EU signs defence pact

[Catfish]

"First proposed in the 1950s and long resisted by Britain, European defense planning, operations and weapons development now stands its best chance in years as London steps aside and the United States pushes Europe to pay more for its security."

Somehow i do not think this has been Trump's real desire

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu...KBN1DD0PX?il=0

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"First proposed in the 1950s and long resisted by Britain, European defense planning, operations and weapons development now stands its best chance in years as London steps aside and the United States pushes Europe to pay more for its security."

Somehow i do not think this has been Trump's real desire

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu...KBN1DD0PX?il=0

Especially given the new uniform regulations

[ikalugin]

Well if you can't build the 4th Reich you can try to build the 3rd Califate.

[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.

[Jimbuna]

^ I'm with you there Sky

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

^^ I agree with you Sky! However I would exercise caution with wage increases: do not make your army unaffordable!

[Catfish]

Well PESCO sounds like pesky, so...
It is now more a treaty for quick help than to fight, though this may come later. And i agree they should fund NATO better, rather than create a new EU-wide army.
My reason is a bit different though, i would not like a fictitious EU army to build and maintain nuclear weapons in the long run.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

^^ I agree with you Sky! However I would exercise caution with wage increases: do not make your army unaffordable!

We have too few interested recruits, and thes eoften are of too low skills and abilities. We either rasie the attractiveness, or return to conscript armnies - but thgese again need a core of professionals. Currently, the Bundeswehr sees a masisve drain of old experience. But w ehave an explosion of higher officers, and generals. Generals that nobody needs, of which there are far oot many, but who want to be generla of something, just anything. And so dubious posts and offices get created that cost a lot of moeny, but are not needed, and do nothign constructive, but hidner the internal routines, and many primabellerinas try to fit into one and the same tutu. We mess it upo further with feminization of fighting spirit and combat troops and by that: highly questionable mentality re-education drills, and we care about our war waggons being suitable for pregnant warrior princesses so that possible exhaust gas cannot interfere with the forewater. We take yearsd and decades to build a transport that still doe snot fly, we dream of air mobility nevertheless and cvall in Eastern despots to shuffle opur troops around, and we build an IFV that needs the air trtansp0rot that we build since years and years and that explodoies in costs, but doe snot fly. And meanwhile a military lightweight like I thinmBrazil or Peru build an airtroanspoort within just a few years that fits the needed specifications, and does it all alone and teaches us a lesson of how it is to be done - we boast and sign big mouthed proclamations.

I do not kinow an adequate Engliush tanslaiton, bvut what PESCA is about is: Mängelverwaltung, while hidding the failures and roaring like a (paper) tiger.

Wars need combat troops, men of warrior's mentality. Weapon platforms. Fighting spirit. All in sufficient quantity. Only that fights, survives and wins wars. Only that ability deters a potential enemy. PESCA is symbolic theatre play that politicians love so much. And the Russians - no doubt close the curtains on the Kremlins's windows and then, when the world cannot see them, boast with laughter.

We even still do not have the will to protect our own borders! One could wonder why we even maintain an army at all...?

Yesterday, or the day before, i read a piece about analysing the militarey status of the Bundeswehr. The author, who wreote a whole book about it, said the German Luftwaffe alone would need at least 15 years to regain a status in equipment and perosnnel so that it could indeed defend German airspace against a detmerined aggressor. Its about lacking or deficitary equipment, lacking personell, lacking spirit, and experience drain. And in such specilaised branches of the armed forces, conscription does not really help. What is needed is warrior-minded men who think service is attractive again and who can trust in poltical leadership to act with hgih sense of responsibility. And the latte ronce again is a hiuge deficit. The mroal and general mood in the Bundeswehr is said to be extremely bad, it falls from year to year. That von der Leyen would like to stay in office, does not help at all, she is met with utmost mistrust and a majority of the Bundeswehr dispises her. She - sees it as a career booster for her ambition to become chancellor one day (haven help us). Interest for military stuff is not what drives her. Another complication of the matter.

But on top of it all is that Germany still wants others to do the dirty work, and wants to abuse its history to escape needing to get its hands bloody. Germany wants to command in the background how other should defend German interest and do the dirty part of the job. It wants to accentuate its humanitarian attitude by focussing on bridge building and school-repairing instead. The Bundeswehr, for many Germans, is a self-defensively armed chorps of development and aid workers. Even many soldiers' self-understanding is like that. But with that attitude you better ask for a job in the THW (Technisches Hilfswerk).

What is needed, are warriors. Not talkers. You do not talk a Russian offensive into a stall - you shoot it into pieces, or you loose. You do not care for your enemy until he gives up - you destroy him, or he destroys you. You do not put your bet on hopes - you are prepared and ready for anything.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

My reason is a bit different though, i would not like a fictitious EU army to build and maintain nuclear weapons in the long run.

No nukes, no believable deterrance. That simple. When states reach the possession of nukes, wars between them slow down and become very rare, that is an empirical fact. Best illustrations are India, China and Pakistan.

However, what raises, is asymmetrical warfare, terrorism, guerilla wars and pöroxy wars and the likes. That also can be counted out for convincing empirical evidence.

For example chapters 14 and 15 in "The culture of War", which I currently read a second time.

The most murderous and blood-dripping weapon of mass destruction in history is not the hydrogen bomb, but is the small callibre firearm, btw.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

^^ I agree with you Sky! However I would exercise caution with wage increases: do not make your army unaffordable!

States are de facto bancrupt, they live by a model of delayed filing of insolvency, which makes them all criminal offenders. Debts are astronomic, and the counterfeit system collapses in slow motion. If one argues with what we can afford, all and everything would need to come to an immediate standstill. We are drowning in debts, we cannot afford spending a single Taler on anything.

What we shoukld do instead is, strengthening our military, but focussing it on its purpose: to protect us, our homes, our places. Not to shuttle it around the globe and fight other people's wars for them and missionise other cultures whose warrior mentality is far superior to our weak fighting spirits.

We should also stop selling military items and goods to places outside Europe, Israel, North America, Japan, Australia. Keep our abilities in the family. OUR family, that is. Other palces we do arms deals with, just see our arms ending uop in the wrongnhands, and a good deal of them later gets directed at out soldiers. Our our civilian pedestrians in our own streets.

[ikalugin]

The problem is the too small armies and the too low numbers. PESCA does not adress any of this.

I would argue that an EU wide Armed Forces would solve those issues, but this may be undesirable for other reasons, ie partial loss of soverenity by member-states.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

States are de facto bancrupt, they live by a model of delayed filing of insolvency, which makes them all criminal offenders. Debts are astronomic, and the counterfeit system collapses in slow motion. If one argues with what we can afford, all and everything would need to come to an immediate standstill. We are drowning in debts, we cannot afford spending a single Taler on anything.

Depends. Germany's debt per GDP is about 68,0% while France in high end has 96,0% and Estonia in low end has 9,5% (all from 2016).

Originally Posted by Skybird

What we shoukld do instead is, strengthening our military, but focussing it on its purpose: to protect us, our homes, our places. Not to shuttle it around the globe and fight other people's wars for them and missionise other cultures whose warrior mentality is far superior to our weak fighting spirits.

There must be quite big difference between Germany and Finland the. Granted we also have some troops participating on those wars abroad, but atleast the focus of armed forces is still in defence of homeland.

Originally Posted by Skybird

We should also stop selling military items and goods to places outside Europe, Israel, North America, Japan, Australia. Keep our abilities in the family. OUR family, that is. Other palces we do arms deals with, just see our arms ending uop in the wrongnhands, and a good deal of them later gets directed at out soldiers. Our our civilian pedestrians in our own streets.

I agree here. However the "political problem" here would be: if we don't sell to them, then who buys so we can keep the jobs? Answer should be selfevident but apparently it is not. Atleast not in Europe...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Depends. Germany's debt per GDP is about 68,0%

Last time I checked it was approaching 90%, was officially at 86% or so And that is just the explicit debt. The implicit debt - future debts that necessarily result from the design faults and debts you already implemented today - means you have this number at - depending on the way you calculate things - minimum 280%, mor eliekly in the range of 400-700%, and some very critical economists even pished this number up to over 1100%.

Its like with inflation rate. The real value gets hidden and covered under layers and laods of misleading gaphs, handpicked numbers and cleverly designed calculation mhtods that evade unwanted truths.

Its a bomb with burning fuse.

The total Western debt level btw today is much higher than it was before 2007.

There must be quite big difference between Germany and Finland the. Granted we also have some troops participating on those wars abroad, but atleast the focus of armed forces is still in defence of homeland.

I expect the differences in mentality to be very big on these matters. You see, we Germans win by making everbyody loving us . Why would we need to want to defend ourselves then? We are surrounded by the Polish, the danish, the French, the Italians to keep the bad guys away from our borders. Thats why we now want a defense cooperation with these - under German command. We proivde logistics - them do the dirty stuff.

We lived by buying ourselves out of military dirty committments for half a century now. Why give that up now when in the past it has worked so well? LOL

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We should also stop selling military items and goods to places outside Europe, Israel, North America, Japan, Australia. Keep our abilities in the family.

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-quintup...ypt/a-41370500

Nobody listens.

[Jimbuna]

It seems a bit ironic regarding weapons exports when you take into consideration the poor state of German equipment but selling is a lot cheaper than procuring I suppose.