PESCO EU Defense Pact

Quote:

---

Twenty-five EU states sign PESCO defense pact
The European Council has adopted the decision to establish a European Union defense pact, known as PESCO. The 25 participating EU states are set to begin working on a series of joint-defense projects next year.
European Union member states on Monday moved ever closer toward establishing a defense union, after the European Council adopted the creation of a new European defense and security cooperation network known as PESCO.

The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), which was first set out in the Lisbon Treaty, will allow member states to jointly develop military capabilities, invest in shared projects and enhance their respective armed forces.

Read more: Can PESCO provide a new European identity?

European defense ministers from 23 member states had initially signed a joint notification on PESCO on November 13, and handed it over for review to the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, and the European Council.
On December 7, Portugal and Ireland announced their decision to join, taking the total number of contributing members up to 25. The countries that have chosen not to take part are Malta, Denmark - which has special opt-out status - and the UK (which is set to withdraw from the bloc in March 2019).

Mogherini, described the move as "historic," while European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hailed the move on Twitter, posting: "She is awake, the Sleeping Beauty of the Lisbon Treaty: Permanent Structured Cooperation is happening."
Although PESCO remains an intergovernmental program, the Commission said in a press release that it will prop up the network via its European Defense Fund. Money is set to be assigned for the acquisition of new defense equipment and technology, as well as to finance grants for research projects.

17 joint defense projects

Officials have earmarked 17 joint projects that will fall under the scope of the PESCO agreement. These include establishing a pan-European military training center, improving capability development and even introducing common standards for military radio communication.
Germany is to take the lead on four projects: the creation of a pan-European medical unit, a logistics hub, a center for training missions and an initiative to build up faster crisis response forces.

Those projects are expected to be formally adopted early next year, with participating countries also invited to propose additional programs.

---

http://www.dw.com/en/twenty-five-eu-...act/a-41741828

While I'm more than happy for Europe to take it's defense into greater consideration this seems to be the first step toward an actual EU military or toward military alliance about which I have mixed feelings. As of now this is supposed to be mostly for greater standardization between the different nations. Most of the EU nations though are NATO allies and as such have NATO standards they follow so does this create a parallel bureaucracy that will eventually create a redundancy of efforts?
Also, as this is the first step it does create questions for the neutral nations in the EU (Ireland, Austria, Finland, Malta) with only Malta and Denmark opting out. In the future an EU nation could be drawn into a NATO war that would possibly draw in a neutral nation (not with the current framework but hypothetical future frameworks).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

http://www.dw.com/en/twenty-five-eu-...act/a-41741828

While I'm more than happy for Europe to take it's defense into greater consideration this seems to be the first step toward an actual EU military or toward military alliance about which I have mixed feelings. As of now this is supposed to be mostly for greater standardization between the different nations. Most of the EU nations though are NATO allies and as such have NATO standards they follow so does this create a parallel bureaucracy that will eventually create a redundancy of efforts?
Also, as this is the first step it does create questions for the neutral nations in the EU (Ireland, Austria, Finland, Malta) with only Malta and Denmark opting out. In the future an EU nation could be drawn into a NATO war that would possibly draw in a neutral nation (not with the current framework but hypothetical future frameworks).

---

Seems pretty clear to me that they are standing up an EU force that could, at need, supplant NATO. Over time, it could well become a genuine EU military that replaces all but the traditional guard forces of the member states.

On the other hand, supplanting NATO would not accomplish the "yanks bleeding on day one this time" NATO mission should Ursus Russicanus get all shirty again.

It's pretty clear to me that PESCO is a pointless vacuity.

An effective foriegn policy is absolutely dependent on two factors: capability, and will.

Pooling capability is great, but right here in this instance it only really masks the fact that continental states aren't willing to fund Defence properly.

The will part is the real kicker though; if you can never achieve consensus on deploying the capability then you are paying for a uniformed pension service.

Elective warfare is the most divisive and difficult of decisions, i've seen nothing of the EU that leads me to believe europe is capable of making them.

Given the vast disparity in the amount the USA invests in the military and Europe does, unless Europe wants to double their military spending this is a bad idea if it might risk the end of NATO.

If Europe wants to stand on its own two feet and invest the money that this would require then so be it.

~:smoking:

It isn't there to protect Europe, but to protect the EU. The EU will make sure that EU-soldiers can't be stationed in their country of origin so there is no emotional tie with the place they are and the people that live there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It isn't there to protect Europe, but to protect the EU. The EU will make sure that EU-soldiers can't be stationed in their country of origin so there is no emotional tie with the place they are and the people that live there

---

Never mind. Britain will veto this as one of the biggest, vitallest, most importantest members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Never mind. Britain will veto this as one of the biggest, vitallest, most importantest members.

---

Yeah you got me there. Would have been done anyway though, there is no way out, be glad you can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Never mind. Britain will veto this as one of the biggest, vitallest, most importantest members.

---

It will be planned now and voted on as soon as the UK leaves.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It will be planned now and voted on as soon as the UK leaves.

~:smoking:

---

They already did it, quality media was too busy to report it because of Justin Bieber or something else, they aren't interested

Finally an army that can enforce my socialist values on the rest of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Finally an army that can enforce my socialist values on the rest of you.

---

Not all of us. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Not all of us. ;)

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft

~;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_...beth_RO8-2.jpg

You overlook the fact that over the past fortnight, the Royal Navy commissioned into service a supercarrier and a large new replenishment vessel. Together, the two ships have a combined displacement not far off that of all the fighting and logistics vessels of the entire German Navy...

;)

...And would survive for roughly the time it takes to sink from repeated torpedo and missile strikes.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_...beth_RO8-2.jpg

You overlook the fact that over the past fortnight, the Royal Navy commissioned into service a supercarrier and a large new replenishment vessel. Together, the two ships have a combined displacement not far off that of all the fighting and logistics vessels of the entire German Navy...

;)

---

And both the French and Italian fleets have more hulls, displacement, and as much or more combat power. The RN is but a shadow of its past.

true, but in the kigndom of the pygmy, even he of modest stature can be crowned king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

true, but in the kigndom of the pygmy, even he of modest stature can be crowned king.

---

They usually seek alliances in order to become one. They don't bluster around claiming they are special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

They usually seek alliances in order to become one. They don't bluster around claiming they are special.

---

What about your naval tradition?

We made that decision in 2010/11. We chose navy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

We made that decision in 2010/11. We chose navy.

---

Did you guys? Because considering that the Royal Navy currently has no active carriers until 2020, decommissioning its only helicopter assault carrier in 2018, might be cutting the remaining two amphibious assault carriers, and only a quarter of the fleet can be put to sea at any given time, it seems like there is more work to be done in this area.

At least the Royal Navy isn't in as bad shape as the army is. 40% of the army's tanks and artillery have been cut between 2010-15, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. And it doesn't look like the Army restructuring program is going to shape up to what it should be, since analysts say that Russia could wipe out the British Army in an afternoon.

European forces as a whole really need to rethought. The varying combat systems are not ideal for procurement, even with NATO's standardization agreements. And what is being procured isnt sufficient for even relatively short combat operations. Look at Libya in 2011. Europeans did great in getting the forces there quickly: the British and French began strikes about 2 days after the UNSC resolution. The Danes followed a day later, with the rest arriving in a few days. But European forces were reliant on American support such as aerial refueling as well as reconnaissance and target acquisition. And about a month into the 7 month conflict, some of the Europeans saw themselves running low on bombs. The Libyan campaign was not a hugely intensive campaign, so I shudder to think what would happen if a large scale conflict occurred.

Well we are screwed then. Not that the Dutch army can be of any importance anyhow but what there is is in shambles after years of cuts. A lot of expertise is simply gone and impossible to get back on a short notice, material is in bad shape, and nobody feels someone is listening to the complaints.

Evidently all the time the soviets spent undermining the west was wasted effort and that all they needed to do was remove themselves from the world stage for a few years and we'd fall to bits on our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Evidently all the time the soviets spent undermining the west was wasted effort and that all they needed to do was remove themselves from the world stage for a few years and we'd fall to bits on our own.

---

Pretty easy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZnkULuWFDg Takes an hour of watching but it's worth your time

Re: Choosing the navy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Did you guys?

---

Yes. you need some context.

As I wrote back in 2010:

To understand why we have ended up with the SDSR we have, we need to see how these pressures came to be arranged just so. Doing so also explains why a fundamental strategic choice is necessary for Britain. We then to realistically see what the structural impacts of such a choice will be, and where this will leave Britain’s world role as a result. Britain’s armed forces will be transform over the course of the next five years, and that process will be governed by the SDSR, whether or not it has been the worthy exercise it could have been………………”

The Strategic Defence & Security Review has been an unedifying spectacle to witness, but this is a result of the competing pressures – operational, political, fiscal and doctrinal – which the armed forces are under. To understand why we have ended up with the SDSR we have, we need to see how these pressures came to be arranged just so. Doing so also explains why a fundamental strategic choice is necessary for Britain. We then to realistically see what the structural impacts of such a choice will be, and where this will leave Britain’s world role as a result. Britain’s armed forces will be transform over the course of the next five years, and that process will be governed by the SDSR, whether or not it has been the worthy exercise it could have been.

The context

A consensus emerged from the end of the Cold War that there should be a peace-dividend allowing the nation to reduce military spending from over 4% of GDP in order that it might be diverted to more socially useful ends. The government of the day held a long and considered Defence review resulting in the SDR98; a document detailing how the Armed Forces would be configured to implement a new world role for Britain, that of liberal interventionism, a mechanism for holding governments to account for their failure to uphold international law, and to meet international norms regarding basic human rights, which in the last resort could be enforced by expeditionary warfare.

As a result the Armed Forces resembled a mini-US, capable of broad spectrum power projection including the following key strategic capabilities: an army capable of fighting protracted and high-intensity wars; a navy capable of deterrence and over-the-horizon forced entry engagements; an ability to conduct theatre level engagements out of area with all the C2ISR that entails; and lastly a strategic deterrent.

Since, at the time of the SDR 98, the Defence budget occupied merely 2.7% of GDP during a period of rapid economic growth, this was actually a viable proposition. It was a stretch, but if this budget priority coexisted with continued growth then this was indeed a defence we could afford. But it wasn’t to be. The Defence budget slipped from 2.7% of GDP in 1997 to 2.2% in 2008, before the recession arrived which killed the economic growth that compensated for defence inflation. However, most lethally, Britain was embroiled in two wars whose endurance and intensity exceeded the planned operational tempo, and which the government paid for by hacking out chunks of the core Defence budget for operational costs, and accepting procurement programs which were completely unfunded.

It should be clear that broad spectrum power-projection hasn’t been affordable for some time, a fact compounded by the Gray report which effectively represents a 10% cut over the next decade, the Treasury insistence on Defence funding of the acquisition costs of the Trident replacement which represents a further 2% cut, and, a Treasury demand for up to a 10% reduction as part of the Defence contribution to balancing the country’s shattered public finances.

The result

If we are not to be capable of broad-spectrum power projection in the furtherance of the British national interest then we have but two choices; to become a narrow-spectrum Great Power, or, alternatively, to concentrate on home defence and give up a leading role in international affairs. The latter option only requires the following two duties: autonomous obligations for the UK’s defence, and contributory obligations for collective defence, whereas the former adds two more. Namely the requirement to be able to effectively wage elective war of both the autonomous and the contributory kind, for, presumably, reasons of national interest. There is nothing immoral in the latter ambition as we have an interest in promoting an international rules based system where laws and norms are adhered to. Responsibility to Protect, a ‘norm’ now quite accepted in International Relations is a case in point. Britain’s position on the Security Council is in part justified by the strategic bargain with friends and allies that we will work to achieve collective security in the widest sense. Thus do we need a force structure that provides an expeditionary capability in addition to meeting the basic and local requirements of collective and national defence.

Influence where?

The reality of Britain’s position in the world today is that while Britain will likely remain the seventh largest economy by 2050 our influence will inevitably decline as new powers rise. That we will need partnerships which will act as force multipliers in pursuit of British interests is the first reality realists should acknowledge. Second is the fact that we are inescapably an integral part of Europe, and it behoves us to encourage our immediate neighbours to become an effective instrument with which to leverage their combined diplomatic effect. A third and reasonable expectation of reality is the projection that the USA will remain the most significant international actor for perhaps the next forty years, and that we should work to discourage their declining interest in us by making Europe a valuable future partner. And the fourth fact is that outside of this EU/US axis we are allied to some of the fastest growing developed and developing economies. However, they exist in unstable regions and would benefit from the certainty of swift and strategic military assistance.

Europe has long tended to overestimate the value of soft-power, and taught a brutal lesson during the Balkans crisis. The result of this was the agreement to perform the Petersburg tasks: humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks & disarmament operations, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking, and support to third countries in combating terrorism. In short the softer security elements separable, not separate from NATO’s obligation to manage territorial defence. Tony Blair’s government should be recognised for the St Malo achievement. By pooling sovereignty at an inter-governmental level (rather than delegated to a supranational level) the rest of Europe was persuaded, at least in principle, to perform security tasks in its near abroad, and for nations to specialise where necessary to facilitate this. This ‘uploading’ of British preferences was a vital first step, but London’s task is to see that Europe becomes a strategic actor in its own right. This requires instilling the collective will to act militarily abroad, and with harmonised structures capable of achieving this.

The US is in the process of gradually disengaging from Europe as its alters its posture to face the challenges of 21st century Asia, and the task for Britain is to retain the engagement of the world’s only superpower in order that this relationship remains a process whereby British interests are advanced. Europe, as a result of declining demographics in the wider region, is destined to become a strategic backwater in the 21st century, as the dominant economies in the next forty years will be China and India, with other extra-European actors biting at their heels. Accordingly, Britain’s utility to the US as an unsinkable aircraft carrier will diminish. As American hegemony declines in the face of aspiring new powers it will search for partners to share the burden and confer legitimacy, and Britain’s influence with the US will derive as much from creating and leading an effective Europe as it does from providing military assets. It is a judgement for Britain to make as to where it will gain most advantage – from a military that will enhance EU effectiveness, and thus build a superpower partner, or a military that will most effectively complement US requirements for sustained ground presence, by supplying force that confers multilateral legitimacy on US operations.

With regards to those nations, outside of the EU/US axis, whom we seek to influence, an expeditionary capability is both essential and entirely complementary to our obligations to overseas dependencies.

The choice

If Britain is therefore destined to become a narrow-spectrum power then it is restricted to two fundamental choices; maritime or land, and the choice will be governed by which is deemed most complementary to the goals set out above.

The choice of maritime or land is not absolute, our direction is constrained by our commitment to national and collective defence, but it does represent an emphasis that will preserve strategic capability for power-projection over one domain or the other. National defence requires a bare minimum over the land, sea and air domains of the following: an army of at least five brigades to permit defence of the homeland at division level, and defence of overseas territories at brigade level; a navy of a dozen major warships to protect the home waters; and an air-force of four air-defence squadrons to protect the skies above Britain. In addition to this we require sufficient strategic air/sea-lift to move those military assets in defence of overseas territories. Collective defence could add another brigade, so we can deploy a division against an Article V style threat, as well as two squadrons of strike aircraft, and a further three warships for standing tasks.

Everything beyond the absolute requirement for collective and national defence is the realm of elective and expeditionary warfare, and this is where the debate over the SDSR has become nasty and fraught with factional infighting. Each service is quick to claim that it can provide a tailored solution for autonomous and contributory warfare outside of obligatory requirements, and each is quick to claim that its elective solution is complementary to obligatory requirements, and thus cost effective.

The land argument takes the theme that Rupert Smith’s “wars-among-the-people” will come to characterise future conflict, where enduring and dispersed insurgencies will require significant ground forces to dominate a theatre over an extended period. Ideological conflict will be a generational affair and will require sustained effort on a wide scale to prevent failed states becoming hot-houses for new threats to home security and national interests.

At present there are nine combat brigades (including the Royal Marine brigade). This is sufficient to enter a theatre of war with three brigades, and thereafter to sustain a brigade and a battlegroup in theatre. If a land based doctrine is adopted, such as the “Global Guardian” described by RUSI, we might expect the army to increase in numbers from 105,000 to 110,000 on the premise of sustaining nine brigades which with a little juggling of harmony guidelines, would permit the sustained presence of a division in theatre, and justify the framework nation status that brings with it significant command input. The Navy would lose the amphibious fleet and carriers, and thus the justification for the Marines, leaving rapid reaction operations to airborne-forces limited to battle-group level.

The land doctrine’s utility for contributory warfare would be significant as it would provide forces for peacekeeping, collective defence and peacemaking at division level, as desired by the EU and US respectively. Its utility for autonomous operations would be problematic for, although the army is looking to create a lighter logistical footprint for its medium weight forces, staging such expeditionary operations requires host nation support for both deployment and supply, incurring considerable cost in time and political capital, and outside of US logistical support would be unlikely to deploy at more than brigade level.

The maritime doctrine considers the Georgian war as characteristic of future conflict, where regions subject to geopolitical ‘shocks’ will encourage states insufficiently wedded to the international system to renationalise their foreign policy and thus justify unilateral external action. The chosen response to this problem is the British “manoeuverist approach”, where freedom of the sea allows one to apply surgical force to an enemy’s critical weaknesses, rather than blunt force against the enemy’s main strength. It provides the ability to deploy, insert, command, and sustain a reinforced brigade in theatre, with full access to C4ISR in theatre along with organic air support. While the concept of “Go first, go fast, go home” has been tested to destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, it remains a viable posture for a nation specialising in theatre entry, as long as there are follow-on nations to relieve the burden.

Of the nine present combat brigades mentioned the two of especial importance to this doctrine are the Royal Marine brigade and the Air Assault Brigade. If a maritime doctrine were fully adopted, such as the “Strategic Raiding” described by RUSI, we might expect the army to contract to 80,000 men on the premise of sustaining five medium-weight brigades in addition to the two expeditionary brigades, which under the harmony guidelines would permit the sustainment of a brigade for contributory operations, as well as brigade strength rapid reaction forces. In US led coalitions UK forces would clearly be subordinate to US command at the theatre level, however EU deployments would allow theatre control of wider coalition assets. The Navy would keep its amphibious fleet, carriers, and Marines, and would be capable of wider deterrence/presence missions deemed essential for Defence diplomacy.

The maritime doctrine’s utility for contributory warfare would be modest as it would only be capable of providing force for peacekeeping, collective defence and peacemaking at brigade level, and would limit our influence within the EU and US. Its utility for autonomous warfare would be considerable as it would permit brigade level rapid reaction forces for defence of overseas dependencies, and in support of allies and interests. Its utility for conflict prevention is likewise considerable given the ability of amphibious forces to be rapidly positioned, remain poised to intervene, and then move on once the threat has passed – true strategic mobility is their ace.

In the short term, leading up to 2015, the structure of the armed forces will rightly be concentrated on the Afghanistan mission so we are unlikely to see much change to the army other than a gradual reduction in heavy armour, and a slow return from Germany as closing RAF bases free up space for returning brigades. It is quite possible that much of the amphibious fleet will be put into extended readiness in the same period, or scrapped, depending on the outcome.

The impact

The land doctrine would be a comfortable choice for the EU as well as the US: for the former it would provide a UK with plenty of boots on the ground to conduct soft security tasks in Europe’s near abroad, for the latter it would likewise provide a UK able to join enduring counter-insurgency wars.

The problem for Britain’s ambitions in Europe is that a land doctrine does not add anything that Europe doesn’t already have a great deal of, medium-weight brigades. It would undermine the St Malo pressure to forge Europe into a broad spectrum power over all domains: land, sea and air. Further, an EU that is struggling to be seen as a serious strategic partner would also be hard pressed to explain why its most capable naval power, in a group that is mostly devoid of maritime power projection, has transformed itself into a land power. The perception would be that the Britain had once again chosen the US over the EU, and was this not evidence that we were never truly committed to European Defence? Having British forces frequently hip-deep in unattractive American wars has, in addition, all too visibly encouraged the smaller European partners to let their defence spending atrophy. It has only been when our commitment to European Defence has visibly matched that of France that we have been able to persuade the smaller nations that collective defence is an obligation and not a right.

In contrast, Britain’s ambitions for the US under a land doctrine would no doubt benefit in the short term by being able to sustain a division in theatre wherever this generational epic of failed-state conflicts alights next. We would thereby demonstrate a commitment to the US that would no doubt be reflected in their maintenance of the intelligence and technology sharing functions that forms the real and, for us, beneficial core of the special relationship. However, as America’s interests move further east would the British public be willing to follow the US into wars that are perceived to be ever more remote from what’s recognisable as our national interests? In the 2020 time-frame, without a willingness to fight US COIN wars alongside them, and unable to present Europe as a willing and able partner in 21st century geopolitics, how will Britain keep the US engaged in our interests?

The maritime doctrine will be an easy sell within the EU but a difficult proposition for the US, for the former would perceive it as a move away from being an auxiliary for American ambitions, and the latter would likewise recognise the loss of a partner capable of making a significant contribution to enduring land operations. It could be all too easily seen as the British firing a continental bullet, and being willing to peacekeep to the last Frenchman.

Regardless of the chosen force structure, the problem for Britain’s ambitions in Europe would be to persuade European nations that they need to involve themselves with the harder edge of security provision – with peacemaking rather than just peacekeeping – for only this will prevent Europe’s abundant soft-power from being hamstrung on the international stage, and thus not co-opted to British ends the way we aim to co-opt American power. The challenge will be to push these nations to think of European security as a concerted whole to which they can contribute, rather than an irritation made irrelevant by the US security blanket. This does not require a Euro-army, or any further institutional integration, merely the fulfilment of the inter-governmental cooperation secured by Tony Blair at St Malo in support of the Petersburg tasks. This author takes the view that this will be more readily achieved if Britain configures its forces to meet the maritime element of the power projection spectrum for the reasons stated above. We can and should offer leadership.

The challenge for Britain’s ambitions for the US under a maritime doctrine lies in convincing Washington that reducing our capability to support their forces in theatre will increase the probability of delivering the EU that can be a genuine partner in a post-unipolar world. American scepticism of European commitment to deliver effective military capability is well justified. The cost of a maritime doctrine may be considered very-long odds contrasted against the capability we provide today. On the other hand, the US State Department has always be keen to see Britain thoroughly enmeshed in ever-deeper-union, presumably on the logic that if there is to be an EU it might as well be both effective and friendly to American interests, neither of which is assured without British involvement.

The question why

Britain’s Grand Strategy must be to retain the ability for sovereign and strategic power projection inside an ever more multi-lateral world. But that world will be one where our interests are best served by us delivering a NATO in twenty years time which is not fixed on Article V defence of European territorial integrity, but instead provides a genuine institutional bond linking the security and prosperity of North America and Europe. The needs of the West in its most vulnerable century arguably since the 15th is best met an SDSR mandating a maritime future for Britain’s Armed Forces: we have a role to play, and should not be afraid of doing so.

TLDR: The UK's military, toward the contemporary national interest, wants a leading role within an EU-collective (yet not supranational :creep:) framework to continue piggy-backing (coat tailing?) off the United States war machine without self-constricting into a protectorate or vassal thereof. The EU-collective, and the UK's position within that collective, is better enhanced by leveraging a British comparative advantage in the naval and mobile force spheres, rather than by simply adding to the potential pool of infantry/armor grunts.

(Laterally, the nice thing about a naval focus is that it gives you an excuse to avoid protracted engagements at most costs - protracted land warfare having the effect of exacerbating human suffering and enervating a country's world standing, national hard and soft power, integrity of government functions and fiduciary control, domestic institutions, popular culture... On the other hand, into the future a naval focus increases the probability of receiving catastrophic human and material losses in a single engagement.)

The EU-collective isn't made to be used outside Europe..

@Furunculus:

That was a very thorough analysis of the theory behind the UK strategy for defense and security. But as you said, you wrote that in 2010. The current situation now is so much different than it was in 2010. For example, Russia wasn't seen anywhere near as much a threat. I mean back in 2015 you guys had to ask for American help in hunting a Russian sub in UK waters since you guys scrapped all your anti-submarine warfare planes and wont have any until 2019. I dunno, it feels like while things might be looking much better in 3-5 years, a lot can happen by then and that we shouldnt be applauding what is going on right now in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

@Furunculus:

That was a very thorough analysis of the theory behind the UK strategy for defense and security. But as you said, you wrote that in 2010. The current situation now is so much different than it was in 2010. For example, Russia wasn't seen anywhere near as much a threat. I mean back in 2015 you guys had to ask for American help in hunting a Russian sub in UK waters since you guys scrapped all your anti-submarine warfare planes and wont have any until 2019. I dunno, it feels like while things might be looking much better in 3-5 years, a lot can happen by then and that we shouldnt be applauding what is going on right now in any way.

---

All true. But we chose to take a capability holiday in both carriers and maritime patrol, holidays that are now coming to and end at the same time the army is looking down the barrel of a further cut of 8,000 men.

We can still put a division in the field, anywhere in the world, as part of an all-arms package of 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen. Only one nation on earth can better that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

...wherever this generational epic of failed-state conflicts alights next....

---

Solid post and well discussed, but this one phrase was an absolute gem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

All true. But we chose to take a capability holiday in both carriers and maritime patrol, holidays that are now coming to and end at the same time the army is looking down the barrel of a further cut of 8,000 men.

We can still put a division in the field, anywhere in the world, as part of an all-arms package of 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen. Only one nation on earth can better that.

---

Sure, but as that article I posted earlier mentioned, if the UK only has one division capable of sustained combat, I think it stands to reason that UK commanders (and politicians) would be reluctant to send this division into heavy combat, lest it be wiped out.

As for the capability holiday, Im not really sure I would consider 2+ years to go "coming to an end."

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

---

We are way under that here, 2.0 is the deal no, good. The cloaked money that goes to African dictators is more important I guess, for whatever reason. Certainly not Royal Dutch Shell of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

---

Exactly. I dont expect any European country, even the UK, to have a force the size or capability of the US is totally unrealistic. My issue is mainly that to me it feels that the UK likes to bite off more than it can chew, like it did in Helmand.

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

Defence Budget cuts threaten getting those shiny toys in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42382002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

---

Under the auspices of nato is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Exactly. I dont expect any European country, even the UK, to have a force the size or capability of the US is totally unrealistic. My issue is mainly that to me it feels that the UK likes to bite off more than it can chew, like it did in Helmand.

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

---

For the ground units each nation (or at least language group) would need to maintain at least a nexus of the full complement of ground warfare. Can't expect coordination on the ground if german tanks are expected to work with french infantry, Italian artillery or dutch aviation. The record of Austro-hungary in WWI with the problems too many languages in one army created a testiment to the difficulty and thats with much slower and simpler battle plans than present day.
Each nation having at least a nucleus of capability in all the major branches means at least there is a supply of trainers if each branch needs to be expanded.
Also, the politics of who's boys blood is shed would require that all nations have a share of the ground combat arms so that the burdens seem more fair. The Czechs, and Poles would probably not be too happy if Paris/Berlin/Brussels decide where their countrymen die without French or German Soldiers sharing the same risk.

Quote:

---

Under the auspices of natol is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

---

The will part is certainly the killer. Who wants the the leader of country X deciding if Soldiers from country Y need to be sent to defend country Z's interest.

https://warisboring.com/every-german...out-of-action/
Every German Submarine Is Out of Action
Germany's undersea fleet couldn't sink a sailboat

Quote:

---

...on paper, the Deutsche Marine has six Type 212A submarines equipped with advanced air-independent propulsion, allowing ultraquiet operations submerged for more than two weeks at a time.

In reality, the Deutsche Marine does not currently have a single submarine in operational condition.
U-31, the first submarine of the class, had been out of service since 2014. Although repairs should be completed in December 2017, it will take months of trials before she is ready for deployment.

U-32 had suffered damage to her batteries while on route to Norway in July 2017. So far, no berth is free to even begin repairs. Ahead in line for the next available spot in January 2018 is U-34, also in need of maintenance, with no estimated time of completion available.

U-33, meanwhile, is undergoing maintenance through February 2018. Then she will require three to four more months of trials. U-36, the sister ship of U-35, was commissioned on Oct. 10, 2017, but will not become operational until May 2018.

The culprit for the lengthy delays? Since the end of the Cold War, the Deutsche Marine ceased maintaining a comprehensive supply of spare parts as a cost-cutting measure, instead procuring parts on demand or looting them from non-operational boats. This has resulted in enormous delays and accumulated backlog.

---

Will this PESCO agreement spur Germany to actually invest in the military it currently has at all?

This has been an ongoing news story of sorts since 2014 or so when we couldn't use half our Eurofighters, none or three marine helicopters, were running out of transport planes and so on. Additionally the new army helicopters NH-90 (transport) and Tiger (attack) are both unfit for service to a large extent. The NH-90 lacks all kinds of features, such as sufficient ground clearance to land on anything that isn't concrete, the Tiger is purely built for anti-tank duty and completely useless for conflicts like Afghanistan (the french version with the independent gun is much better for that).

On the other hand, the budget does not appear to be the problem as the forces have repeatedly not been able to use the entire budget because there was simply nothing to buy. It sounds a lot like the manufacturers just cannot deliver the spare parts needed or so, but I have no idea why that is or what they could do other than nationalize the suppliers and produce more. :sweatdrop:
Yay for the private sector?

The spare parts thing is possibly a problem like we have in the Army National Guard. We no longer are able to stockpile items for weapons, vehicles, body armor etc.. which means when something breaks we have to order it and wait weeks to months for it come back down.
The change was supposed to reduce waste of over ordering but with rapidly worn parts it means increased down time. Imagine if you had to order individual pens when you'v used one up instead of having a stock of pens available already. It'd be nice if all my humvees with one working headlamp and no spare tires could get those fixed quickly but sadly the supply systems are no longer designed to be fast but cost cutting by reducing the waste of over-ordering.

When I said invest I also meant in people. The change to a volunteer army was a poor idea in a nation that abhors military service. Money alone doesn't man tanks or aircraft. Lack of use of the army also decreases morale, the many peacekeeping missions and other 'little' deployments create a purpose for professional soldiers in nations not at war. Spending 20-30 years in a military without ever doing anything other than training hurts morale and therefore retention which leads to decreased readiness.
The people that joined the German Navy to be submariners and now have to wait months before being able to sail again will probably have extremely low morale.

It reminds me actually of a quote one my Austrian cousins said during his draftee service period that summed up the attitude toward military "God Save Austria because we certainly can't"

They cant do as the russians and cannibalize the reserves they have rusting in nevada?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

They cant do as the russians and cannibalize the reserves they have rusting in nevada?

---

If the Russians have reserves in Nevada, the Trump-Putin connection is confirmed?! :stare: ~;)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I know you mean the US reserves, but I had to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

They cant do as the russians and cannibalize the reserves they have rusting in nevada?

---

To the extent it is possible, we ARE doing that. The "boneyards" are the source for some of those out of production spare parts alluded to by spmetla. Most of the boneyards are for vehicles and equipment that is considered Obsolete or even obsolescent, not simply surplus to current need. Whether it is in a boneyard in Nevada or Die Neirderlands, refurb'ing an F-104 is neither cheap nor likely to yield a fighter truly useful in a modern air conflict.

I have read stories that the Russians, in the days just after the breakup of the Soviet regime, still had storage depots with reasonably well maintained vehicles sufficient to equip a motor rifle division.....of the 1945 pattern, featuring T-34/85's and 6X6 Lend Lease Trucks (While the Russians used pretty much every bit of the Lend Lease sent them, the only thing that made a huge difference to their army was the scads of reliable trucks we sent).

Boneyards are the place where you send something to rot in the open air because it is too expensive to do anything else with. I personally think that we could probably take care of America's love of canned beer [:rtwno:] for several years by reclaiming the aluminum in the oldest ones.

Depots are filled with the somewhat older but still useable equipment, but most of that needs to be refurb'd or otherwise brought up to useful levels for a modern battlefield. Big Ticket Item example. We can get the Wisconsin (BB-64) back into active mode with the fleet, but to do so with all the appropriate updates would require north of $1.5B.


Now the Russians have, at least since Soviet times, been more willing to toss their soldiers into a conflict with outdated equipment. None of the armies in the West can afford to be quite that cavalier with the lives of their soldiers (for political reasons if naught else).

The RN has the emergency option of sending Australian ships into war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The RN has the emergency option of sending Australian ships into war.

---

The exact opposite of the planet that's helpful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The exact opposite of the planet that's helpful

---

It's helped in the past. The Aussies paid money for the privilege too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The RN has the emergency option of sending Australian ships into war.

---

Once they already have:

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...er-it-vanished

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Under the auspices of nato is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

---

And as Libya in 2011 showed, sometimes a European country (like Germany) will elect to do nothing even when the cause is deemed just and the operation is given the green light by the UNSC. Germany is one of the classic cases of "decent capability, lack of will."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

For the ground units each nation (or at least language group) would need to maintain at least a nexus of the full complement of ground warfare. Can't expect coordination on the ground if german tanks are expected to work with french infantry, Italian artillery or dutch aviation. The record of Austro-hungary in WWI with the problems too many languages in one army created a testiment to the difficulty and thats with much slower and simpler battle plans than present day.
Each nation having at least a nucleus of capability in all the major branches means at least there is a supply of trainers if each branch needs to be expanded.
Also, the politics of who's boys blood is shed would require that all nations have a share of the ground combat arms so that the burdens seem more fair. The Czechs, and Poles would probably not be too happy if Paris/Berlin/Brussels decide where their countrymen die without French or German Soldiers sharing the same risk.

The will part is certainly the killer. Who wants the the leader of country X deciding if Soldiers from country Y need to be sent to defend country Z's interest.

---

These are definitely very true points as to why my idea likely wouldnt work, and why I said it was a pipe dream at best. Ideally, since the command language of NATO is English anyways, everyone should just speak English, but thats just me being a haughty and self-centered American. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

And as Libya in 2011 showed, sometimes a European country (like Germany) will elect to do nothing even when the cause is deemed just and the operation is given the green light by the UNSC. Germany is one of the classic cases of "decent capability, lack of will."

---

Too bad that one of the two countries that started the bombing campaign is now leaving the EU because too many economic migrants are coming through Libya now, while Germany is trying to process them all and gets blamed for it, too. :dizzy2:

And besides, what "decent capability"? Did you miss the news about the state of our armed forces? Despite the fact half our Eurofighters can't fly, last time I checked they were not even ready for anti-ground duty yet. Not sure how many Tornados we have left. And even the very ready and capable French and British ran out of guided bombs after about a month. Then again with only one bomber ready to fly, our bombs might have lasted longer... ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Too bad that one of the two countries that started the bombing campaign is now leaving the EU because too many economic migrants are coming through Libya now, while Germany is trying to process them all and gets blamed for it, too. :dizzy2:

And besides, what "decent capability"? Did you miss the news about the state of our armed forces? Despite the fact half our Eurofighters can't fly, last time I checked they were not even ready for anti-ground duty yet. Not sure how many Tornados we have left. And even the very ready and capable French and British ran out of guided bombs after about a month. Then again with only one bomber ready to fly, our bombs might have lasted longer... ~;p

---

Exactly, if the Germans had the political will to spend more on defense, then you wouldn't have those maintenance issues. As I recall, Germany actually has the largest land component of any European country, though Poland is catching up. I'd need to look up the figures again.

And my point about Libya wasn't that Germany was horrible for not participating, it was a real life example of EU/NATO members disagreeing about foreign policy, making my idea of one large European army useless. Kinda risky to have an army like that if a large chunk of it won't deploy in the first place.

The 'each country will furnish the following contingent for service upon request' route is NATO-lite.

If they want integration, reduce the national militaries to a division or so apiece and institute an EU force using one language, force structure, etc. funded by a levy drawn from all members by whatever apportionment seems most apt.

Coupled with mandatory conscription, it could even be used as a cultural change tool shifting folks towards a common Euro identity even more so then at present.


Just a thought...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

And as Libya in 2011 showed, sometimes a European country (like Germany) will elect to do nothing even when the cause is deemed just and the operation is given the green light by the UNSC. Germany is one of the classic cases of "decent capability, lack of will."



These are definitely very true points as to why my idea likely wouldnt work, and why I said it was a pipe dream at best. Ideally, since the command language of NATO is English anyways, everyone should just speak English, but thats just me being a haughty and self-centered American. :laugh4:

---

Still remembering the visit of my relatives (who speak american english with a dialect from the palatinate) I wonder what has being american to do with speaking proper english... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

...
And my point about Libya wasn't that Germany was horrible for not participating, it was a real life example of EU/NATO members disagreeing about foreign policy, making my idea of one large European army useless. Kinda risky to have an army like that if a large chunk of it won't deploy in the first place.

---

Defense Pact. Military action in Lybia was outside EU borders and every sovereign state could decide itself to stay on the side of right and justice and respect the sovereignity of Lybia (and protect the interestes of the EU as Ghadaffi had a deal with the EU to prevent refugees in the med) or ignore them and support the tribal rebels that noone wanted to realize as being a worse replacement for Ghadaffi. Now Lybia has 3 dictators and is barely able to control it’s own coast... :wall:

Reacting to a threat to the borders of an EU-member would look quite different and trigger a more united response, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The 'each country will furnish the following contingent for service upon request' route is NATO-lite.

If they want integration, reduce the national militaries to a division or so apiece and institute an EU force using one language, force structure, etc. funded by a levy drawn from all members by whatever apportionment seems most apt.

Coupled with mandatory conscription, it could even be used as a cultural change tool shifting folks towards a common Euro identity even more so then at present.


Just a thought...

---

That would work...but no one is ready for that yet. Just like with the economic approach, you impliment the system you can get political buy in for - knowing it doesn't work. When (not if) it breaks you are then forced to make changes to fix it you really wanted in the first place - the EU central bank has far more power than initially and is also started telling countries what they can and can not spend. This was unthinkable at the outset.

So we have the proposal for a disaster and await everyone demanding that things are properly integrated with a proper General Staff etc etc and then - obeying the will of the many - this will then be instigated.

What will be the catalyst is difficult to know. But it could be Russia, Turkey, Syria or even the USA. The timescale is less set and the cause less clear than Bismark unifying Germany under Prussia, but the use of external threats for political realignment is a pretty common device.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

That would work...but no one is ready for that yet. Just like with the economic approach, you impliment the system you can get political buy in for - knowing it doesn't work. When (not if) it breaks you are then forced to make changes to fix it you really wanted in the first place....

---

That never happens in the USA [cough --- Affordable Care Act --- /cough], so I wouldn't know what kind of a shady tactic to which you are referring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

That never happens in the USA [cough --- Affordable Care Act --- /cough], so I wouldn't know what kind of a shady tactic to which you are referring.

---

Then sometimes they can be funded, but cronyism and corruption [cough ---- Tax breaks for the Rich ---- /cough] is embedded in the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Then sometimes they can be funded, but cronyism and corruption [cough ---- Tax breaks for the Rich ---- /cough] is embedded in the system.

---

Preaching to the choir on that one. All the loopholes and tax gaming really suck on a whole range of moral and ethical levels.

Moral and ethics are for the arts, they have no place in business unless they increase dividends! :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ConjurerDragon

... I wonder what has being american to do with speaking proper english... :rolleyes:.

---

Fairly little at this point. American English is what English becomes when it rummages around in the pockets of passed-out drunkards looking for loose grammar and a wad of nouns.

It looks indeed like NATO-lite.
Not a replacement for NATO, but a supplement to it.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/03/...mbushing-nato/

It strike me as a "half of the above"; an EU initiative as opposed to American with the added benefit that if the Euro project ever gets full commitment from its members, the framework for an EU military is at least "in being".
It may get more buy-in; the problem being it's much an act of faith until broad based capacity and will is demonstrated...the same thing NATO has been waiting for for years.
Is PESCO a better motivational vehicle than NATO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

It looks indeed like NATO-lite.
Not a replacement for NATO, but a supplement to it.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/03/...mbushing-nato/

It strike me as a "half of the above"; an EU initiative as opposed to American with the added benefit that if the Euro project ever gets full commitment from its members, the framework for an EU military is at least "in being".
It may get more buy-in; the problem being it's much an act of faith until broad based capacity and will is demonstrated...the same thing NATO has been waiting for for years.
Is PESCO a better motivational vehicle than NATO?

---

To Germans, who retain an collective distrust of America and American ambition, yes, pesco may be a better motivator

As long as it continues to be an additional structure (God knows why another additional structure is required in addition to the existing ones) then sure.

Whilst it is not "fair" that Europe relies so much on the USA for defense at least as things stand Europe is not seen as a competitor / threat (more as a mooch), better that than it starts to become a buffed-up military entity and adds to the complexities in the world. Already Turkey is pushing things to their absolute limits in Syria.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As long as it continues to be an additional structure (God knows why another additional structure is required in addition to the existing ones) then sure.

Whilst it is not "fair" that Europe relies so much on the USA for defense at least as things stand Europe is not seen as a competitor / threat (more as a mooch), better that than it starts to become a buffed-up military entity and adds to the complexities in the world. Already Turkey is pushing things to their absolute limits in Syria.

~:smoking:

---

As someone who comes from a nation that still has a lot of nationalists who think it is itill somehow the 19th century empire at its core, surely you could see the advantage of the EU being an empire instead of a puppet, for everyone inside the EU that is....oooh, I see... ~;p

Indeed. The UK seems to be the logical arena when Germany plus errata (let's face it - Germany is the best bit about Europe) and the USA square off against each other. Not fun. I prefer a situation where all are on the same team.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Indeed. The UK seems to be the logical arena when Germany plus errata (let's face it - Germany is the best bit about Europe) and the USA square off against each other. Not fun. I prefer a situation where all are on the same team.

~:smoking:

---

Can't we just veto any such plans? Pan-EU plans need to be ratified by every member state, or they don't pass muster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Can't we just veto any such plans? Pan-EU plans need to be ratified by every member state, or they don't pass muster.

---

It is not the legal framework but the intent that is important. I would wish a situation where Europe and North America is working together, and for all its faults NATO is a good framework for this. Structures that could cause things to go in the opposite direction isn't a healthy development.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It is not the legal framework but the intent that is important. I would wish a situation where Europe and North America is working together, and for all its faults NATO is a good framework for this. Structures that could cause things to go in the opposite direction isn't a healthy development.

~:smoking:

---

We've been a significant part of brokering compromises in the past. Somehow I don't think our voice is going to be listened to now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Can't we just veto any such plans? Pan-EU plans need to be ratified by every member state, or they don't pass muster.

---

UK can't veto anything since it has forfeited its EU membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It is not the legal framework but the intent that is important. I would wish a situation where Europe and North America is working together, and for all its faults NATO is a good framework for this. Structures that could cause things to go in the opposite direction isn't a healthy development.

~:smoking:

---

Well, "America first!" just doesn't sound so cooperative and somehow the EU cooperative lost a cooperator who won't stop this any more, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

UK can't veto anything since it has forfeited its EU membership.

---

You really need to work on your sarcasm detection...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, "America first!" just doesn't sound so cooperative and somehow the EU cooperative lost a cooperator who won't stop this any more, lol.

You really need to work on your sarcasm detection...

---

When the UK was Bush's female dog things were worse - how Tony thought that the USA had any concerns beyond their own is beyond me.

So as the diminished power the UK definitely is, not getting sucked into Europe's plans to be a Grand Power is definitely a good thing. It will either be an empty vessel where some more brass and politicians can semi-retire to and still draw a large salary whilst not upsetting their own national leaders (like the EU parliament) or will try to assert itself and send materiel hither and thither. Either way: have fun! Send a postcard!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You really need to work on your sarcasm detection...

---

How much would you charge for a private lesson in the field?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

How much would you charge for a private lesson in the field?

---

Flight and lodging of course, if you don't come here, and then maybe 30$ an hour, special friend price, no guarantees for success though. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When the UK was Bush's female dog things were worse - how Tony thought that the USA had any concerns beyond their own is beyond me.

So as the diminished power the UK definitely is, not getting sucked into Europe's plans to be a Grand Power is definitely a good thing. It will either be an empty vessel where some more brass and politicians can semi-retire to and still draw a large salary whilst not upsetting their own national leaders (like the EU parliament) or will try to assert itself and send materiel hither and thither. Either way: have fun! Send a postcard!

---

Is it better to be a puppet of a Super Power rather than having a massive influence within one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Is it better to be a puppet of a Super Power rather than having a massive influence within one?

---

Best to be neither.

~:smoking:

And then there's another small change to the EU: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8151516.html.

The catalyst might be the UK leaving... but the interesting point is that this (currently minor) tax will be directly levied by the EU. Clearly required. Clearly a good idea. Clearly good for the environment.

And now the EU has a central bank, diplomatic offices, an armed forces, wants to have its own tax raising powers...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And then there's another small change to the EU: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8151516.html.

The catalyst might be the UK leaving... but the interesting point is that this (currently minor) tax will be directly levied by the EU. Clearly required. Clearly a good idea. Clearly good for the environment.

And now the EU has a central bank, diplomatic offices, an armed forces, wants to have its own tax raising powers...

~:smoking:

---

Interesting line of thought rory me boyo. Though I am wondering if the catalyst metaphor is the most apt. Could well be more a matter of refining so as to remove impurities. Not casting aspersions thereby, but perhaps hinting that England was never part of Europe in the same way as the other European states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Flight and lodging of course, if you don't come here, and then maybe 30$ an hour, special friend price, no guarantees for success though. ~;)

---

Would skype lessons be any cheaper? Or was there any sarcasm in the amount and "friend"? I'm getting positively mixed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Would skype lessons be any cheaper? Or was there any sarcasm in the amount and "friend"? I'm getting positively mixed up.

---

No, skype lessons would be the same price and the same clueless teacher with no idea how to teach you on the subject.
As long as your mixup is going positively, I see no reason to do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, "America first!" just doesn't sound so cooperative and somehow the EU cooperative lost a cooperator who won't stop this any more, lol.

---

America first? Which one? The America first of Woodrow Wilson certainly did get quite involved in WW1.
And the America first commitee that supported US neutrality was not really successfull in keeping the US out of WW2 either.
My guess would be that the US are better than their reputation and would do the right thing in their own time despite "America first" for the umpteeth time.

And don’t forget that US demands to the EU to step up military expenses to 2% like obliged to and get useful on their own were already a thing before Donald became President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

No, skype lessons would be the same price and the same clueless teacher with no idea how to teach you on the subject.
As long as your mixup is going positively, I see no reason to do anything about it.

---

I see that this clueless teacher is no businessmen. He might have pretended he knew what he was doing and would have got some money until I detected that the teacher was no better than the trainee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And then there's another small change to the EU: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8151516.html.

The catalyst might be the UK leaving... but the interesting point is that this (currently minor) tax will be directly levied by the EU. Clearly required. Clearly a good idea. Clearly good for the environment.

And now the EU has a central bank, diplomatic offices, an armed forces, wants to have its own tax raising powers...

~:smoking:

---

Which is nothing new really.
As a player of the Europa Universalis series of Paradox and being interested a bit in history I present to you the "Common Penny" that the Holy Roman Empire collected to defend it’s borders against the turks and french:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Penny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Interesting line of thought rory me boyo. Though I am wondering if the catalyst metaphor is the most apt. Could well be more a matter of refining so as to remove impurities. Not casting aspersions thereby, but perhaps hinting that England was never part of Europe in the same way as the other European states.

---

No need to hint. The UK never has been as involved as everyone else since the 100 years war was lost.

Speaking of impurities, they might want to have a look at Greece, Turkey going for membership and even such stalwarts as Poland are looking more shaky.

~:smoking: