Results 1 to 30 of 331

Thread: Future of the European Union

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    3,016

    Default Re: Future of the European Union

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Russia and China are most successful through asymmetric warfare and aggressive diplomacy and mercantilism. No amount of defense spending alone is going to deter these actions, because Russia and China (mostly China) know we're not going to risk pre-emptive war over their incremental strategies. You need soft power to contain them; else they'll recruit enough auxiliaries to contain us.
    Their methods of warfare can be countered but don't think for a second that they don't have substantial conventional capabilities as well. The collective lesson of Desert Storm to Russia and China were the marked advantage that quality currently has over quantity and hence their upgrades from massive armor/mechanized formations of medium quality (Russia) and massive infantry formations (PRC) to much more independent and qualitative formations.

    The asymmetric warfare aspect however isn't new, it's essentially the same "Revolutionary Warfare" that the French encountered in Indochina and Algeria, that the US fought in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the British in Malaya, Northern Ireland, and Iraq.

    To counter what the Russians have done in Ukraine and what the Chinese are currently doing in the South China Sea would require the US to engage more in propping up regional militias like Vietnam is currently doing.
    Vietnam's Fishing ‘Militia’ to Defend Maritime Claims Against China
    https://www.voanews.com/a/vietnam-fo...a/4335312.html
    To counter the constant cyber attacks should take a concerted and centralized US/NATO response to standardize and upgrade systems, as well as find a suitable countermeasure and response to ensure that such attacks can't go unanswered anymore.

    The biggest thing the US and NATO need to figure out is 'messaging' or "propaganda" in selling what we're doing. We have trouble even convincing our own populations to support even standard peace time operations such as the Baltic Air Patrols and the relevancy of NATO, how can we possibly convince our allies or local civilians in any conflict. While it's good to know that the US hasn't been good at propaganda since WW2 it certainly doesn't help us be "The Good Guys" that we want to be when the chief competitors are the ones succeeding at putting their messages and themes out.

    There's a discussion for the precise sorts of hard power we most need to support the soft power, but revamping and accumulating conventional force is actually irrelevant in the long-term unless we can collectively sort out our vision for the world.
    If nothing else it's a deterrent, Britain hasn't had to have another Falklands War since Argentina has seen that those islands will be contested. France's remaining colonial possessions and ties with it's close African allies have been maintained by a credible and timely use of force.
    In Côte d'Ivoire, a Model of Successful Intervention
    https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ention/240164/
    Operation Serval Another Beau Geste of France in Sub-Saharan Africa?
    http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Porta...231_art014.pdf

    The above cases are of course not at all directed toward a peer competitor such as Russia or China but given their gradual escalation in getting their way on the world stage over the last 15 years I personally believe it's building toward a short sharp conflict over something like Taiwan, North Korea, or the Ukraine in which they will try to give us a bloody nose and then open talks. Given the current apathy/dislike in the US and Western Europe toward Russia, the PRC, and most importantly the roles of the US and NATO in the world it'd be easy to see the PRC or Russians make such a calculated gamble that would be short of an all out war but at the same time demonstrate that the US is no longer a Superpower capable of contesting a Regional Power and thereby undermine any remaining confidence in our resolve to support friends and allies (think Suez in 1956 or South Vietnam in 1975).
    With cold war tensions gone and mutual annihilation off the table (in the public's mind) the threat of a limited war with a Regional Power is actually more likely than before.

    Let me emphasize: you're never going to have the opportunity to wield shiny toys, because the adversary won't let you choose those those terms of contest.
    The adversaries have those same 'shiny toys' and if they gain a qualitative edge of significance they will likely demonstrate it. Until then they'll use Revolutionary Warfare with "polite people" in crimea and patriotic fishermen in the South China Sea and off the Senkaku Islands to ensure that if/when we need to defend ourselves it will initially be portrayed as us attacking civilians without cause.
    Last edited by spmetla; 05-28-2018 at 21:30.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Future of the European Union

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    The above cases are of course not at all directed toward a peer competitor such as Russia or China but given their gradual escalation in getting their way on the world stage over the last 15 years I personally believe it's building toward a short sharp conflict over something like Taiwan, North Korea, or the Ukraine in which they will try to give us a bloody nose and then open talks. Given the current apathy/dislike in the US and Western Europe toward Russia, the PRC, and most importantly the roles of the US and NATO in the world it'd be easy to see the PRC or Russians make such a calculated gamble that would be short of an all out war but at the same time demonstrate that the US is no longer a Superpower capable of contesting a Regional Power and thereby undermine any remaining confidence in our resolve to support friends and allies (think Suez in 1956 or South Vietnam in 1975).
    With cold war tensions gone and mutual annihilation off the table (in the public's mind) the threat of a limited war with a Regional Power is actually more likely than before.
    I agree well with this.

    The adversaries have those same 'shiny toys' and if they gain a qualitative edge of significance they will likely demonstrate it. Until then they'll use Revolutionary Warfare with "polite people" in crimea and patriotic fishermen in the South China Sea and off the Senkaku Islands to ensure that if/when we need to defend ourselves it will initially be portrayed as us attacking civilians without cause.
    Whatever the potential capabilities of Russian or Chinese conventional force in the future, their use will remain a high-risk, high-cost proposition that detracts from their other vectors (diplomacy, economics, asymmetric war). If they can get their way in a situation by other means - which they almost certainly can - then they will shun direct confrontation. The one countervailing motivation could be that the buildup of goodies gives certain hawks a hard-on for blowing their load (Buck Turgidson syndrome), and they become a dominant faction over more patient and realistic types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    i don't understand? :)
    He claims that pooled efforts with limited budget synergy is nonsense, and opposing forward deployment of EU member forces to bypass mobility challenges because it may increase vulnerability is nonsense.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  3. #3
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    3,016

    Default Re: Future of the European Union

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Whatever the potential capabilities of Russian or Chinese conventional force in the future, their use will remain a high-risk, high-cost proposition that detracts from their other vectors (diplomacy, economics, asymmetric war). If they can get their way in a situation by other means - which they almost certainly can - then they will shun direct confrontation. The one countervailing motivation could be that the buildup of goodies gives certain hawks a hard-on for blowing their load (Buck Turgidson syndrome), and they become a dominant faction over more patient and realistic types.
    The countervailing motivation is the one that I'm worried about. Both Russia and the PRC play the victim card a lot for domestic consumption and one day those people that really want revenge for the past will be in a position to make those decisions. That desire for revenge against "The West" will probably force a war for domestic politics despite cooler heads advising otherwise. That combined with their common view that the West is weak and degenerate and would fold easily at the first significant blood letting could blunder them into a war. Sorta like Saddam didn't think Bush would invade without the backing of the UN Security Council causing him to try and bluff or Hitler thinking that France and Britain wouldn't go to war over Danzig. Jingoism, revanchism, and nationalism make for good domestic propaganda until that forces politicians to go to war for fear of looking weak.

    To the main point of the thread however in relation to the EU. What type of EU military or European national militaries would you think appropriate for the return of Russia and hard power?

    Interesting read on one way, though I don't think Germany is really fit to lead an EU military for obvious WWII memories related reasons (for reasons of political will):
    Germany Is Quietly Building a European Army Under Its Command
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/...r-its-command/
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Every few years, the idea of an EU army finds its way back into the news, causing a kerfuffle. The concept is both fantasy and bogeyman: For every federalist in Brussels who thinks a common defense force is what Europe needs to boost its standing in the world, there are those in London and elsewhere who recoil at the notion of a potential NATO rival.

    But this year, far from the headlines, Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, quietly took a radical step down a path toward something that looks like an EU army while avoiding the messy politics associated with it: They announced the integration of their armed forces.

    Romania’s entire military won’t join the Bundeswehr, nor will the Czech armed forces become a mere German subdivision. But in the next several months each country will integrate one brigade into the German armed forces: Romania’s 81st Mechanized Brigade will join the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division, while the Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, which has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo and is considered the Czech Army’s spearhead force, will become part of the Germans’ 10th Armored Division. In doing so, they’ll follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr’s 1st Armored Division. According to Carlo Masala, a professor of international politics at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, “The German government is showing that it’s willing to proceed with European military integration” — even if others on the continent aren’t yet.

    European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has repeatedly floated the idea of an EU army, only to be met with either ridicule or awkward silence. That remains the case even as the U.K., a perennial foe of the idea, is on its way out of the union. There’s little agreement among remaining member states over what exactly such a force would look like and which capabilities national armed forces would give up as a result. And so progress has been slow going. This March, the European Union created a joint military headquarters — but it’s only in charge of training missions in Somalia, Mali, and the Central African Republic and has a meager staff of 30. Other multinational concepts have been designed, such as the Nordic Battle Group, a small 2,400-troop rapid reaction force formed by the Baltic states and several Nordic countries and the Netherlands, and Britain’s Joint Expeditionary Force, a “mini-NATO” whose members include the Baltic states, Sweden, and Finland. But in the absence of suitable deployment opportunities, such operations-based teams may as well not exist.

    But under the bland label of the Framework Nations Concept, Germany has been at work on something far more ambitious — the creation of what is essentially a Bundeswehr-led network of European miniarmies. “The initiative came out of the weakness of the Bundeswehr,” said Justyna Gotkowska, a Northern Europe security analyst at Poland’s Centre for Eastern Studies think tank. “The Germans realized that the Bundeswehr needed to fill gaps in its land forces … in order to gain political and military influence within NATO.” An assist from junior partners may be Germany’s best shot at bulking out its military quickly — and German-led miniarmies may be Europe’s most realistic option if it’s to get serious about joint security. “It’s an attempt to prevent joint European security from completely failing,” Masala said.

    “Gaps” in the Bundeswehr is an understatement. In 1989, the West German government spent 2.7 percent of GDP on defense, but by 2000 spending had dropped to 1.4 percent, where it remained for years. Indeed, between 2013 and 2016 defense spending was stuck at 1.2 percent — far from NATO’s 2 percent benchmark. In a 2014 report to the Bundestag, the German parliament, the Bundeswehr’s inspectors-general presented a woeful picture: Most of the Navy’s helicopters were not working, and of the Army’s 64 helicopters, only 18 were usable. And while the Cold War Bundeswehr had consisted of 370,000 troops, by last summer it was only 176,015 men and women strong.

    Since then the Bundeswehr has grown to more than 178,000 active-duty troops; last year the government increased funding by 4.2 percent, and this year defense spending will grow by 8 percent. But Germany still lags far behind France and the U.K. as a military power. And boosting defense spending is not uncontroversial in Germany, which is wary of its history as a military power. Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel recently said it was “completely unrealistic” to think that Germany would reach NATO’s defense spending benchmark of 2 percent of GDP — even though nearly all of Germany’s allies, from smaller European countries to the United States, are urging it to play a larger military role in the world.

    Germany may not yet have the political will to expand its military forces on the scale that many are hoping for — but what it has had since 2013 is the Framework Nations Concept. For Germany, the idea is to share its resources with smaller countries in exchange for the use of their troops. For these smaller countries, the initiative is a way of getting Germany more involved in European security while sidestepping the tricky politics of Germany military expansion.
    “It’s a move towards more European military independence,” Masala said. “The U.K. and France are not available to take a lead in European security” — the U.K. is on a collision course with its EU allies, while France, a military heavyweight, has often been a reluctant participant in multinational efforts within NATO. “That leaves Germany,” he said. Operationally, the resulting binational units are more deployable because they’re permanent (most multinational units have so far been ad hoc). Crucially for the junior partners, it also amplifies their military muscle. And should Germany decide to deploy an integrated unit, it could only do so with the junior partner’s consent.
    Of course, since 1945 Germany has been extraordinarily reluctant to deploy its military abroad, until 1990 even barring the Bundeswehr from foreign deployments. Indeed, junior partners — and potential junior partners — hope that the Framework Nations arrangement will make Germany take on more responsibility for European security. So far, Germany and its multinational miniarmies remain only that: small-scale initiatives, far removed from a full-fledged European army. But the initiative is likely to grow. Germany’s partners have been touting the practical benefits of integration: For Romania and the Czech Republic, it means bringing their troops to the same level of training as the German military; for the Netherlands, it has meant regaining tank capabilities. (The Dutch had sold the last of their tanks in 2011, but the 43rd Mechanized Brigade’s troops, who are partially based with the 1st Armored Division in the western German city of Oldenburg, now drive the Germans’ tanks and could use them if deployed with the rest of the Dutch army.) Col. Anthony Leuvering, the 43rd Mechanized’s Oldenburg-based commander, told me that the integration has had remarkably few hiccups. “The Bundeswehr has some 180,000 personnel, but they don’t treat us like an underdog,” he said. He expects more countries to jump on the bandwagon: “Many, many countries want to cooperate with the Bundeswehr.” The Bundeswehr, in turn, has a list of junior partners in mind, said Robin Allers, a German associate professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies who has seen the German military’s list. According to Masala, the Scandinavian countries — which already use a large amount of German-made equipment — would be the best candidates for the Bundeswehr’s next round of integration.

    So far, the low-profile and ad hoc approach of the Framework Nations Concept has worked to its advantage; few people in Europe have objected to the integration of Dutch or Romanian units into German divisions, partly because they may not have noticed. Whether there will be political repercussions should more nations sign up to the initiative is less clear.

    Outside of politics, the real test of the Framework Nations’ value will be the integrated units’ success in combat. But the trickiest part of integration, on the battlefield and off, may turn out to be finding a lingua franca. Should troops learn each other’s languages? Or should the junior partner speak German? The German-speaking Dutch Col. Leuvering reports that the binational Oldenburg division is moving toward using English.
    Last edited by spmetla; 05-29-2018 at 03:17.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Future of the European Union

    To the main point of the thread however in relation to the EU. What type of EU military or European national militaries would you think appropriate for the return of Russia and hard power?
    TBH, I don't know or care enough to give a good answer. Part of it has to wedge into the political and logistical vulnerability of Russo-Chinese aggression: they probably can't hold foreign land for long. Course that comes down on the post-invasion side of things.

    How does emerging tech come into it? Ultimately (unfortunately) autonomous weapons systems won't be foreclosed as an avenue of research, at least not by the US and China. The thought of furious citizen resistance might cow any adversarial administration, but if you can just exterminate them with some drone-bombs...
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  5. #5

    Default Re: Future of the European Union

    Merkel thinks we're all flacked.

    Instead, she wanted to talk about the Peace of Augsburg, signed in 1555.

    The chancellor has made frequent excursions into history lately. Indeed, the Peace of Augsburg also came up four weeks ago during her visit to the residence of the German ambassador in Washington. The treaty initiated a 60-year phase of peace between Protestants and Catholics after the bloody turmoil of the Reformation and it initially seemed as though people had finally come to their senses. But that image turned out to be a deceptive one. In 1618, a war began unlike any the Continent had ever seen before. By the time the inferno ended 30 years later, large parts of Germany had been depopulated and many cities left in ruins.

    To Merkel, the Peace of Augsburg is much more than some distant historical date. Rather, it is a warning of just how thin the varnish covering civilization really is.
    Donald Trump? For her, he is a man who has turned back the historical clock to zero hour and casts doubt on everything that has united the West for decades: NATO, trade agreements and the United Nations.
    [...]
    Vladimir Putin? A president who was once full of admiration for the West's performance, but at some point realized he would never be able to trigger an economic turnaround in his country and is now fully committed to brute force and repression, in Ukraine, in Syria and in Russia itself.

    China? Proof that it is not impossible to reconcile a dictatorship with a market economy. Europe? Quarrelling, weakened by Brexit and paralyzed by agonizingly long decision-making procedures.
    In the fall of 2016, Merkel evidently seriously considered withdrawing from politics. People she spoke to at the time say it was almost painful to see how coldly and soberly Merkel assessed her own situation -- the hatred she now provokes and the weariness that a long run as chancellor inevitably brings with it, especially in the age of instantaneous new media.

    If Hillary Clinton had won the election in the U.S., Merkel would not have run again, says one person who speaks with her on an almost daily basis.
    Merkel, it was said after Trump's election, had become the leader of the free world. But that's nonsense. She's a hardworking politician who has been around for ages and everyone knows her -- from the Saudi crown prince to Li Xi, the party secretary of Guangdong Province, with whom she had lunch a week ago Friday. They all appreciate her detailed knowledge, intelligence and patience. Yet like any leader who has been in office for a long time, Merkel is particularly good at explaining what is not possible.
    In her thoughts, Merkel is actually more revolutionary. She feels everything needs to move much faster, in Europe and in Germany, which can't even manage to build an airport in its capital city -- in stark contrast to a China that can build entire metropolises from scratch within just a few years. During her trips to China, there is always a hint of appreciations for the Chinese government, which isn't burdened by protracted planning approval procedures and where no politician is forced to laboriously explain himself to the citizens. China is governed from the top down.

    Something has to happen, Merkel said with concern as she traveled back to Berlin, impressed by the drive of Beijing's leaders. And then, in the same breath, she went on to explain why nothing could happen: because her hands are tied by German federalism, by the center-left Social Democrats in her government, and by the CSU, which often acts as more of an adversary than as a sister party.

    Merkel says she doesn't lead by speeches and appeals. She acts as if it's a German virtue to reach your goal without much talk. But the truth is that she shirks the work of finding the right words to rally people around ideas that don't yet have majority support. Could Brandt's détente policy have existed were it not for great speeches? Or German reunification? One of the traits of the late Merkel era is that the chancellor's own silence fuels the very apathy that she so deeply laments.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  6. #6
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Future of the European Union

    "Vigorous" empires generally focus on the results they want and frankly bulldoze through changes that are good overall and ignore (or perhaps compensate) those whose lives are ruined. Be that the Romans, the British, the USA, China,

    Then when things start to become sclerotic they invariably are eclipsed by others - China is not overly concerned with getting everything right and having endless meetings and consultations of every wrongdoing. They just get on with it; in the UK this was a pretty similar mindset to the Victorians where projects were completed with a loss of life we would not countenance today.

    That could well then lead to the fact there appear to be few "big ideas" at the moment in Europe. Pride in anything might upset some group somewhere and so fear of making a decision leads to indecision and stagnation.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  7. #7
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Future of the European Union

    I wasn't aware that Merkel had any ideas.

    Also, shirk should be the word that describes scratching your fingernails on a chalkboard.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO