If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Everyone else sees a wee pun. A bit of fun.
You seem a bit stressed.
I read that as a litte white flag conceeding you've been caught out talking pony.
Regulations are clearly no joking matter for you.
You're German, arent you.
Hallo.
No you didn't explain it.
You dropped in the word "regulation"(thinking you had a gotcha) which has a definative legal meaning in EU and regulations are binding on member states.
You were asked to pony-up what regulation amounts to member states being compelled into anything resembling an EU collective defence. You're running away with the ball now claiming you were "joking" because you've been caught out talking nonsense.
Nothing "has been determined" because member states are not compelled to do anything in this sensitive space which many many states don't agree with the direction of travel.
Didn't I already explain this? Am I talking to a bot?
"EU regulation stone" was a bit of a joke, a lighthearted jest. A reference to Brussels tendency to place regulations on stuff.
You can just read it as ' definite decisions have been made' or 'they are very determined' if it helps.
Jesus.
As bad, and arguably worse things happened during the much more fraught times of the cold War without escalation to military action. I do not for a second believe NATO would seriously risk nuclear war over some cables or pipelines (I also think this is a good thing). It would lead to more and more economic pressure and more pressure and threats put on other nations to commit to them also. Military action is an utterly gigantic step and we are all very lucky a number of calm and sensible people over the decades realised this.
Nato is vital for those at risk of direct Russian aggression and collective Western defence in general is a good thing. But it historically has not and likely will not deter general Russian fuckwittery.
Ok, let's indulge you for a moment. What "regulation"? The word regulation actually has a legal meaning in EU terms.
Cool. Youre still funding the EUs eventual nato replacement. Every month. And it seems youre in denial.
The regulation bit was a joke, as in an EU regulation joke. EU regulation stone.
Natos defense in Europe is chiefly (and unsurprisingly) made up of Europeans, who are EU citizens of EU member states spending EU funds from EU taxes and being guided by EU laws and EU policies from EU councils. This town aint going to be big enough one day. Its only a question of when.
You say common defense is a press release, but many years and many billions have gone into it. What do you think is really happening, come on now. The funding of this "press release" is continual, theres no mention of any end date, large bureaucratic branches dedicated to its long term goals have been formed. Its integral. Its enmeshed with multi billion euro national defense budgets. And this is early days. That looks a lot like something in the ascendancy.
Fwiw, i live in Georgia and unsurprisingly there’s a generational device with how they view themselves.
anyone under 35 or so would be very much pro Europe, they learn Georgian, English and normally German.
as you get more removed from that age group, the more mother Russia they become tbh.
Also most Georgians know that they are on the extreme periphery of Europe.
Now I know you don't have a breeze.
The limits on EU defence is guided by Treaty, not Von Der Leyen or Commission policy or pet procurement projects, and EU Treaty is explicit on what "mutual assistance" means. You threw out the word "regulation" as if you know what you're talking about and now you're in deep waters.
Under Treaty, no country can rely on anything approaching Article 5 protection, it's a legal impossibility. It was weakened to such an extent (we as a country had a lot to do with it actually) that it's meaningless. Under attack, an EU member could concievably recieve a care package and thoughts and prayers, and that's it.
I'm aware the EU is involved in standardised procurement projects (with very very limited results btw, because national defence contractors don't like it) - it is not in the same solar system of what NATO offers in terms of actual credible defence and the scope of countries that make it work.
Like I said, EU strategic autonomy in the defence realm is a press release. You've obviously swallowed it in your credulity. NATO is here to stay, which is to say, the US is here to stay as security garuntor for the continent, which you really ought to be grateful for, because there is no credible alternative.
Yeah but I dont mind waiting. Brussels is already a good few years and many billions in. Early projects in development. Missions completed. I really dont foresee a change of mind at this point. Europe will have strategic autonomy well within your natural lifetime, and youll help pay for it. Its set in regulation stone.
You can say Ameriboo all you want, but believe it or not, any EU state with a serious security concern emanating from the East is an Ameriboo. Denmark retains its opt-out for instance precisely because it doesn't want NATO supplanted. Every state east of of the Elbe is an Ameriboo. They trust Article 5 and it's the cornerstone of their defence.
You'll be waiting on EU collective defence becoming a credible reality, because between states not wanting NATO undermined (beleive it or not, many states place a hell of a lot of stock in the Trans-Atlantic alliance) , opt-out countries, and à la carte participants, it doesn't mean anything.
The legal reality of the Lisbon Treaty means that "mutual assistance" can mean anything any state wants. An attack on your sovereign territory could be met with a bouquet of flowers and a nice poem from your EU allies and it's the "mutual assistance" box ticked.
NATO's Article 5 means whoever attacks you gets Tomahawk missiles on their head and F35s crawling up their ass. That's collective defence, not what the EU is offering up and Macron or beurocrats in Brussels jealous about the NATO boys across town are daydreaming about.
TL;DR: The US as a security garuntor of Europe send sh*t sliding down the leg of people like Putin, and that's why it works and makes Tankies spit fire.
"Strategic autonomy is a policy objective of the European Union under the von der Leyen Commission.[3]
A first reference to strategic autonomy in the discussions of the European council of ministers can be dated back to December 2013. The European Council called for the development of European defense capabilities to enhance the strategic autonomy of the European Union.[4]" - Wiki
I mean you say it won't work, but a decade of planning by professionals in the field of such matters, and billions in investment by the EU would seem to suggest that maybe those in the know disagree with your take.
Theres nato, and theres the most powerful military in the world and all that good stuff, but the most powerful country is the world is way way way over there doing its own thing and electing unpredictable presidents, often isolationist ones. So yeah, EU's building a backup over here, thats the reality. And has been for some time. I think it will supplant nato in good time. Thats the EU's intention. Ameriboos won't like it. But thats where our taxes are going. You pay taxes in the EU right? 😄
The notion of "European Strategic Autonomy" as an alternative to NATO unified command comes straight out of the Élysée from 2017 or so.
It doesn't and won't work because:
It's a Macron press release and very little else with no political buy-in from anyone.
Thankfully, the above is nothing more than a brainfart from Macron, and NATO has never had as much buy-in since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's centre of gravity has firmly shifted east and it's here to stay.
France Germany and Poland have all announced big boosts in defense spending.
The UK not being involved is the very reason why EU security is making progress.
EU collective defense missions are happening right now, 21 civilian and 9 military according to one source, incl Ukraine, Georgia and Africa. Irish personnel are involved.
Pesco integration and procurement projects are well underway, pretty much all EU members are involved (Malta and Denmark excluded - Denmark set to re-decide). (UK and Norway are associate members too).
EU seems pretty set on strategic autonomy.
I would prefer us join NATO, and personally find our neutrality embarrassing and offensive (being aloof between good and evil, not a good look), but if we are going to remain "neutral" we need to have some ability to defend that neutrality like Switzerland. Otherwise it's a load of nonsense.
That may have been the situation 10 years ago. It isn't now. There is a line in the sand. It was put there at Russia's provocation. All interests and assets of NATO members and their allies, friends and associated nations, are a legitimate casus belli for conventional military action beyond the borders of those same nations in response to any attack, of any scale, on those interests and assets.
I can't recall where it was written, but the notional NATO minus US was put as this:
Paid for by Germany, commanded by French officers with French military doctrine and national interest at its core, and Eastern states providing the rank and file getting lectured to. And everyone scratching their heads why they let the US go home with the decreased ability to respond to threats.
And even if they got it off the ground they would spend the next few decades deciding who's the biggest dog therefore calling all the shots ,
Germany despite it's military being a **** show would want to be in total control followed by the french,as it stands in the next few years Poland will be the most powerful military force in Europe and they will want a big say , along with the UK
We would likely try to demand a say despite not being able to defend our own island and not willing to spend on the defense forces,
Let's put it to the citizens assembly ,no time the government grew a pair of Balls and put forth a real defense overhaul and strategic planning for the next few years
Very accurate.
A woolly notion of EU collective defence (minus the US and probably Turkey, an incredibly important lynchpin militarily and geographically, and likely the UK outside of it) is for the moment for the birds. It's shorthand for letting Russia away with murder and rewarding their prickery for no particular reason besides some sort of watery Chomsky-lite nonsense.
And even at that, a lot of the thoughtless left would spit the dummy at the prospect of collective EU defence with Ireland involved as well.
I'd be quite happy if there was a credible European defensive pact, but everyone who has interest in defending their country has already joined NATO. EU defence won't work with the UK not in the EU any more, Germany's military will take years to rebuild, Italy has no money and the French are busy with domestic issues. So at the moment "EU defence" is a concept for those who don't really want to do anything about collective defence.
There's also the question of why some people on what I call the thoughtless left are determined to see European collective defence without the US involved.
A collective defence without the US sees deterrence for Europe significantly denuded against aggressive autocratic states like Russia (and others besides), and a Kremlin more emboldened to pick-off, interfere with and as we have seen to invade Eastern states. There is no other conculsion that would come to pass if the US left the European security architecture. More insecurity, an emboldened Russia, Europe having to spend an even greater share of GDP on defence. For what?
When pressed, they won't give a satisfactory answer - or any answer at all really. It's usually "just because".
They hate NATO because it works, and it is an unassailable deterrent.
Why would Finland be sending a missle into Moscow....
They don't have missles capable of reaching Moscow,
They have a military that solely built to defend it's territory
Well, Russia is less likely to play chicken with NATO if an Article 5 response is in the air, and I think that much is obvious. In terms of a casus belli, cutting the communications cables between North America and Europe is on the upper-end of f*ckery and it wouldn't surprise in the least if an Article 5 was invoked.
🤣
I said Baltics greencap. Your dancing on the head of a pin falls apart right there. Derp.
Btw, when I want to talk of the EU I say EU.
Well whatever, you chose to side with the nonsense attempts to confound the EU countries (referred to by most people as just 'Europe') with the entire European continent.
Its very basic, people can see it. Just don't.
Yes and I don't think anyone and especially not Russia remotely believes them.
You genuinely think a cyber attack will see western missiles flying and tanks rolling. A ratcheting up to nuclear war?
Russia committed a chemical weapons attack on NATO soil because they knew it wouldn't cause a military response.
NATO have already stated that a significant cyber-attack would be a possible Article 5 triggering event.
Hey greencap, wakey wakey. I never posted "Russia has boots on the ground in Europe" (even though they do in 4 sovereign European countries).
Mic1972 posted "there's no evidence Russia will invade Europe"
I responded that they absolutely would eye-up the Baltics for instance for military intervention were they not in NATO. Russia is 100 percent a credible military threat to the Batic states and especially if they weren't part of NATO. And if that penny hasn't dropped after Ukraine, Tankies need to take their smelling salts.
Any other take is sh*t-talk. And there's a lot of Tankie sh*t talk in this thread. You're owning yourself here.
I don't think anyone really believes cutting an undersea cable, no matter where it is done, would be considered a legitimate casus belli for war. Most importantly I don't believe Russia thinks that so the deterrent effect is non existent.
