Bulgaria? Greece? Rural Northumberland? Who decides? The Holy Invisible Hand of the Markets?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Printable View
Bulgaria? Greece? Rural Northumberland? Who decides? The Holy Invisible Hand of the Markets?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I am gonna take a wild guess and suggest that Rory was referring to The USA, Western Europe, Japan, Mexico....regulated capitalism with varying degrees of government control over portions of the economy related to "social welfare" concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
Mexico? Is it the level of social welfare we should refer to? Nice. There must be something between hardline capitalism ans state rule on economy, indeed... This one looks to be badly leaning toward the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Not asserting that Mexico is an ideal in any way. Just pointing up that there is more than one recipe between the two points, Mexico's differing significantly from the USA etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
At some point the EU will end up one of two things. A Germany with a Greek yoke or a German boot crushing a Greek. The other option being to dissolve borders and massively strengthen it. Which won't work, but some people think it will.
Germany did try. It didn't end very well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
"well" depends only on the timeline one is using.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It's too soon to tell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
True enough for the 1940s. Though to be fair, Germany had Zero interest in Greece until it felt compelled to pull the Italian's castagne out of the fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Japan had Zero interest in building an empire until the Americans came along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If you mean Perry's expedition, than you are undoubtedly correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
They very clearly wanted an Empire in the 1930s+ and were pursuing it. Why Roosevelt thought he could embargo them without them attacking us I will never know for sure. Perhaps he believed the Navy's view of the efficacy of Plan Orange. Though that itself may well have been a product of racist underestimation as much as anything else. I have always suspected that Roosevelt believed he could force the Japanese to back off in China and that the Germans would provide the needed excuse for war themselves by sinking one of our "neutral" USN ships in the North Atlantic. I am virtually certain that Roosevelt wanted to take care of Germany first and without a Pacific war at all.
Oh, and of course the Axis planned to take out Greece and make it part of the empire. I just think that Hitler had no interest in doing so until after the Soviets were broken and the Turks forced into the Axis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I was talking about the aircraft (hence the capitalisation of Zero). The Americans blew them out of the air. Prior to that, they ruled supreme in the theatre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Of course, most of the actual empire building was done by the Army, but that fact doesn't allow me to play on your post.
Angela Merkel seems to be preparing to rely less on the U.S. (and Britain) for European security.
So are we talking Germany resurgent or expanding E.U. commitments?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge...-idUSKBN18O0JK
While it doesn't sound like she is looking at a short-term goal, just how far in the future is the shift?
It could just be diplomatic signaling; calling Trump's whinging.
Interesting
I think the message is that Germany and Europe cannot go on relying on old military and economic alliances alone. Brexit and Trump made it clear that Europe must rely on its own strength. Therefore I assume she is aiming a European Union that talks with one tongue and walks the talk. That means joined economic and military agenda.
Europe can not afford a military nor is there a political will for a build up. This is nothing more than self pleasure by Merkel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...European_Union
The EU already has a large army if one counts everything in it.
If that were merged into one command structure, redundancies could be flushed out, equipment could be more standardized to realize synergy effects and the EU could easily defend itself. Her rival in the national elections also wants to work towards this goal so Merkel is basically stealing his positions to weasel her way to the next election victory by stealing everybody else's positions as usual.
Merkel is completely without alternative, as usual.
Just wait, she will become first emperor of the ED in 50 years.
Our enemies fight differently, mass-immigration is the weapon. Thx EU
Oh yeah... Those who had their lives crushed by our enemies are our enemie's weapons. Pure common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Can't help thinking about spanish refugees of 1939. Of course they were some kind of fascist weapon. Obviously. Can you define who you think is our "enemies"? Saudis maybe? Our "friends" are enemies and their victims are agressors. Or more Godwin-like: obviously jewish refugees of the late 30's were nazi agents. Obvious! Ask anyone.
The idea is simple, destroying national identity to form a strong EU with immigration, google Kizerski-plan if you will. Merkel even won the Kiserski-award, I am so glad that eastern-european countries say screw that.
Can get even more rediculous, the German Merkalist if foreign affairs even stated that we need immigrants to prevent inbreeding. Hmmmmm importing the most inbreeding people in the world to prevent inbreeding ya that makes sense. The EU is our enemy and I salute the Brits
edit, it's Kalergi-plan, I mispelled it. I hope the Merkel is really proud with her Kalergi-price she really deserves it, she can shove up her dry cunt in her barren womb
As for for me, out, as soon as possible
Not sure these were the results you were intending...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Unsubstanciated conspirationnist bullshit. The man wrote odd stuff when aged 30, but it was the 20's. He grew up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Do you really think a mix of european nobility and jew's blood (his plan) will soon dominate a degenerate mixed-blood european populace, thanks to refugees? Grow up, then.
And the part about Mrs Merkel's cunt would fit the mouth of a radical Imam very well. See? Inbreeding is already on it's way.
Wow nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That something only a piece of shit would say Fragony.
Fragony really gets worked up over Merkel's lack of offspring, for some reason.
Well feel free to consider me one then, but I really do think she has issues. There is something about the way she looks outt of her eyes that isn't quite right to me, a mixture of dumbstruck lunacy and paasive agression. Apoligies for being vulgar I shouldn'tdo that hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Conspiracy theory involving Jews, Freemasons and CIA?
Sign me up!
Yes, well the German army has already more-or-less eaten the Dutch one in terms of command and control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I doubt there's much redundancy - rather I would say the EU lacks certain things it needs as a larger Great Power - too few Aircraft Carriers, for one.
It suits Merkel to propose unified European Defence, so long as Germany isn't paying for it.
While it might be a goal for a unified EU bloc to project power, it is not a mainstream goal to project power against the United States. You don't need many aircraft carriers unless you are interested in challenging the USA.Quote:
I doubt there's much redundancy - rather I would say the EU lacks certain things it needs as a larger Great Power - too few Aircraft Carriers, for one.
The Continent, North Africa, West Asia, and <Anglo-French> former colonies ought to be managed without extensive naval buildup. Especially if you count out British interests - you can see to yourselves on that end, right?
You still think of these as separate entities? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
We need more Frigates, and we need to knock those bollock stupid ramps off the carriers but, yes, we can protect our own people without outside help, as ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I think PFH said something similar about Theresa May before too. Something about having no kids means that you have no interest in leaving behind a better future for the country as a motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
No, Andrea Eagle said something similar - I believe I merely observed that the argument was logical, and that not having children does put one out of step with the majority of the population and their experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Most people who do not have children still have families, so they still have a reason to invest in the future.
What about Poutine? Can't have a decent conspiracy without him, com'on, be reasonable!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
You actually do need a few aircraft carriers just due to maintenance concerns when on a deployment/patrol then refit repair periods. When the Charles de Gaulle leaves a patrol it is replaced by a US carrier to maintain presence. While Europe wouldn't need many if it wants to maintain a military sphere over the Med and Africa as the French have always done then it needs more carriers or more overseas air bases, transports, and refuelers. If conflict breaks out somewhere a carrier allows for a very quick (relatively) capable presence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I imagine that an EU bloc would want to maintain sea lanes in the Med, keep Africa relatively stable and ensure that they have enough credibility in the middle east to be able to weigh in on the politics there.
The EU would have to take a lot more power from each member state right now if it wants a true EU military. Would Spanish/EU citizens feel alright with a German or French leader deploying their contingent of Soldiers to the Ukraine or Balkans?
Bear in mind that the world has changed a lot in the last 30 years, what will the demographics and politics be like in the next 20-30 years. There are still several Frozen Conflicts in eastern Europe, the Minsk II agreement has not resolved the Crimea/East Ukraine issues, Kosovo is still a hotspot though much less so. Will the continued preaching of Wahibism by the Saudis throughout Europe's muslim minority ensure that our new norm of terrorism continues or even increases? Will the Balkan nations that fought for independence from Belgrade be happy to give that true independence up again but this time to Brussels?
An EU military would be nice but strong national militaries within the NATO structure in the near-term are certainly the best choice for keeping a credible deterrence both conventional and nuclear without requiring Europe to build up that military-industrial complex it has not political will for.
The Baltic states present a need (by NATO) for some sort of credible presence in the Baltic Sea.
How could the alliance prop up those countries w/o a navy?
Movement of troops/supplies (medicine food ammo etc.) almost require a capable navy.
If the plan is just to surrender that portion and gird for the larger conflict, Russia will figure that out in short order.
The ability to threaten/halt Russia's burgeoning oil exports through the Baltic may also require a navy.
http://cimsec.org/baltic-grey-zone-t...rn-flank/31529
I've just had an epiphany! Shh, stop whatever you're doing. Just listen!
Fragony's going on and on about Merkel being childless. Ok, that's easy to verify. She doesn't have any children, true. We might wonder why it affects him so much, but his statements were true. But now, he mentioned her (paraphrase) "dry vagina". How he knows that, you might wonder. Well, wonder no more good people, I've figured it all out.
Merkel and Fragony were lovers, and above all else he wanted her to have his child. BUT, whenever they tried to have sex, dry vagina was a problem. Fragony pleaded with her, "Angela, let's see a doctor, we can work this out, don't give up on us", but she said "Fragony, you know I love you, but I simply haven't the time. I've got all those refugees to take care off". "Angela, I can't believe that. Don't put them before us, we have something special here! Angela! No, Angela, come back!".
It explains everything. He hates refugees because he lost his beloved Angela to them, he hates Angela because she left him, and how he knows she has atrophic vaginitis.
Brilliant, on several levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Can't deny that was great, I will take my loss and saluteQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Frags, you are braver than I knew.
It has changed so much that it isn't THE Ukraine any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Heck, Ukraine is not even what it was 20 years ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
As to things military, if all you do is have contingents of national armies stapled together you will, at best, perpetuate the limitations of NATO deployments etc. For it to really work for force projection, there would need to be an EU army serving under the direction of the EU executive branch.
These problems were what the Austro-Hungarians had to deal with in WWI. They had a pretty much three different armies composed of ethnic contingents. For their command structure relied on German and Hungarian language but also had to have ways to accomodate Croatians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Bosnians, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
To establish an EU Army that's truly centralized would require a preferred language. English would be good but if the UK isn't part of the EU that'd be an odd choice. Perhaps French and German on equal footing would do but that would create the impression of it being a French or German army instead of an EU one.
Would also require each nation having to put aside it's military industrial complex when it comes to weapons selection. What would be the standardized fighter, the Eurofighter or the Rafale? What would standard issue rifle etc...
These differences of course would determine the unity of the EU, would it be a centralized true multi-ethnic nation or some sort of modern Holy Roman Empire with all the problems that had. It would be ironic for the Scots or Catalans to declare independence and then give it up as well to the EU.
An EU-army is a really bad idea for other reasons, it will be used against us
It isn't what it was even 5 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Quite wrong in fact. Projecting power is an exercise in the rapidity and sustainment of logistical effect, which requires infrastructure in-theatre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Desiring to project power in parts of the world that have poor infrastructure is greatly aided by military capability that allows you to take your infrastructure with you.
Like aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, engineering regiments, and expeditionary air-wing support.
Europes problem is a surplus of frigates and tank battalions, not their dearth. They've blown the budget on defensive assets for use in the home theatre, at the expense of enabling assets that allow you to start a war (and win it!), far from your own territory.
But quite aside from a military capability that is (even collectively) ill configured for power projection, you have the equal problem of a public that won't pay for it, and won't tolerate its employment.
Apart from France. Which is fine if you're going to create a european military capability to serve French foriegn policy...?
Not very EUropean tho.
As a starter for one:
http://csbaonline.org/uploads/docume...NE_FINAL_b.pdf
I don't believe it is. Aircraft carriers are of limited use in the Home Seas, while the Continent is the most cost-effective aircraft carrier.
Why would Europe need to project far from its home territory? The old African colonies? Those interventions are rarely against ruling governments; in fact they are typically at the request of, or at least with the tacit cooperation of, the ruling governments.Quote:
Europes problem is a surplus of frigates and tank battalions, not their dearth. They've blown the budget on defensive assets for use in the home theatre, at the expense of enabling assets that allow you to start a war (and win it!), far from your own territory.
A common command language would be required. English, despite the local issue, would still be the best choice as the most likely power that would support/work with you is the USA. Aside from a strong minority of us who speak SA-style Spanish, we are NOTORIOUSLY bad at learning other languages. You'd get the best cooperation results from English.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Though you should adopt the German approach to command staff rather than the French. Less cumbersome and focuses a bit more on the tactical.
And with the English out of it, none of you would have to put up with English rations....
The EU would need to be able to force the Suez Canal or the Strait of Hormuz. That's significantly easier if you can position a Carrier of the Egyptian or Gulf coasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Between Italy and France, the EU would have 3 aircraft carriers presently. UK carriers could match that in the near future (with a new commission or with an EU decommission).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Why isn't that an adequate level for Mediterranean operations (in combination with other craft), especially given that a Suez operation would be of great interest to the UK and US independently of the EU, and these would likely support EU operations insofar as they weren't in direct opposition to US or UK interests.
better off making sure existing carrier groups are effective and not just craft on paper.
There is no comparison in effect between two QE class vs oneFr cva, one It cva, and one glorified amphib.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Effect being - sorties per day multiplied by sustainment for x number of days.
And why would the eu limit itself to ops in the med, we certainly don't and nor too does france.
I've noted Britain and France. The answer to the question of why Britain and France have 'business' outside the Med will go far in answering why the EU wouldn't have much business outside the Med.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Are the French leaving the EU as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Ex-colonies/overseasQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What I mean is, if France have to take action in their ex-colonies, will the rest of the EU back them up, or will they be left to deal with things alone? And if there is no solidarity when France needs it, how much trust can EU countries on the Russian borders have in their security?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You forgot Spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The only real carrier in any EU Navy is Charles De Gaulle - the Spanish and Italian carriers can only carry around half a dozen fighters each - De Gaulle can carry 40. Against that you have one Queen Elizabeth carrier that will be able to carry up to 50, 70 at a stretch.
If the ongoing economic migrant/war refugee crisis is any sign then the EU has a vested interest in all of Africa and the Middle East as they always have. If tinpot dictator starts a war and the EU wants to intervene, carrier battle groups make the projection of force far easier. Especially if you want to avoid having to find a neighboring country to lend you an airstrip and port for logistics to attack their neighbor, even if it's just airstrikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Bear in mind it was France that started the intervention in Ghadaffi's suppression of the arab-spring, as well as in Cote d'Ivorie and Mali. If EU/UN peace keepers in Lebanon, the Golan Heights, Sinai, Chad come under attack domestic policy would usually frown on putting lives in the line of fire without the ability to support them.
Don't forget though that carriers and all the ASW helicopters that are usually aboard are vital for ASW warfare. The threat from Russia in the Artic and Atlantic will always be there.
I imagine that an EU army would end up filled with recruits largely like the french foreign legion, which right now is primarily filled with folks from Eastern Europe.
Spain no longer, it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Perhaps the EU can purchase an extra Queen Elizabeth from the UK; otherwise, a couple of escort carriers could round things out. Perhaps Greece would like to maintain one.
These things call for a healthy navy overall more than numerous aircraft carriers. Sustained ground operations require land-based airfields anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Oh contraire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanis..._Juan_Carlos_IQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Juan Carlos can carry 25 Harries at full load, but more likely she's carry less than half that.
Spain, with its national debt exceeding 100% of their GDP is in no position to project power or wage any sort of sustained war.
I think that so long as China and Russia stay woefully behind in their naval capability, especially power projection in the form of actual, modern carrier groups (not the coal burning disgrace Kuznetsov) Europe as a whole is just fine. Let the USA play world police, they have the modern carriers and literal boatloads of pumped up marines ready to go bring feedum and muh democracy everywhere.
Brexit is bad for the EU as the Royal Navy will launch 2 more large aircraft carriers by 2019 and 2021 respectively. Still, the remianing EU countries have ample airforce capabilites and (and this is really important) they have national defence doctrines built around their home geography. So if comrade Stalin wants to invade, he will have to fight the Finns in frozen Finland and the Swiss in the Alps, while also trying to cross rivers, forests and whatnot elsewhere in Europe. It's simply not feasible.
IMO Europe has no real enemy that can threaten it on a continental scale. Push comes to shove and the nukes fly, so - no. Well, I guess technically the horse archers can come once again, but I think Sweden and Germany will love their different culture and welcome the with open.... arms.