EU Army on way? EU cannot rely on NATO and needs new defence policy...

[Bakis]

US pay for the most of it and gain influence accordingly.
Seems fine to me to keep the backyard commies at bay *hi Kremlin payed trolls*

[Kuntantee]

There is one reason to have a bigger army for Europe; world domination. In that case, you're gonna compete with USA, and for certain local regions, Russia (ME lately) and China (pacific). Otherwise, it's waste of money. NATO is more than enough to deter Russia. Even in the absence of NATO, Germany/France/UK are big enough to pose a threat for Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. In short, no one is there to get Europe in near future. Stop being scared to shitless for no reason.

[Skroe]

There is one reason to have a bigger army for Europe; world domination. In that case, you're gonna compete with USA, and for certain local regions, Russia (ME lately) and China (pacific). Otherwise, it's waste of money. NATO is more than enough to deter Russia. Even in the absence of NATO, Germany/France/UK are big enough to pose a threat for Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. In short, no one is there to get Europe in near future. Stop being scared to shitless for no reason.

Just Germany and France.

The British Army and Navy have been eviscerated in the past 7 years. There are more NYPD Cops than there are British Army Combat Troops. The British Navy is going from 24 to 20 surface combat ships. Yes. Twenty.

[Deleted]

Now? No. Probably too late for that. Fact is though, we're 22 months into Obama's "3 year plan" to defeat ISIS. How's that going? He never had a plan. He just wanted to do the bare minimum and get out of office without getting dirty.

But you want to see where lack of decisive action has failed? The South China Sea. Barack Obama, over the advice of the Secretary of Defense, the join chiefs and the Navy, played softball with China's island building for years. Years. Why? In hopes that a carrot will encourage China to become a reliable partner. He ignored repeated warnings that China wasn't remotely interested in carrots. He refused to even authorize the Navy to sale through the SCS until the past 4 months, after China has spent those years building islands. It took China putting airfields and basing actual military aircraft on those islands, for "the one" to get off his ass.

He could have destroyed these uninhabited reefs (making them unsuitable to dredge around), established permanent US presence, or harassed Chinese ships, years ago. None of it would have caused a war. It would have sent a powerful message.It would have prevented from China using his inaction, or "strategic patience" has his Administration laughably called it, to change the reality on the ground, which is what we have now.

Again, this is the President who had the USAF drop leaflets on ISIS trucks to warn the drivers to fleet, before bombing the trucks. He's too soft for his job. He's turned the other cheek so many times, he's lost track as to why he's doing it.

- - - Updated - - -



Whose talking about Bush? I'm talking about, collectively, 75 years of US foreign and security policy. Hard to argue, compared to where we were in the 1930s with respect to the rest of the world, history hasn't worked out rather splendidly for the United States of America.

You've had it easy in that time, compared to your parents, grandparents and great grand parents, living in Pax America, disproportionately at the American Taxpayer's expense. It's fine. Saving Europeans from themselves is this country's hobby.

75 years of poor results skroe. Which ones do you refer to? Iran? South america? Tell me. Which one of these failed attempts at controlling anything produced long term security?

- - - Updated - - -

That's cute. Who's going to let "the mighty European Army" to use their bases? Do you think people are in line to invite Europeans? European Army will stuck in Europe.

Israel? Highly unlikely
Turkey? Highly unlikely
Syria? Nope
Iraq? Nope
Afghanistan? Highly unlikely

Perhaps France could establish a base in their former colonies, but they are far away to the action. The closes you can get is probably Cyprus, that's only useful if Syria or Turkey let you use their airspace.

Weird question. I'm talking long term plan down the line youre talking detailed information.
Who's going to host our bases? We need enforced security on our borders so I guess north Africa and middle east would be a great start.
Don't forget, money talks.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure what it would do to stop terrorism, if anything it'd make Europe an even bigger target for terrorists. Especially if it was sticking its dick in the middle east.

I'm also pretty sure all the EU members don't share the same interests.

All EU members share same interests because we're members of the same political entity.
International collaboration would do loads against terrorism.

[Kuntantee]

Weird question. I'm talking long term plan down the line youre talking detailed information.
Who's going to host our bases? We need enforced security on our borders so I guess north Africa and middle east would be a great start.
Don't forget, money talks.

So you can pay your way to ME? Your objective there, the bombs you drop must also serve the host country as well. You're going to deal with internal politics of ME, that's what USA does. Are you willing to do it? Let's assume that's the case, you're going to do that it in spite of USA or Russia sometimes. You just don't know what it takes to project your power, and let me tell you, average European isn't going to like it, especially that money spent on military and bribe (since you put it that way).

[Deleted]

That's because we have a President who hates playing World Police. Because he's so mindboggling egocentric he thinks that just because he doesn't like an aspect of his job, he has a privilege to neglect, redefine or hinder that aspect of it.

is there a sound US policy regarding Iraq or Syria to be had?
- No matter the president, neither are really solvable issues.

[Kapadons]

75 years of poor results skroe. Which ones do you refer to? Iran? South america? Tell me. Which one of these failed attempts at controlling anything produced long term security?

- - - Updated - - -



Weird question. I'm talking long term plan down the line youre talking detailed information.
Who's going to host our bases? We need enforced security on our borders so I guess north Africa and middle east would be a great start.
Don't forget, money talks.

- - - Updated - - -



All EU members share same interests because we're members of the same political entity.
International collaboration would do loads against terrorism.

One of if not the most peaceful eras in human history, with US global presence at the forefront of it, and it's "poor results". I don't think you realize how much doesn't get started because of the US military.

[nonameelf]

All EU members share same interests because we're members of the same political entity.
International collaboration would do loads against terrorism.

No they don't. Greece is worried about Turkey, Hungary has shut down their borders to refugees, and Poland is shitting bricks about Russia. Meanwhile countries like Ireland, Austria, and Finland are just happy to stay out of wars.

What world do you live in where all of Europe is one happy, unanimous utopia where everyone agrees on everything?

[Skroe]

75 years of poor results skroe. Which ones do you refer to? Iran? South america? Tell me. Which one of these failed attempts at controlling anything produced long term security?

I'm sorry, what country won the Cold War and dominated the international system today? Yeah so we screwed up a few times. We built NATO and grew. Japan was rebuilt. We became massively wealthy. Our enemies became poor and fractured.

It's produced 75 years an counting of security, and isn't likely to stop soon.

Nice try Djalil. You know it's funny in a sense, that I'm opposed to Brexit, because the act of Brexit itself is illustrative that not even other EUropeans entirely buy into your integration through trade delusions.

- - - Updated - - -

is there a sound US policy regarding Iraq or Syria to be had?
- No matter the president, neither are really solvable issues.

At this point? In 2016? It's pure triage. I got no ideas as to Syria. It's a true mess. No Western Countries should send ground forces there. In 2010 or 2011, there were certainly options, particularly in regards to Iraq. But not in 2016. That window was closed while Obama sat on his hands.

I mean even thinking about the rebuilding of Syria is a mindboggling affair. It dwarfs the Iraq War. A quarter of the population has fled. Far more civilians have been killed. It's infrastructure has been destroyed to a degree Iraqs never was in a third the time. It would take 30 years and trillions to do it. Nobody is going to pay for that.

But Syria and Iraq are more symptomatic of the Administration's dysfunction. I said this example the other day, but Russia is cheating on NewSTART. The Administration knows it. The US has cut to around 1550, as agreed, ahead of schedule. Russia is growing it's arsenal and not allowing our treaty-agreed inspectors to do the job. What's the administration response? Not even to talk to them about it beyond a mild protest, or to retaliate in a similar fashion. It's to threaten congress when Congress puts language in the 2017 NDAA that says US compliance with NewSTART shall be defunded until Russia begins to comply.

This just illustrates how ass backwards Administration foreign policy is. Even a treaty he negotiated is quietly allowed to be violated because Barack Obama refuses to throw a punch, even when he is perfectly entitled to do so. Exactly whose team is Obama on? I don't mean in the sense is he a Manchurian President or anything. I mean, has years of him being so cloistered and protected by his staff, who from day one have en-devoured to protect the legacy of the First Black President, that he is even willing to let Russia get away with a serious violation just as to not look like a failure?

I know that Europeans like him, but Barack Obama is a soft man, and the Presidency isn't for soft people. That's not say make-believe tough but really thin skinned people like Trump are the answer. But Barack Obama, rare for an American lawyer of all things doesn't how how to, or relish, fighting whatsoever, even when he is in the right. Unless it is personally important to him.

[Ulmita]

But Syria and Iraq are more symptomatic of the Administration's dysfunction. I said this example the other day, but Russia is cheating on NewSTART. The Administration knows it. The US has cut to around 1550, as agreed, ahead of schedule. Russia is growing it's arsenal and not allowing our treaty-agreed inspectors to do the job. What's the administration response? Not even to talk to them about it beyond a mild protest, or to retaliate in a similar fashion. It's to threaten congress when Congress puts language in the 2017 NDAA that says US compliance with NewSTART shall be defunded until Russia begins to comply.

What you are missing here is that neither the Russians nor the Americans have followed the treaty so noone gives a flying f*ck.
You are just trying to find bs reasons to blame Obama, cause he is not a hawk.

[Skroe]

What you are missing here is that neither the Russians nor the Americans have followed the treaty so noone gives a flying f*ck.
You are just trying to find bs reasons to blame Obama, cause he is not a hawk.

Actually, the Americans have followed the treaty to the letter. What you're saying is factually not true. The Treaty was filled with US concessions to give Russians peace of mind, from overflights to inspectors to displays of denuclearized US weaponry. It's all online. Russia, by comparison, had few concessions, which was fine because the treaty was generally favorable to the US.

The US has cut it's weapons down, Russia has not. And it blocked and tried to deceive the authorized inspection teams. It's as simple as that. And whats more: this mirrors the Administration's foot dragging in Russia's INF Treaty violation, an investigation that started in 2006 under the Bush Administration and was wrapped up in 2012 with a finding that Russia's new cruise missiles are INF violating. Here we are, 4 years later, and they still avoid dealing with it.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...t-arms-treaty/

U.S. nuclear arms inspectors recently discovered that Russia is violating the New START arms treaty by improperly eliminating SS-25 mobile missiles, American defense officials said.

The violations were discovered during an on-site inspection carried out in Russia in April, said officials familiar with details of the inspection.

During the recent visit to a Russian missile base, U.S. technicians found critical components of SS-25s—road-mobile, intercontinental ballistic missiles—had been unbolted instead of cut to permanently disable the components.

Additionally, American inspectors were unable to verify missiles slated for elimination had been destroyed. Instead, only missile launch canisters were inspected.

As a result, inspectors were unable to determine if the missiles were properly eliminated as required by the 2010 arms treaty, the officials said.

Additionally, the inspectors found that Russian missile forces had improperly displayed missile components slated for destruction by failing to leave them in the open for monitoring by so-called national technical means of verification, a euphemism for spy satellites and other sensors used in monitoring arms accords.

On-site inspectors also reported they were unable to verify that Russia had completed all New START treaty cuts to launchers declared eliminated by Russia between 2011 and 2015.

“Russia will meet their treaty elimination goals by using empty launchers from retired and retiring missile systems,” said one official. “They’re basically cutting up launchers that don’t carry missiles anyway.”

Disclosure of the New START treaty violations is a further setback for the Obama administration’s arms control agenda. The administration has made arms agreements with Russian aimed at cutting nuclear forces a priority. Arms talks have been suspended since Moscow militarily annexed Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014.

Asked about the April verification problems, State Department arms verification bureau spokesman Blake Narenda declined to discuss the matter, citing treaty secrecy rules.

“The New START treaty forbids releasing to the public data and information obtained during implementation of the treaty,” Narenda said in a statement.

“This would include any discussion of the results of inspection activities undertaken by the United States or the Russian Federation,” he said. “However, both sides continue to implement the treaty in a businesslike manner.”

On Capitol Hill, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said the potential New START verification problem highlights the larger issue of the Obama administration’s poor record in pressing Russia to abide by its treaty obligations.

“Whether it’s Russian violations of the Open Skies Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, or multiple violations of the INF treaty, this administration has proven singularly unconcerned with arms control compliance,” Thornberry told the Free Beacon.

“Never having been made to pay a price, why wouldn’t Putin conclude that violations of the New START treaty would go unpunished as well?” he said.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a former State Department undersecretary for arms control, said the latest Russian treaty issue raises questions about whether Moscow may have helped Iran to circumvent treaties.

“Russian denials, obstructionism, and outright deception are nothing new in their efforts to prevent effective verification of arms control treaties,” Bolton said. “And just imagine what Moscow has taught Tehran.”

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic nuclear policymaker, said the New START arms accord has serious verification shortcomings.

“The New START treaty is a verification disaster area and Russia has a long history of violating substantive and verification provisions of strategic arms control agreements,” said Schneider, a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy.

Schneider, former Pentagon director for strategic arms control policy, said Russia has avoided complying with its treaty commitments. “They have violated all of the major arms control treaties and will continue to do so because we impose no penalties,” he said.

New START provisions for eliminating solid-fuel missiles like the SS-25 call for crushing the first stage rocket motor or cutting it in two equal parts.

“If Russia has not done this, the missiles would not have been removed from accountability,” Schneider said. “The requirement for cutting, crushing, or flattening is intended to prevent the reuse of the rocket motor casings to produce new missiles. There is no other reason to violate this provision of New START, except perhaps to sell them to rogue states.”

Schneider said the elimination procedures for New START are less stringent than under the earlier START accord that allowed inspectors to witness the elimination of all mobile ICBMs.

“This is not the case under New START,” he said. “For solid-fuel ICBMs, including mobile ICBMs, inspectors do not have the opportunity to observe eliminations. Instead, they are allowed to view a portion of the remains from eliminations.”

Mobile launchers under New START also are eliminated by cutting erector-launchers, leveling supports, and mountings from the mobile chassis and removing launch support equipment, including instruments.

Also, Russia is required under the treaty to display old mobile launchers for spy satellites to verify their elimination and to permit U.S. inspectors to verify the missile destruction within 30 days.

The Obama administration’s record for responding to arms cheating by Russia is weak. The State Department, which is in charge of monitoring treaty compliance, hid Moscow’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty for several years to avoid upsetting its arms control agenda.

The INF violation was finally made public in 2014 after prodding from Congress in a State Department report that said the violation involved Russia’s development of illegal ground-launched cruise missiles.

According to the State Department web site, there have been four “Type 2” on-site inspections since February under New START. Type 2 inspections are those used for confirming missile eliminations like those used for the SS-25.

The location of the April treaty inspection could not be learned.

Known locations where Russia has deployed SS-25s at bases include Yoshkar-Ola, Vypolzovo, Irkutsk, and Barnaul, according to the Russian strategic nuclear forces blog.

In February, Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the fifth anniversary of the New START treaty as a “landmark” arms control accord.

“New START is more important now than when it went into effect. It gives us the confidence and level of oversight we need— and could not otherwise have— by allowing U.S. inspectors unprecedented access to Russian nuclear facilities,” Kerry said.

However, Russia has voiced less enthusiasm for the treaty. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in April that New START will be an “end document” for U.S.-Russian arms control relations.

Asked if New START is a final accord, Ryabkov told Interfax, “Saying ‘final’ is not fashionable today. I would say that this document will obviously become an end document because, indeed, it has an end position on this scale of coordinates, where the time scale goes to the right and the quantity scale goes upwards, in other words, it is the quantity of weapons slated for limitation.”

The treaty calls for both Washington and Moscow to pare their nuclear arsenals to 700 deployed land-based and sea-based missiles and heavy bombers, 1,550 deployed warheads, and 800 non-deployed launchers and bombers.

Last Saturday, Anita Friedt, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for arms control verification and compliance, gave a speech that gave no suggestion there are problems with New START verification.

“Buttressed by this robust verification architecture, New START treaty implementation is proceeding well and both the United States and Russia are expected to meet the treaty’s central limits when they take effect in February 2018,” she said.

However, Friedt said New START verification measures, despite their intrusiveness, “may not be sufficient for effective verification in the future.”

The House fiscal 2017 defense authorization bill contains a provision that if passed would prohibit the Pentagon from spending any funds to implement New START until Pentagon officials reported to Congress about the treaty’s impact on critical defense capabilities.

The provision would block funding until the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff assessed the treaty’s impact on U.S. rapid reload of ballistic missiles and the impact of the treaty on U.S. deterrent strategy.

The bill also would require an assessment of the threat posed by non-treaty-limited nuclear or strategic conventional systems to the United States and American allies and of the risk posed by Russian arms violations. It would require an explanation of why continued treaty implementation is in U.S. national security interests.

You should take this very seriously Ultmita. If Russia won't even take treaties like this seriously, there is really no point to do do anything other than to build up more European defenses and ward them off through force. It's a binary thing. Either Russia complies to the agreements it signed on to, in good faith, or the agreement is void.

And as for the Obama Administration, consider they've already packed their bags, don't look for him to do anything about it.

[May90]

Wouldn't it be easier to just expand NATO to more EU countries, than to create (a) new organization(s) essentially allied with NATO?

[Ulmita]

You should take this very seriously Ultmita. If Russia won't even take treaties like this seriously, there is really no point to do do anything other than to build up more European defenses and ward them off through force. It's a binary thing. Either Russia complies to the agreements it signed on to, in good faith, or the agreement is void.

And as for the Obama Administration, consider they've already packed their bags, don't look for him to do anything about it.

I am 10000% certain Skroe that if USA wanted to "cheat" it could w/t anyone ever knowing about it. Certainly not me or you.

As for the force part, you are alone in that. Good luck

[Gratlim]

The most powerful EU military power is out.

It's not. France is a bigger military force than the UK and the big dog in EU. 25% bigger force, better equipment, more field experience, nuke independence ( not us puppet).
But the UK was a close 2nd in the EU indeed

[Kellhound]

No i mean they fly over civilians, over cities which fully armed F16s ALL THE TIME

There are armed F-16s are flown by non-US pilots over US cities on a regular basis, many of which are not even NATO allies.

[Deleted]

It's not. France is à bigger military force than the UK in the big dog in EU. 25% bigger force, better equipment, more field experience, nuke independence ( not us puppet).
But the UK was a close 2nd in the EU indeed.

Yet France needed British help to deploy to Mali since they have shite logistics, they have no big lifters.

[Skroe]

Yet France needed British help to deploy to Mali since they have shite logistics, they have no big lifters.

That's in large part caused by delays relating to the A400M.

They shoulda just bought the bigger C-17.

Airbus is pretty optimistic about selling the A400M to the USAF (they would be built in Alabama), but I don't see it. The A400M exists in the space between the C130J and the C-17.



The Air Force loves its C-17, all of which are quite new. And it's C-130J fleet is in the middle of it's life. The A400M makes sense for any military that needs more than than what a C-130 can do but the C-17 is overkill for (and too expensive). Not sure where it fits in with the USAF though.

[Theinquisition]

As the article above mentions, NATO is totally missing the point. An united EU army would look after our own business and our own interests. We can then be members of NATO if needs arise.

assuming that the nations supplying the troops would be on the same page, which they often aren't. Couple that with problem you would have with the rank and file members of the military. Do you think a French sergeant is going to be okay with a German Officer giving him orders to run across a field of fire? doubtful.

[Ulmita]

There are armed F-16s are flown by non-US pilots over US cities on a regular basis, many of which are not even NATO allies.

Next obvious question Kell: Do you allow them to do so?

[Skroe]

I am 10000% certain Skroe that if USA wanted to "cheat" it could w/t anyone ever knowing about it. Certainly not me or you.

As for the force part, you are alone in that. Good luck

Not likely. Nuclear weapons require a whole industrial base. Again, look at Russia with their INF violating cruise missiles. They got caught red handed. If the US wanted to cheat, Russia would catch us just by paying attention to what was being procured, and the technical details of those items.

Furthermore the US Defense Budget is mostly not classified, including, broadly, nuclear spending. The US believes that such transparency promotes trust with other countries, as well as democratic accountability here at home. When the US said, for example, it was going to build the B-21 nuclear bomber... sure it's been working on prototypes of it likely for a decade (just like the B-2), but it held a damn press conference. And the thing is, under NewSTART, since each of those 200 B-21s would count as a "launcher", the US is signalling its intention not to cheat: to add 100 more nuclear capable strategic bombers, the US would have to cut 100 other "launchers" to stay within the 700 launcher limit. It's not doing some kind of dual use guessing game. Introduction of the B-21, at 20 per lot, will mean the progressive retirement of nuclear-capable B-52s, followed by probably some land based ICBMs, followed lastly by the B-2 most likely.

That's what not cheating looks like.

Furthermore, that article gave very concrete examples of Russians duping or preventing inspectors. That is unacceptable period, and even you must recognize that. I want you to say that it is unacceptable that Russia interferes with inspections.

As for force, we're certainly not alone on that. Haven't you been paying attention to the news? The Eastern Europe arms build up continues apace.