The EU should do exactly what they are doing. The ERRF is a brilliant concept to bring a fast reaction to any impending crises. I believe the size of the ERRF should at the very least be doubled and better equipped but the concept is sound. In time the ERRF can be expanded to replace NATO.
Should the E.U. create a Military?
- Thread starter Sgt.Banes
- Start date
As a German I know exactly what you're talking about... And you're absolutely right. The first step would be to make each country spend an equal percentage of their GDP for defence.
However the only sensible (long-term) solution would be to fund an EU army through the EU budget (which would have to increase accordingly), for which each member country pays according to its GDP anyway. So this would not be an issue.
It could become one, though- military installations still are economical factors at their locations and create civilian jobs as well. In Europe there are numberless producers of military equipment.
So, where do you place the bases? Where do you buy your stuff?
As I said before the only way a joint army could work was transferring sovereignity over the forces from single countries to a EU ministry of defence and e.g. the European Commission. No Vetoes!!!
Probably you couldn't avoid a certain predominance in some units- e.g. English in navy units, German in tank or artillery units and so on.
I am not overly keen on the EU getting more centralised but where I do see a EU military force working is in the support side. The current Soveriegn States of the EU could provide the actual military power. (especially if there is a minimum GDP spend as you suggest) so UK units might lead a navy force to remove a naval blockade against an EU friendly foreign power, or German troops could lead intervention on a humanitarian matter, or French forces striking Al Quada bases in North Africa.
What the EU is weak in are transport assets. An EU fleet of transport planes ie 100plus in the C17 class, 100 plus tankers which would force multiply the Typhoon, Rafaeles, F16, JSFetc flown by each country.
A central pool of LPH, LPD, merchant vessels to move assets.#
a combined array of space based surveillance satellites, controlled and accessable by each EU state.
Finally an EU funded missile defence system and an EU nuclear deterrent based on French missiles.
Role specific assets could be pooled, eg 20 Type 45 class destroyers. built across european shipyards each one crewed by one nation on a basis of size of country (so 2-3 german, 2 each for france, UK, Italy, smaller nations have joint crews)
If the present National arms were beefed up with the above measures I would think the EU would have a far bigger voice in the worlds and a far more effective military. Our defence industries are capable of producing good quality missiles, helicopters, ships, advanced AESA radars, stealthy cruise missiles etc etc.
With a 1% levy on each of the nations per annum, many of the above assets could be funded.
An example of how it would work would be as follows. If the UK wanted to go alone, it could loan some transport and flight refuelling assets of a few destroyers , with the proviso that the state makes up any combat loses, hence a Falklands scenario would be workable in the EU framework. The UK MOD would send personnel to crew and train on these systems and in time of lone action could recall these personnel to use the EU equipment even if no other EU service personnel could assist.
The overall fighting power of the EU would be boosted when consensus reached and the individual nation would have far more back up when national interests apply.
What the EU is weak in are transport assets. An EU fleet of transport planes ie 100plus in the C17 class, 100 plus tankers which would force multiply the Typhoon, Rafaeles, F16, JSFetc flown by each country.
A central pool of LPH, LPD, merchant vessels to move assets.#
a combined array of space based surveillance satellites, controlled and accessable by each EU state.
Finally an EU funded missile defence system and an EU nuclear deterrent based on French missiles.
Role specific assets could be pooled, eg 20 Type 45 class destroyers. built across european shipyards each one crewed by one nation on a basis of size of country (so 2-3 german, 2 each for france, UK, Italy, smaller nations have joint crews)
If the present National arms were beefed up with the above measures I would think the EU would have a far bigger voice in the worlds and a far more effective military. Our defence industries are capable of producing good quality missiles, helicopters, ships, advanced AESA radars, stealthy cruise missiles etc etc.
With a 1% levy on each of the nations per annum, many of the above assets could be funded.
An example of how it would work would be as follows. If the UK wanted to go alone, it could loan some transport and flight refuelling assets of a few destroyers , with the proviso that the state makes up any combat loses, hence a Falklands scenario would be workable in the EU framework. The UK MOD would send personnel to crew and train on these systems and in time of lone action could recall these personnel to use the EU equipment even if no other EU service personnel could assist.
The overall fighting power of the EU would be boosted when consensus reached and the individual nation would have far more back up when national interests apply.
Jup, that is something I would also like.
The procurement of a single system for every member is for sure a problem but the other things you mentioned are good.
There are examples that it works with the NATO AWACs fleet and the transport command which is currently under construction.
The procurement of a single system for every member is for sure a problem but the other things you mentioned are good.
There are examples that it works with the NATO AWACs fleet and the transport command which is currently under construction.
Well spoken, I think. And quite realistic.
There is no historical precedent for an effective supra national military force. The answer to this question is that without the creation of an EU sovereign state, and by default the deletion of sovereignty of member states, there can be no EU military.
In this case you can't put military questions before political ones. Dave H's ideas are interesting but totally unworkable. There can't be a half way house between national and EU militaries for the simple reason that UK defence interests are different to EU defence interests. Similarly, UK foreign policy interests can be different to EU interests.
Without the EU having sovereignty, command and control of EU military assets the idea of the ERRF let alone some pooled larger forces is positively bizarre. Who would be in control of decision making ? Don't forget that we're talking about people's lives here. Do we really want British soldiers being sent to die at the command of the EU bureaucracy to fight in some conflict which is peripheral to UK interests and may be of no concern to the UK government ?
There can be no EU military without EU sovereignty. The question is a political one.
A cynic might say that the most likely scenario in which a true EU army would be involved would be to quell nationalistic uprisings within the EU
In this case you can't put military questions before political ones. Dave H's ideas are interesting but totally unworkable. There can't be a half way house between national and EU militaries for the simple reason that UK defence interests are different to EU defence interests. Similarly, UK foreign policy interests can be different to EU interests.
Without the EU having sovereignty, command and control of EU military assets the idea of the ERRF let alone some pooled larger forces is positively bizarre. Who would be in control of decision making ? Don't forget that we're talking about people's lives here. Do we really want British soldiers being sent to die at the command of the EU bureaucracy to fight in some conflict which is peripheral to UK interests and may be of no concern to the UK government ?
There can be no EU military without EU sovereignty. The question is a political one.
A cynic might say that the most likely scenario in which a true EU army would be involved would be to quell nationalistic uprisings within the EU
Martyn,
My suggestion doesnt prevent a state going its own way, nor does it commit UK forces to die at the will of another EU state.
It would support EU industry (and therefore UK industry), provide big orders to upgrade EU capability and to fill in the gaps in capability that are missing eg transport and surveillance.
Most EU countries are NATO members anyway, so if one was attacked it is likely the others would assist. The central pot would pay for the suport assets eg shipping, transport, tankers that make the US military far more potent than the EU ie the ability to deploy outside of the EU arena in meaningful numbers.
In 15 years the EU on a mission of consensus could deploy two UK carriers (70-80 JSF plus AEW), two french carriers (70-80 Rafaeles plus AEW), the Spanish and Italian carriers (30 JSF between them), a powerful surface fleet of EU frigates and destroyers with land attack capabilities, mixed sub force, SSK and nuclear.
Plus amphbious forces of UK and French LPH's, numerous EU assault ships etc etc.
Now that would be a powerul force, but for instance the German mechanised forces sit at home twiddling their thumbs....but not if there was a pooled fleet of Ro-Ro'S, Landing ships and heavy life vessels, crewed by merchant Servicemen from across the EU. The assualt forces would be reinforced by heavy divisions.
When airfields have been secured an airbridge of EU pooled tankers and transport aircraft consolidate and Dutch, UK, Italian,Spanish Polish and French JSF,Typhoon, F16, Rafaeles can deploy to win air dominance.
Where the UK wishes to act alone, eg a strike against Argentinian airbases that have attacked the Falklands, rather than ask the US for militay aide, the RN accesses the pool of satellites, targets bases for TLAM strikes and the RAF loans 20 A330 tankers to transit its F35C's to launch Storn Shadow.
The individual military of the member state is multiplied, without any requirement for blood of other EU citizens.
My suggestion doesnt prevent a state going its own way, nor does it commit UK forces to die at the will of another EU state.
It would support EU industry (and therefore UK industry), provide big orders to upgrade EU capability and to fill in the gaps in capability that are missing eg transport and surveillance.
Most EU countries are NATO members anyway, so if one was attacked it is likely the others would assist. The central pot would pay for the suport assets eg shipping, transport, tankers that make the US military far more potent than the EU ie the ability to deploy outside of the EU arena in meaningful numbers.
In 15 years the EU on a mission of consensus could deploy two UK carriers (70-80 JSF plus AEW), two french carriers (70-80 Rafaeles plus AEW), the Spanish and Italian carriers (30 JSF between them), a powerful surface fleet of EU frigates and destroyers with land attack capabilities, mixed sub force, SSK and nuclear.
Plus amphbious forces of UK and French LPH's, numerous EU assault ships etc etc.
Now that would be a powerul force, but for instance the German mechanised forces sit at home twiddling their thumbs....but not if there was a pooled fleet of Ro-Ro'S, Landing ships and heavy life vessels, crewed by merchant Servicemen from across the EU. The assualt forces would be reinforced by heavy divisions.
When airfields have been secured an airbridge of EU pooled tankers and transport aircraft consolidate and Dutch, UK, Italian,Spanish Polish and French JSF,Typhoon, F16, Rafaeles can deploy to win air dominance.
Where the UK wishes to act alone, eg a strike against Argentinian airbases that have attacked the Falklands, rather than ask the US for militay aide, the RN accesses the pool of satellites, targets bases for TLAM strikes and the RAF loans 20 A330 tankers to transit its F35C's to launch Storn Shadow.
The individual military of the member state is multiplied, without any requirement for blood of other EU citizens.
Very well spoken.
Such pools of force multipliers and support assets are defenitely a good and possible option.
As said before it works with the NATO AWACs. It also works with the NATO transport command. Why shouldn't it work within the EU...
Such pools of force multipliers and support assets are defenitely a good and possible option.
As said before it works with the NATO AWACs. It also works with the NATO transport command. Why shouldn't it work within the EU...
I still don't see what is to be gained from pooling resources on EU 'matters of consensus' when we have NATO for the same purpose.
I can't quite conceptualise when a consensus for the use of military force by EU states would arise which wouldn't also have triggered NATO action.
I can't quite conceptualise when a consensus for the use of military force by EU states would arise which wouldn't also have triggered NATO action.
Not so fast, mate. Some of us Brits like you lot across the narrow seas, & pop over regularly to enjoy the place. I was in Lille last week, for example. My partner loves eating out in France, so we caught the train over to spend a few days enjoying the restaurants, along with a little light sightseeing, and, of course, some fine Flanders beers. Very convenient, being able to use leftover Euros from our last skiing trip to Italy, on our previous visit to France (Paris - same sort of trip). The only things I dislike about the Euro are the name (stupid! When there are so many fine old European currency units to choose from) & the value: I'd prefer something you could buy a beer with one of. And when I worked in the Netherlands in pre-Euro days, I appreciated the open borders.
Granted the US is a dominant force and decision maker in NATO, but it appears you just described the US presence in Kosovo.
What? No Netherlands, Pakistan, etc?
I'm afraid you've found the normal level of discourse at Strategy Page. Mr. Dunnigan seems chiefly interested in selling things (e.g. his books) & developing stats for wargamers.Something went wrong with those posts, I thought I posted it in this thread:What? No Netherlands, Pakistan, etc?
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6157
Might be the work that was being done on the site or maybe it was me being stupid.
Sorry for the essay--Just some thoughts that I think are important to contemplate before and/or with this topic that will hopefully become part of a well formed and united strategy.
-First, assuming an EU Military Force: Greece fights Turkey. Who does the EU support and who does NATO support?:eek2
-@Mouse
Unless you were being sarcastic, I'm assuming you meant JFK when mentioning the US Presidents you thought of about highly of? I think highly of him too. However, Nixon? Interesting! Carter? The father of the Islamic revolution!? Interesting! Clinton? Would you put him in the category of a "Man of action" (I would in the Oval Office). Otherwise, he was so "Risk Adverse" I thought he might be a recovering gambling addict. I'll leave that alone for now, but he has some more important questions to answer than what the meaning of "is" is. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but when one looks at who he beat in the elections, today, I'm glad he's in office and not Gore. I'll at least let Bush serve his term before joining the mob. I'm not sure Gore would have had made a ton of sympathizers among the Arabs living in the dessert, by forcing them watch his DVD, explaining it's getting really hot at the North Pole. Enough with that, back to the topic at hand.
-As an American, I think the EU first has to figure out the same thing we do: what to do about the, "other half"? In the US, I'd nominate the loons on the left (JMO) for free space shuttle missions. Though they are for the most part, very well off, most of them aren't the best critical thinkers in the world. Like many cultural elite's, either they can't grasp basic concepts or refuse to do so. "Their lights are on, but nobody's home. At all of their multiple homes." They don't buy "carbon credits" though. The point is, they believe that the "Right's that 'they' hold so dear (actually most of us who haven't gone off the deep end with them, incredibly agree with this part.. despite media accounts), such as: 'Life and Liberty,' are innate and inalienable human rights which all people should be afforded." I'm hooked.
So we agree on something (I'm right down the center, but I just call it as I see it). But when it comes to something like science, which is extremely important in this discussion, they prefer their own "science" like, 9/11 "debunkers."
I'll go a step further and say that human's are so much alike, our DNA is almost the same across the board (wow). Bring Darwin into this, and they run into the whole "survival of the fittest" Inconvenient Truth problem, that "survival" is written into our DNA code (i.e. for almost all of us).
I agree that everyone has the right "to survive." However, a person's, family's, group's, state's, nation state's, "survival," is impossible without control of
your own destiny. The two concepts cannot be true, if they aren't accepted. This is the point of "Victory." For all the slogans: "we need to fight for peace instead of war," "peace at all costs," "if we show them we want peace, we'll win their heart's and mind's," they are completely meaningless. How can one say, "all humans have the inalienable right to survival," if "Victory" doesn't exist, or not all of us have the right to this novel concept of "Victory/Survival."
Not only is "peace/a real peace/nothing but peace/a lasting peace," impossible or meaningless (i.e, "PEACE"), if "Victory" doesn't exist. If a person is not allowed to achieve "Victory" or his/her "survival," where and how would "peace," in any form, exist? This is not to mention that it's a States Highest Purpose, to achieve "Victory" and protect it, in order to preserve it's people!
"Our right to survive"--that is--"Our right to Victory"-- is perceived as inalienable for everyone, and therefore it is JUST! To deny anyone this "right" is UNJUST! Collectively, our sense of the importance of communal survival is expressed as a JUST CAUSE, and we extend this to those who, collectively, we feel will contribute to our on going survival (i.e. both in the short term, today and as our genetics are programmed, for those who follow). Victory is in the end a collective endeavor, which requires not just one person but several, who will turn to teamwork. This is at the root of the rise or fall of nations.
This is what both the US and EU must sort out first or we will not be destroyed by an outside threat, we will be defeated internally. While war is not pre-req. for "Victory" it would go against the state of nature for humans not to prepare to survive under any circumstances in this changing world. It is irresponsible for our any people in our Western societies to lounge in the present and lose the will for a better tomorrow. Without that impulse of thinking of our future, we are committing strategic suicide. If we have lost our will for "Victory," and we are so risk-adverse to face those who are naturally competing to achieve their "Victory," such as: China, India, Iran, Brazil, etc.. and instead insist on our high "moral code" of appeasement (not human nature), and believe that we can sit back and watch while consuming the wealth that was built over the centuries, acting as if it is inexhaustible and does not need our involvement to replenish what has sustained our "Victory/Survival," we should be prepared for those who are controlling their "destiny" to achieve their "Victory," but don't share our beliefs that everyone should have the "inalienable rights of: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
It is difficult to believe that while-Rome is Burning- in the hundreds/thousands of riots throughout Europe that have occurred in the last few years, people in mature countries are "blind to it."
It's apparent that 9/11 was a temporary wake-up. Today, in the US as in Europe, many people listen to the daily reports of The Most Militant People in the Islamic world calling for the destruction of the west, and half the population hits the "Snooze Button."
Before Contemplating the feasibility of an EU Military and before we decide if strategic suicide is the will of the majority of our country, we need to realize we need to spend what we have wisely. IMO, an alarm clock that won't shut-off with an HPM built in and a shot of testosterone for all those who have lost their will to protect the "Victory," the west has sustained for a long time, which might act as a catalyst for the "risk adverse" to finally regain that strand lost in their DNA, and decide the short term/sited inaction, is the way to express the will for a future or preserve the "Victory" we were handed.
If the majority of the EU and US realize that "Victory" is not created or sustained by weakness (Darwin), and can only be won, then moving to the next step of how a EU/NATO/Japan/Aus./IL (others?) can and should work together, forming a long term, "Grand Strategy" providing a real commitment to a "road map" of how the west can best consolidate, adapt, and employ our assets to stay on the path of "Victory."
-When it comes to war, I think we have to understand that the rules we have bound ourselves by, are noble, but were for a different time in History. We are only constraining ourselves. This makes no sense when we are only imposing rules upon our militaries and troops whose lives are lost because we haven't adapted to the new realty of today's warfare. Rules which those we fight have no regard for, unless we break them and thus are condemned internationally for not adhering to our own rules. Using semantics we have rationalized that those we are fighting are below our standards "asymmetrical warfare." When in fact, it's total warfare. They'd be stupid to fight a war against us under our terms. We need to remove the constraints and transform our methods to convention "total warfare." We're not winning any points, hearts or minds by following an ancient moral code of ours that is as applicable today's warfare as a 20mph speed limit would be for our cars and roads today.
Just some of my thoughts as to what needs to be done before any real contemplation of adjusting future alliances is relevant. Our society's must have the will to make "Victory," the top priority, before politicians will have the will to follow along.
Again sorry for the Novel
-First, assuming an EU Military Force: Greece fights Turkey. Who does the EU support and who does NATO support?:eek2
-@Mouse
Unless you were being sarcastic, I'm assuming you meant JFK when mentioning the US Presidents you thought of about highly of? I think highly of him too. However, Nixon? Interesting! Carter? The father of the Islamic revolution!? Interesting! Clinton? Would you put him in the category of a "Man of action" (I would in the Oval Office). Otherwise, he was so "Risk Adverse" I thought he might be a recovering gambling addict. I'll leave that alone for now, but he has some more important questions to answer than what the meaning of "is" is. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but when one looks at who he beat in the elections, today, I'm glad he's in office and not Gore. I'll at least let Bush serve his term before joining the mob. I'm not sure Gore would have had made a ton of sympathizers among the Arabs living in the dessert, by forcing them watch his DVD, explaining it's getting really hot at the North Pole.
Enough with that, back to the topic at hand.-As an American, I think the EU first has to figure out the same thing we do: what to do about the, "other half"? In the US, I'd nominate the loons on the left (JMO) for free space shuttle missions. Though they are for the most part, very well off, most of them aren't the best critical thinkers in the world. Like many cultural elite's, either they can't grasp basic concepts or refuse to do so. "Their lights are on, but nobody's home. At all of their multiple homes." They don't buy "carbon credits" though. The point is, they believe that the "Right's that 'they' hold so dear (actually most of us who haven't gone off the deep end with them, incredibly agree with this part.. despite media accounts), such as: 'Life and Liberty,' are innate and inalienable human rights which all people should be afforded." I'm hooked.
So we agree on something (I'm right down the center, but I just call it as I see it). But when it comes to something like science, which is extremely important in this discussion, they prefer their own "science" like, 9/11 "debunkers."
I'll go a step further and say that human's are so much alike, our DNA is almost the same across the board (wow). Bring Darwin into this, and they run into the whole "survival of the fittest" Inconvenient Truth problem, that "survival" is written into our DNA code (i.e. for almost all of us).
I agree that everyone has the right "to survive." However, a person's, family's, group's, state's, nation state's, "survival," is impossible without control of
your own destiny. The two concepts cannot be true, if they aren't accepted. This is the point of "Victory." For all the slogans: "we need to fight for peace instead of war," "peace at all costs," "if we show them we want peace, we'll win their heart's and mind's," they are completely meaningless. How can one say, "all humans have the inalienable right to survival," if "Victory" doesn't exist, or not all of us have the right to this novel concept of "Victory/Survival."
Not only is "peace/a real peace/nothing but peace/a lasting peace," impossible or meaningless (i.e, "PEACE"), if "Victory" doesn't exist. If a person is not allowed to achieve "Victory" or his/her "survival," where and how would "peace," in any form, exist? This is not to mention that it's a States Highest Purpose, to achieve "Victory" and protect it, in order to preserve it's people!
"Our right to survive"--that is--"Our right to Victory"-- is perceived as inalienable for everyone, and therefore it is JUST! To deny anyone this "right" is UNJUST! Collectively, our sense of the importance of communal survival is expressed as a JUST CAUSE, and we extend this to those who, collectively, we feel will contribute to our on going survival (i.e. both in the short term, today and as our genetics are programmed, for those who follow). Victory is in the end a collective endeavor, which requires not just one person but several, who will turn to teamwork. This is at the root of the rise or fall of nations.
This is what both the US and EU must sort out first or we will not be destroyed by an outside threat, we will be defeated internally. While war is not pre-req. for "Victory" it would go against the state of nature for humans not to prepare to survive under any circumstances in this changing world. It is irresponsible for our any people in our Western societies to lounge in the present and lose the will for a better tomorrow. Without that impulse of thinking of our future, we are committing strategic suicide. If we have lost our will for "Victory," and we are so risk-adverse to face those who are naturally competing to achieve their "Victory," such as: China, India, Iran, Brazil, etc.. and instead insist on our high "moral code" of appeasement (not human nature), and believe that we can sit back and watch while consuming the wealth that was built over the centuries, acting as if it is inexhaustible and does not need our involvement to replenish what has sustained our "Victory/Survival," we should be prepared for those who are controlling their "destiny" to achieve their "Victory," but don't share our beliefs that everyone should have the "inalienable rights of: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
It is difficult to believe that while-Rome is Burning- in the hundreds/thousands of riots throughout Europe that have occurred in the last few years, people in mature countries are "blind to it."
It's apparent that 9/11 was a temporary wake-up. Today, in the US as in Europe, many people listen to the daily reports of The Most Militant People in the Islamic world calling for the destruction of the west, and half the population hits the "Snooze Button."
Before Contemplating the feasibility of an EU Military and before we decide if strategic suicide is the will of the majority of our country, we need to realize we need to spend what we have wisely. IMO, an alarm clock that won't shut-off with an HPM built in and a shot of testosterone for all those who have lost their will to protect the "Victory," the west has sustained for a long time, which might act as a catalyst for the "risk adverse" to finally regain that strand lost in their DNA, and decide the short term/sited inaction, is the way to express the will for a future or preserve the "Victory" we were handed.
If the majority of the EU and US realize that "Victory" is not created or sustained by weakness (Darwin), and can only be won, then moving to the next step of how a EU/NATO/Japan/Aus./IL (others?) can and should work together, forming a long term, "Grand Strategy" providing a real commitment to a "road map" of how the west can best consolidate, adapt, and employ our assets to stay on the path of "Victory."
-When it comes to war, I think we have to understand that the rules we have bound ourselves by, are noble, but were for a different time in History. We are only constraining ourselves. This makes no sense when we are only imposing rules upon our militaries and troops whose lives are lost because we haven't adapted to the new realty of today's warfare. Rules which those we fight have no regard for, unless we break them and thus are condemned internationally for not adhering to our own rules. Using semantics we have rationalized that those we are fighting are below our standards "asymmetrical warfare." When in fact, it's total warfare. They'd be stupid to fight a war against us under our terms. We need to remove the constraints and transform our methods to convention "total warfare." We're not winning any points, hearts or minds by following an ancient moral code of ours that is as applicable today's warfare as a 20mph speed limit would be for our cars and roads today.
Just some of my thoughts as to what needs to be done before any real contemplation of adjusting future alliances is relevant. Our society's must have the will to make "Victory," the top priority, before politicians will have the will to follow along.
Again sorry for the Novel
Was reading about the unifacation of Germany the other day, and it struck me that if we really want a effective pan european military we should really start making some realistic enemies!
The Arab states are economic pigmys and seem quite happy to lord it over there own citizens rather than persue territorial expansion, Russia has no staying power and is supremely uninterested military conflict with Europe, and for a change seem more worried by us than we of them! (for the moment).
Iran we cant take seriously, China is viewed as great investment oppertunity rather than a prospective hegamon.
And the Americans are our burly protectors, so why would we bother with a military worth fighting about
Heres my plan, All the EU countries pull out of NATO and suspend any other bilaterial treatys they have, last thing we want is the Americans gate crashing the party.
Next we start formenting trouble on Russia's borders, Georgia would be a good place to start. Setting off bombs and the like in Russia using Georgian proxies (the place is black with shady types, should'ent be to hard to recuit a few).
We get the Russians all roiled up, and once they invade Georgia(they wont need much of an excuse), we airlift peace keepers to Tbilisi. Once they land we claim the Russians killed them in cold blood and declare war before the bewildered Russians can back down.
After that we engage in a short sharp war, flood the press with stories of heroic Frenchmen and Germans fighting shoulder to shoulder, the public love that kind of stuff, after all that it should'ent be to hard convincing everyone that we need a combined EU military to contain the "Damned Russians".
Pretty soon we arming our selves to the teeth and lording it over the neighbours, just like the good old days!
Huzzah!
The Arab states are economic pigmys and seem quite happy to lord it over there own citizens rather than persue territorial expansion, Russia has no staying power and is supremely uninterested military conflict with Europe, and for a change seem more worried by us than we of them! (for the moment).
Iran we cant take seriously, China is viewed as great investment oppertunity rather than a prospective hegamon.
And the Americans are our burly protectors, so why would we bother with a military worth fighting about
Heres my plan, All the EU countries pull out of NATO and suspend any other bilaterial treatys they have, last thing we want is the Americans gate crashing the party.
Next we start formenting trouble on Russia's borders, Georgia would be a good place to start. Setting off bombs and the like in Russia using Georgian proxies (the place is black with shady types, should'ent be to hard to recuit a few).
We get the Russians all roiled up, and once they invade Georgia(they wont need much of an excuse), we airlift peace keepers to Tbilisi. Once they land we claim the Russians killed them in cold blood and declare war before the bewildered Russians can back down.
After that we engage in a short sharp war, flood the press with stories of heroic Frenchmen and Germans fighting shoulder to shoulder, the public love that kind of stuff, after all that it should'ent be to hard convincing everyone that we need a combined EU military to contain the "Damned Russians".
Pretty soon we arming our selves to the teeth and lording it over the neighbours, just like the good old days!
Huzzah!
Last edited: