a million refugees in Europe; Macron, like other EU leaders, has tried to take some in France and it has cost him dearly with the Rassemblement National reaching 25% of the voters...
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top