a) it is a waste of money for a capability that already exists. what the eu collective lacks is power projection, where is the airlift, where is the sealift, where are the carriers, outside of britain and france where is there any real ability to support a significant force out-of-area. all of these things are way more important than penis waving with the US. where does kim-il-jung come into this, really? as to budgets, <5.0% of government spending on defence is still very little given that this is the first duty of the nation state.
b) it is a defensive arrangement and does not guide and control foreign policy.
c) america would very much like a europe that could pull its weight in international affairs, so what are you proving with all that excessive verbiage?
Bookmarks