NRF: "no cause for hope"

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,506905,00.html

Gone with the wind. Or better: never was there anyway.

[Letum]

The NRF neevr made sense to me. I cant think of any situation in wich it would be used. :hmm:
Perhaps thats just ignorance on my part.

[Skybird]

The NRF neevr made sense to me. I cant think of any situation in wich it would be used. :hmm:
Perhaps thats just ignorance on my part.
Well, a typical Rumsfeld idea, so what you expect. It's coming from the man who thought out the idea to go into Iraq with 100.000 only.

[bradclark1]

The NRF makes sense to me if it would actually be used but Nato does nothing quickly even if it would do anything at all, let alone aggressively so it's a waste of time, money, effort, and money. Allso the security cancel never agrees so one or more would veto the deployment for that given situation anyway.

[Letum]

Whats happening to the EU RRF?

[Skybird]

Whats happening to the EU RRF?
Planned to have 60-80 thousand, while air force and nvay still is not outlined. Not really a standing army, but many nations have pre-selected units of their armed forces that would participate. Installation of logistical and command structures got delayed. Political lip confessions do not really stand in line with the so far shown political will to get this thing completed. Biggest problem, imo: so far it will be needed to operate by all members agreeing on the planned task, and all members agreeing on how to acchieve that task - talking of 29 people standing in the kitchen. Some see the involement of european units in Macedoina during a time of unrest there as the first action of the RRF, but one could argue that this was not really representative. US position on a military force independant from NATO (formally) and not under American command is wavering, at best.

I do not expect too much from it. It will be a paper tiger for the most, probably capable for some limited police action, but not really war-robust. In other words its strength will depend on the enemy being weak, and that is a very stupid strategy. If it ever gets completed in it's forming-up, that is. I would prefer a core alliance of european states of central importance, something like the old EEC, being at the heart of the EU, and serving as the motor that keeps the rest of the EU oriented on a common course, and keeping the show running. That may be less democratic and idealistic and God knows what, but it is more realistic and pragmatic - we simply have too many VIPs and factions that think they are VIPs in Europe and the EU. What we have now is a kindergarten producing one half-hearted bad compromise following the other, with plenty of exceptions, and special addendums, etc. Doesn't lead anywhere.

and this horde of yelling kids should agree on operation definitions for the RRF in an environment that needs a robust mandate? no chance ever.

the old idea of de Gaulle, Schmidt and othersabout a united europe was not a europe where all is melting into one, but it was about cooperation of nations - nothing more. We are in desperate need to remember this old concept, and get rid of what the EU is becoming today - a giant bureau that tries to play continental government.