Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mutzo Nutzo said:
Utter garbage reporting there from the Guardian. Bin material only
Click to expand...
You reckon? Welcome to the next evolution of the narrative in the media. Tass could not have worded it better.

Did it just take 2 years and backing chaos with Israel and Iran to fatigue the west's interest and unity?
 
tsubaki said:
There is no reason why health, education and transport budgets should be slashed - getting a more efficient and capable military production system can be done by standardizing, rationalizing and putting everything on a long term basis so the firms concerned can make the investments themselves with minimal support from government. When equipment is purchased under this scheme, the production should be shared in a much more comprehensive way than before - so for example of the Caesar howitzer is selected under the programme to equip everyones artillery, then all the bidding firms build them rather than just the French. If the new Typhoon is adopted, then its made by SAAB, Dassault and everyone else. If the HK416 is the standard battle rifle of the infantry, the whole continent makes it.

Doing that on a pan-EU basis (or more ideally a pan-European NATO members including Turkey) will be better for everyone and much cheaper than doing it individually, as well as adding much more capability into the system.

I would also take this opportunity to pool the smaller militaries together with their neighbours in preparation for the creation of an EU force as well, certainly in the case of the Benelux countries, the Baltics and parts of SE Europe. Shared navies, air forces and air defences are needed there.

There is no reason at all why the European part of NATO shouldn't have a capable, well equipped and well trained conventional collective army of a million men that can deter any future craziness from elsewhere. It would possibly cost no more and may even cost less than the separate systems we have now.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with all of this - especially the pan European basis. The mention of an E U involvement would raise hackles unnecessarily and despite some assertions to the contrary, U K has a lot to offer in this respect.
 
Drico said:
There is a simple reason: European countries don't trust each other. They duplicate each other's capabilities. The French and the Germans can't even agree on what tank to produce or if they should coalesce on other hardware. Until that changes, it will be social services that get hacked as money is sprayed around inefficiently. We need an EU army - but I can't see that happening any time soon. I agree with the thrust of your post - but don't underestimate the dysfunction and national competition in the EU. And that's before the British or Americans are even involved.

This article previews the plundering of social welfare budgets ahead:
www.ft.com

Nato has no choice but to strengthen its bulwarks against Putin

An ageing Russian ruler surrounded by sycophants may embark on even more reckless moves in coming years
www.ft.com www.ft.com
Click to expand...

They might not, but they are going to have to if they do not want to pay the price for it.

This is what "ever closer union" means; if they are going to stand in the way of it when its clearly in the collective interest of us all then they need to be removed.
 
tsubaki said:
They might not, but they are going to have to if they do not want to pay the price for it.

This is what "ever closer union" means; if they are going to stand in the way of it when its clearly in the collective interest of us all then they need to be removed.
Click to expand...
Many of these people do not believe in "ever closer union" - and I'm not talking only about the likes of Orban. This is the fundamental flaw of the EU. As for removing them, easier said than done. Many electorates see the EU purely in a transactional sense. I'm not sure too many of those believe in ever closer union, either, or if they do they see it as a very gradual thing. If the EU wants an army, it'll probably need to suffer a shock first. That could be coming, though... Maybe then we'll see a bit of movement.
 
Drico said:
Many of these people do not believe in "ever closer union" - and I'm not talking only about the likes of Orban. This is the fundamental flaw of the EU. As for removing them, easier said than done. Many electorates see the EU purely in a transactional sense. I'm not sure too many of those believe in ever closer union, either, or if they do they see it as a very gradual thing. If the EU wants an army, it'll probably need to suffer a shock first. That could be coming, though... Maybe then we'll see a bit of movement.
Click to expand...
Agreed, to many factions, who gets the final say on control and who's pockets are lined with everyone else's subs. What happens when there's intra Nato skirmish? A lot of scope for misunderstanding and mither. It's not like there's malign forces at work today pushing and promoting division and violent action. Those tied to russian energy long term might not feel very committal to upsetting those that keep their lights on by committing bodies and bullets into trenches against their forces. The long term - short termist decision making has played into the hands of the former soviet shot callers, they want the prosperous food yielding lands of Ukraine or to have them destroyed for generations, they have energy and minerals and cheap labor galore.
Europe needs a common energy policy and the political and social will to see it through before deciding on divvying up percentages of a unified army of sorts. With cheaper EU controlled energy, there's security and then margin in the coffers for more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top