The United Kingdom; The European Union; NATO: which is the primary sense of identity?

[Brenus]

Well, a lot of questions.
I will try to answer some of them as a former French professional soldier.
First I don't think Trump will dissolve NATO as it is a good tool for US supremacy and it sell a lot of US weapons to the "allies". What Trump wants, as he said during his campaign, is US first, so the demand of an increasing budget from the Allies is just in order to buy more US equipment.

As a French, our defence is based on the horrible but efficient concept of dissuasion which means that any country attacking France will be vaporised by nuclear weapons. No proxy wars, no limited war, just war.
French projection capacity in Africa and others parts of the world where the French interests are in danger or concerned is covered by the Army, Fleet and Air Force which are (allegedly) enough for the job (i.e. Chad), big UN missions being done in cooperation with others countries (Iraq first Campaign being an example).
As a French, I think we have to be independent of others countries interests. It is not possible to use the French Nuclear firepower to protect Norway... Cooperation is possible, not subordination.
Unfortunately, under Sarkolland, France was reunited to NATO, and our capacity in making our own weapons system badly damaged.
Fortunately, with Trump demands and his comments about NATO, perhaps some European Nations having lived under the dream of the US umbrella will realise that is was just this, a dream, and start to think about building their own forces.

The EU is dead. Built as a political project it was killed by the Commission and it undemocratic political behavior, the spreading of poverty and the choice of an economical model which can't be challenged by democratic votes, by law under the actual Constitution.
EU has no respect or acknowledgment local history or traditions. Having an unique model, the EU leaders are not able to see they just go to the wall.

The French identity, as I am concerned, and some French might disagree, is based on a political contract based on the French Revolution (1789). The french Identity can not be based on territory, as it had changed, and the longest French border is with Brazil. This fact rules out "culture" as well.
It can't be based on language as a lot a French speaking are not French citizens (Quebec coming immediately in mind, but some in Louisiana as well). 29 countries have French as official languages.
It can't be based on religions, as France has all of them, and a majority being atheist.
It can't be based on ethnicities as well, for obvious historical reasons.

[Kagemusha]

Good questions Seamus. As someone from Northern periphery of Europe. I am not the best person to comment the Special relationship of UK and USA. Neither am i an expert with UK´s relations with the strongest main land European countries like Germany and France. That is too Western European for me and i am sure that are many others that are more interested and have more in-depth knowledge concerning the issues and nuance´s of the matter.

Concerning identity. I am first Finnish and second European. Being from small country and language group. I think it is important to remember my identity, while it is a non issue most of the time.
I think EU has many good things to offer for Europe and Europeans, but in its current form it is simply unsuited for trying to achieve deeper integration inside Europe. The sole reason is that EU has failed to create basic democratic institutions and checks and balances to operate as any kind of federal state. Also i think the speed which the EU ideologist´s have been trying to ram through integration is way too fast. People do not like change and even less a uncontrolled one. There should first at least be a plan created for integration, before any real actions being taken. But this really does not matter as this point as the EU cant seem to be able to even decide, if it should try to conduct at least some sort of democratic decision making or remain a coalition of individual countries, trying to achieve consensus between their representatives over issues EU should have a joint stance.

About NATO. I hail from the only "Western" country that shares a border with Russia, which is not in the NATO. Finland has deepened her cooperation with NATO and individual NATO countries like US for example in form of joint exercises and joining in NATO exercises. As another example last few years our Arctic infantry Brigade has been training US forces in arctic warfare and Last Spring we had a join exercise with Dutch and German troops at Finnish soil. Apart NATO aspect Finland and Sweden has become very tight as of late in defense issues and there is continuous talk in both countries about a formal defensive alliance.
Personally i would support Finland joining NATO, hopefully together with Sweden, but it is a clear fact that if something radical does not happen, that will not become a reality. Reason for that is that the is not enough support to join NATO for various reasons. These reasons include Nationalist pride/anger that no one has helped us in the past, so why would they now? Also folks are worried what it would do to our foreign trade as Russia is our second largest trade partner after Germany. (Well that has become reality already with EU sanctions against Russia because of Ukraine) Third large reason is reluctance to go into some distant wars for NATO, but we are already at Afghanistan for example without being at NATO.

Conclusion. I hope we can create a defensive alliance with Sweden and become a less inviting target for a large neighbor. In any case i think many times specially in Western Europe there is almost like a hysteria over Russia. I have posted about the defense spending before and the West is using so ridiculous amounts of money that there really is not real threats at least if the money would be spent with little more care. Ok. Russia is strong with its land components and tactical air force. I dont concern myself with Russian Nukes as nuking us they would kill more of themselves then us, because we are so few. In any case, if Western and central Europe would gear up for war and nukes would not be a factor, Russia would find themselves from deep end of affairs quite soon. In the end war is much about economy and logistics and the math is simple. Russia does not hold a candle compared to Europe when it comes to those issues.

[Montmorency]

A good reason for Sweden and Finland to avoid formally joining NATO is for the sake of appearances. The Baltic states are one thing, but Russia has repeatedly pointed out that it would see their accession as a direct threat disruptive to normal bilateral relations between themselves and Russia. It would indeed take serious aggression from Russia to overrule that consideration.

Recall an interesting episode recently:

Putin hints Russia will react if Finland joins NATO

President Vladimir Putin suggested on Friday Russia could move its troops closer to the Finnish-Russian border if Finland joins NATO and called for measures to improve conflict prevention over the Baltic.

Finnish armed forces "would become part of NATO's military infrastructure, which overnight would be at the borders of the Russian Federation", Putin said after meeting Finnish President Sauli Niinisto.

"Do you think we will keep it as it is: our troops at 1,500 (kilometers, 900 miles) away?"

Obviously that can't possibly be correct, unless Russia moved its military to Siberia at some point.

"NATO perhaps would gladly fight with Russia until the last Finnish soldier," Putin said.

"Do you guys need it? We don't. We don't want it. But it is your call."

[Kagemusha]

A good reason for Sweden and Finland to avoid formally joining NATO is for the sake of appearances. The Baltic states are one thing, but Russia has repeatedly pointed out that it would see their accession as a direct threat disruptive to normal bilateral relations between themselves and Russia. It would indeed take serious aggression from Russia to overrule that consideration.

Recall an interesting episode recently:



Obviously that can't possibly be correct, unless Russia moved its military to Siberia at some point.

In matter of fact. That speech from Putin become a base for lots of jokes in Finnish media and amongst the population. The cause was exactly this quote: "Do you think we will keep it as it is: our troops at 1,500 (kilometers, 900 miles) away?"

From where i am sitting now. The closest Russian motor rifle brigade is situated at Kamenka Karelia near Viborg or Viipuri as the city is called in Finnish. It is less then 250 km from Finnish capital. That is some three hours driving distance with car. Dont worry i havent lost or will be loosing any sleep because of that fact. I guess Putin just had forgot about his own troop deployments and thought the entire Russian land forces were at Siberia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting questions - here's a rough diagram of how I construct my identity.

Close Family
↓
Wessex (Southern England sans Home Counties)
↓
England
↓
UK and other Crown Dominions (I have found Canadians and Aussies to be as like the English as the Scots and Welsh so the UK has no special place for me any more - it did but I'm over it. Same monarch, same law, same form of government, etc.)
↓
Europe/Commonwealth (Again, I probably have more in common with a Canadian than a German or Italian, so the Commonwealth is going to win the toss up probably more than 50% of the time. OTOH I have more in common with a German than a Pakistani).
↓
America goes here
↓
Other Christians get a spot here
↓
The rest of Humanity.

As you can see, America is quite far down the list, I can't imagine ever backing the Americans over one of the other Dominions.

As to NATO and the EU - I don't think NATO is going anywhere but the Treaty of Rome explicitly defines the purpose of the EU as "ever closer union" so it may be that NATO's current structure is eventually replaced by one closer to "US+EU+Others".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some thoughtful contributions here. Thanks and please continue.

[Montmorency]

As you can see, America is quite far down the list, I can't imagine ever backing the Americans over one of the other Dominions.

Would you back Pakistan over America?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would you back Pakistan over America?

Pakistan isn't a Dominion.

[Montmorency]

damn

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU is dead. Built as a political project it was killed by the Commission and it undemocratic political behavior, the spreading of poverty and the choice of an economical model which can't be challenged by democratic votes, by law under the actual Constitution.
EU has no respect or acknowledgment local history or traditions. Having an unique model, the EU leaders are not able to see they just go to the wall.

That is exactly how I feel.

Weird, eh?

[Brenus]

That is exactly how I feel.
Weird, eh?

I evolved a lot on the subject, and some parts due to some comments on this forum... Really weird...