[Skybird]

NATO states are - rightly - demanded by Trump to finally fulfill their financial self-committments. The only ones doing that or exceeding them even, are the Brits and I think the French (on the latter I am not certain).

Now that the crisis-haunted EU desperately seeks a new "symbol" that should communicate how very nicely united and fine they all are LOL, the Euro military united super corps has been discovered, and new military structures should be formed for that. Of course, the eU then gets a new ministry to boast with, the Euzropean defence council/ministry/party club or whatever you want to call it. Nice meetins with cool drinks and attrac9tve ladies serving drinks, and nice PR photos and invitations for TV talkshows. For politicians, this sounds all great of course.

But why having parallel structures to the already established ones - NATO's?

Why risking political controversy if NATO decides for one thing, and the Euro military orginsation decides for an opposing thing?

Why to assume that the money this new structure and network will cost, will be paid willingly - if states demonstrate that they are not even willing to fulfill their financial obligations within NATO?

Why assuming that adding to the hierarchy to decision-making and political will forming, will form better, faster reacting, more potent reaction options in case of a sudden crisis? The German-Dutch corps requires 30 days minimum as pre-warning time in case of emergency deploymment - on paper. Remember how fast thigns rushed in parts on the nCrimean peninsula ince the first green men were spotted. I know from insiders (the logistical and staff headquarter is stationed here in my hometown Münster) from years ago that internally they calculate - at least years ago - with more time before they are able to relocate and setup a "robust" and really combat-potent force somewhere in Eastern or Southern Europe. Symbolically raisng a flag somewhere or sending a groupo to repair a bridge or drill a waterhole (traditionally the main reason the Bundeswehr now exists, it sometimes seems to me), is one thing, and politicians love it. Setting up a real battle-potent combat forces of serious size somewhere and establishing its logistical support background - that is something very different.

The deficits of the Bundeswerhr lie in eroding platform pools, undersupply on every level, not sufficient personell, low moral and high level of frustration, and time and again: too low numbers in weapon platforms in case of a real conflict with Russia. Helicopters, transportplanes, tanks, navy units and especially their crews - too few, to little, too broken, not enough, not workable, not equipped for combat.

Finally, instead of avoiding symbolically wanted, politically ambitioned, practically questionable double structures that in the end are nothing but additionally wasting money for smaller Bang, the ending of underfunding NATO should be the priority. This way, the Europeans could also claim a bigger role in NATO rightfully, and either demand America to reduce its claims for control and power in it, or could fill any vacancies if Trump voluntarily reduces America'S role in NATO, as he has threatened to do. Lets face it: Americas priority is no longer Europe, or the Middle East - but the Pacific.

This is the far more potent and clever move to make. And that is why Russia supports the idea of secondary European military structures instead. The more difficult and complex the network of hierarchies in Europe is, the easier it is for Russia to manipulate it in its favour and to win the media war - and delay (at least, if not more) real military reactions.

We have an established military defence structure already. Why forming parallel structures? We should spend more for NATO, and by that strengthen European positions inside NATO instead - and by that strengthening our stand and influence in it, compared to Washington. Right now, without Washingtons Yes or No nothing works in NATO. And this although the EU economic zone has a slightly higher GDP than the American economy...!? A parallel military structure will suffer from the same financial harms: it will be underfunded, and if not, this would mean that the force is so small that militarily it has no real importance and effect in case of a major conflict. And what then? Calling NATO for help?

Not two alliances parallel to each other, like Moscow wants (Moscow acts by divide et impera here). Only one alliance - but this one in much better shape, if you please.