European Union, member states and Agencies

[SolarisKenzo]

Because they produce weapons. ReArm should provide all members the freedom to decide whom they wish to buy their weapons from.

No it should not, at least for the common budget and EIB loans part.
Also, ITAR free only is a must.

 

[swerve]

Why would the British be included in or benefit from a EU initiative?
The left the Union. Their choice.

The choice of a bare majority of those who voted, many of who now regret it & are willing to say so, & we & the EU can benefit from cooperation.

Note that we're buying weapons from EU members, selling weapons to EU members, & have joint weapons developments with EU members. We're also discussing with European allies how to deal with Trump's delinquency.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

No it should not, at least for the common budget and EIB loans part.
Also, ITAR free only is a must.

1. No such thing as ITAR free. There are always certain terms of use.
2. Common budget is a hoax. Europeans cannot agree on things. What matters most is what each individual nation gets to spend. It should decide what to buy and from whom on its own.
The EU simply does not have industrial independence. They need to import a lot of things either designed or made abroad.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

1. No such thing as ITAR free. There are always certain terms of use.
2. Common budget is a hoax. Europeans cannot agree on things. What matters most is what each individual nation gets to spend. It should decide what to buy and from whom on its own.
The EU simply does not have industrial independence. They need to import a lot of things either designed or made abroad.

Both points just false.
1. Yes, there are such things as ITAR-free.
Most European ground systems are sovereign.
Most European naval systems are sovereign.
In the aerospace sector Yankees still hold a monopoly in some areas, especially hydraulic systems and some fly-by-wire features, also regarding life-support.
But that's just very far from your false claim that there is no such things as ITAR-free.

Basically all new European programs that will enter service from now on have the mandatory requirement of being ITAR-free.

Let's look at the Euro drone MALE Rpas, where Avio had to develop a new engine because we did not want to use one that was not 100% ITAR-free.
MBDA Aquila? HYDEF? HYDIS?

Come on.

2. You either just don't know how the EU works or you're trying to manipulate things just to support your view.
I really have no interest in explaining you how the Eurosystem or the EU Commission budget work, or what a Direction-General is.

Common budget is a thing, and so is EU common debt.
The EU works fine? Hell no!
There are some many things that don't work.

But your BS is just not true.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yes, there are such things as ITAR-free.
Most European ground systems are sovereign.
Most European naval systems are sovereign.
In the aerospace sector Yankees still hold a monopoly in some areas, especially hydraulic systems and some fly-by-wire features, also regarding life-support.
But that's just very far from your false claim that there is no such things as ITAR-free.

Basically all new European programs that will enter service from now on have the mandatory requirement of being ITAR-free.

Let's look at the Euro drone MALE Rpas, where Avio had to develop a new engine because we did not want to use one that was not 100% ITAR-free.
MBDA Aquila? HYDEF? HYDIS?

Come on.

ITAR in the sense of US-specific regulations? Sure, Europe can probably get rid of most of these in the 20-30 year time frame.

ITAR as a synonym for general limitations/ToS (Terms of Use) - no.
Since at least the vast majority of Europe will not be truly independent in terms of defense production and development, they will have to import items that will have at least some limitations.

I'll give 2 examples:
France develops a 6th gen fighter aircraft. Germany buys it.

1. Germany wants to sell it to Saudi Arabia. France really doesn't want that as it'll likely be easily stolen by the Chinese and some of that tech will re-appear in Europe in adversary hands within several years.
   1. Outcome = All users of said aircraft lose the desired level of technological superiority.
2. France wants to sell it to Saudi Arabia. Germany really doesn't want that for the same reason described above. France goes through with it anyway.
   1. Same outcome as above.

These restrictions are necessary. A weapon without restrictions is one that's certainly usable but definitely cannot be in the group of weapons that'll give you the clear edge in combat.
And if you still classify such weapon as strategic, be prepared to have to replace it much sooner than anticipated.
Restrictions exist to protect both the user and manufacturer from not only political risks, but from military ones as well.

All Europe's doing is replacing one manufacturer's ToS for another.
If Poland replaces its JASSM buy with a Storm Shadow buy, do you really think it'll have full freedom with it? No, the UK and France will be able to restrict its sale to Ukraine just the same as the US does, for the same reasons. And if no restrictions clause is used specifically, then they could simply not sell any more units to Poland, or at least delay new buys.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

The EU Defence plan was unveiled today.

EU to exclude US, UK and Turkey from €150bn rearmament fund

Victory for France-backed ‘Buy European’ approach to defence spending

www.ft.com

Here you can read the document:

Future of European defence

White paper on the future of European defence sets out investment needs to deliver EU defence capabilities to secure Europe’s peace. Find out more.

commission.europa.eu

 

[kato]

As a note, it's the SAFE Regulations that you want to read - that's the proposal for the 150 billion of EU funding. The Whitepaper itself does not include/exclude anyone, that's just the policy statement.

SAFE Regulation can be found here in the press kit that's available at

Commission unveils the White Paper for European Defence and the ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030

Today, the Commission and the High Representative have presented a White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030.

ec.europa.eu

P.S.:

ITAR (or any comparable control regime) is explicitly excluded in the SAFE regulation, even if it's a bit hidden. If i'm reading it right the wording even allows to simply override ITAR if necessary for certain items:

For defence products related to category two as referred to in point (a) (2) of Article 7(4), contractors shall have the ability to decide, without restrictions imposed by third countries or by third-country entities, on the definition, adaptation and evolution of the design of the defence product procured, including the legal authority to substitute or disassemble components that are subject to restrictions imposed by third countries or by third-country entities.

Defence products falling under that as "Category two" are "air and missile defence; drones other than small drones (NATO class 2 and 3) and related anti-drone systems; strategic enablers; space assets protection; artificial intelligence and electronic warfare".

Also:

No component shall be sourced from another third country that contravenes the security and defence interests of the Union or its Member States.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

The new emergency preparedness strategy was published by EU Commission, including a 72 hours emergency supply for every citizen.

EU Preparedness Union Strategy to prevent and react to emerging threats and crises

Today the Commission and High Representative launch the Preparedness Union Strategy to support Member States and enhance Europe's capability to prevent and respond to emerging threats.

ec.europa.eu

Brussels asks EU citizens to have a 72-hour emergency kit for crises

The emergency kit should include food, water, and copies of important identity documents, among other items. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

 

[kato]

In Germany the recommendation used to be 14 days, but was recently (think in 2020) lowered to "minimum 3 days, optimally 7-10 days".

The 3-day list also allows for lowered provisions in some regard, e.g. going down to minimum 1.5l water and drinks per day.

 

[kato]

From a quick look it seems to be mostly Southern EU members who do not have such recommendations in place.
Portugal, Italy, Spain for example. In Spain some of the autonomous governments seem to have some recommendations.

Most other members use a 3-day minimum recommendation period. Some have a longer "you may want to..." recommendation of often between one and two weeks.

In the past there have been some accusations from other EU members towards some countries with particularly long periods (e.g. by Finland against Sweden with their 2-week recommendation in 2020) that they only have them in place because they don't maintain a state emergency food reserve for follow-on supply.

These national food reserves are fairly rare though, and of variable amounts. In Germany, which holds the biggest such reserve, the centrally held food reserve is for around 3 weeks for the entire population - but the only meal you'd get is rice - with lentils or peas for protein, plus bread. Most other countries, if they had one, have stopped such central storage in recent decades (e.g. Hungary in 2015). Finland has fairly extensive reserves, but there you'd get bread only from the state supply.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Donald Trump's "miraculous" peace deal, which is actually non-existant since neither Ukraine nor Russia agreed on anything more than a temporary stop to anti-ship operations in the black sea (some sources are not quite sure about that, too), now faces reality.
Europe refuses any deal, announce that they will not lift sanctions and they will continue military support to Ukraine.
This could also sink Trump's small truce in the Black sea, since Russia as a condition asked for the lifting of sanctions on agriculture.

Trump’s deal with Putin faces European reality check

Top leaders meeting in Paris want to show the U.S. and Russia can’t carve up the continent by cutting out the EU and Ukraine.

www.politico.eu

Trump's policy now facing a huge problem: Europe is not obeying him, and is actually not following him at all.

European Leaders Reject Sanctions Relief for Russia at Ukraine Summit in Paris - The Moscow Times

European leaders agreed at a summit in Paris on Thursday to tighten sanctions on Russia rather than ease them, as Britain and France outlined plans to send a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after any future peace deal.

www.themoscowtimes.com

Meanwhile, Trump continues his trade war against Canada and the EU by imposing 25% tariffs on cars...

 

[John Fedup]

Hopefully former friends of the USA never forget this on-going Trump BS. It will continue long after he is gone. Great incentive for EU, Canada, Japan, SK, Australia, and other allies in Asia to explore defence and trade co-operation.

 

[kato]

The EU has selected 47 strategic resource projects in the union to financially support through the Critical Raw Materials Act issued this week.

Commission selects 47 Strategic Projects to secure and diversify access to raw materials in the EU

The Commission has adopted, for the first time, a list of 47 Strategic Projects to boost domestic strategic raw material capacities, which will in turn strengthen the European raw materials value chain and diversify sources of supply.

ec.europa.eu

A full linked map of the projects can be found here:

Selected projects

Selected strategic project under CRMA

single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu

Most of the individual projects selected for funding are fairly controversial locally, for example this one in Romania is on it. I think there's also one that e.g. wants to mine in a nature park in Spain, and the ones in Germany want to sift lithium out of geothermal plants that locals allege have been causing earthquakes and damaging their buildings for years.