[Skybird]

"Pact", thats ounds so adamant, so iron-and-steel-like, so unmovable and strong and irresistable. But this PESCO treaty is in tsi frmat not more than a paper of politcal intention, and some bureauracrtic new regulations to avoid bureaucratic overregulation when allied military and liguistics cross borders. It does not raise the combat power and resistability to a Russian attack. It does not claim to raise troops levels and procurations, but wants to use "clever management" to compensate for lacking equipment - like Guttenberg did with the Bundeswehr, which as a result is weaker off after him, than it already was before him.

I stick to it, the money that is planned for this, should directly go into better payment of soldiers to attract more new recruits, and repairing, replacing and procuring military equipment, platforms, and building certain skills (cyberwar, drones). This PESCO treaty now is too uch poltics and bureaucratics, and too little combat-relevant substance, too much is aiming at projecting police forces to thrid world places to build schools and protect elections, than to fight robuts wars against a determined aggressor. For the latter NATO claims responsiblity, and cannot fill it already. If PESCO does not help there, then why having it in the first? To missionise distant parts of the planet in a bid to relabel development aid as defense spendings for the pacifistic audience at home?

Quatschköppe. Weicheier. Waschlappen.

A defense pact - I'm shivering - that does not make a potential enemy scared of the idea to challenge and fight against it, is pointless. And cooperaiton in building weapon platforms? I just need to think of the Airbus A400M to dislike the idea, or the slow - and still not finalised! - delivery history of the Eurofighter. The history of the Puma is not story of fame as well, but illustrates how political correctness trumps de facto needs and military essentials. German tank know how gets outsourced to the French - effectively for nothing.

The problem is the unwillingness of the mental attitude in Europe, in leaders hands, and populations' heads, to defend and to fight for one'S own princples. The problem is the too small armies and the too low numbers. PESCA does not adress any of this. The only positive thing in it is that logistical movement across national borders is hoped to get simplified, bureaucratically. If it works.

They money should go into NATO instead, strengthening European stand in it and by that forcing the Americans to give more ground. Currently the US in NATO is strong and dominant, due to own strength, but also - due to European weakness.

A pact of weak nations, is a weak pact. Thats why PESCO does not convince. Strength contributes strength to a cause. Adding more of weak partners, does not do that, like a chain doe snot become stronger, just because you extend its length by adding more weak links.

Its like I say its with LED torchlights. You do not need torchlights with a dozen LEDs in them, you need just one LED. But that one has to be a real good one. Lamps with a dozen of LEDs are cheap and of bad quality, because their LEDs are cheap and bad, a dozen of these LEDs cost less than one good LED.