|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 30, 2019 12:02:40 GMT
I think the ERG are being hard nosed to force another referendum or a straight failure of Brexit so we just stay. Simple tactic, hard nosed and frighten the populace by continually blabbing about how they will not budge. It does not help that parliament is working with them on this, at least to a degree. The policy of the EU has always been to spoil and stop Brexit, if we leave, who will be next. Hard to take this 100% seriously but there is a lot of promotion for the federal state being pushed by the German and French leadership, including the standing EU military which is something the Russians are worried about too. Umm...the ERG is pro-Brexit (it's the lot Rees-Mogg "leads"), so I think you have your wires crossed.
And of course that it is the EU's policy. Why wouldn't it be? And why shouldn't it be.
You do have a remarkable fixation with this notion of a standing EU military, which is one of those things which is oft-discussed (mostly in response to Trumpish threats to NATO) but not actually at any real risk of materialising any time soon. So to favour Brexit on that basis is a bit like calling a ratcatcher to your home because somebody thinks they saw a rat in the nextdoor village.
And lastly anything that the Russians don't like on the military front sounds to me like something to be encouraged. Ask yourself: why does Putin want Trump to pull the US out of NATO? Why does Putin not like the idea of a EU-wide defence force?
It's because Putin, not content with ruling being a country that stretches from the edge of Europe to Alaska, would like very much to regain sovereignty over at least the bits of eastern and central Europe that Russia lost in the last decades of the 20th century and deems rightfully his own. And since the populations of such countries largely have grim memories of the USSR and are not keen on losing their independence, there is really only a military solution to that, which becomes much more possible if there is no NATO and no substitute for NATO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 17:48:34 GMT
RE the ERG, sorry I slipped up there. Ukraine is waiting for the right conditions to join the EU and there have been exercises with NATO units in Poland which makes the paranoid in Russia worried to say the least. How many invasions from the east into Russia? Any EU military budget will come from EU funding and the French/Germans will want to reduce THEIR exposure in this, they have failed their NATO obligations for a very long time now. A standing EU military with no command chain to the nation of any units involved so the EU parliament will use their majority to over rule anyone who cares to disagree whereas Nat has to have a collegial vote or no potato's. It is logical for the Russians or the rest of the CFSR to be more than a little concerned about that.
Sorry about that ERG thing I messed up. Again.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 30, 2019 20:37:07 GMT
Little in life is certain but I feel justified in asserting that Europe is not ever going to collectively decide to invade Russia in the foreseeable future. The Kremlin is sophisticated enough to know that perfectly well. That Napoleon and Hitler did has absolutely zero bearing on matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 23:33:50 GMT
But the paranoid Russians and Russian speakers in the Ukraine have already acted. I know you will not believe that but the level of 'persuasion' aimed by Russia at the Ukraine to stay away from the eu is huge. It does have an effect whatever is thought here.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 31, 2019 8:59:13 GMT
It would be extremely foolish for Ukraine to be encouraged to join the EU. By all means encourage closer links and ties but I see no value to be gained by provoking Russia to that degree.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 31, 2019 9:34:16 GMT
What about freedom of choice though - if Ukraine want to join for valid economic reasons then let them. Russia shouldn't be pandered to any more than the US should.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Jan 31, 2019 10:01:45 GMT
Nor should the EU, which was as much responsible for the Ukrainian crisis as Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 31, 2019 10:11:08 GMT
Ok, hadn't looked into what happened there beyond the knowledge that the Russkis actually partially invaded. Although that does seem a bit more drastic than anything the EU appear to have done
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 31, 2019 10:13:49 GMT
This is the worst thing about the Brexit debate, it has pushed the notion that the EU is some wonderful utopian organisation that can do no wrong. That is absolute nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 31, 2019 11:15:57 GMT
I'm sure not many people think like that.
I do wonder why nobody anywhere appeared to do much to try to stop the expansion the controlling instincts of the EU 20-30 years ago though. It worked fine as a trading block but, in my mind at least, the Jacques Delors era is sort of where it has gone beyond what, I imagine, a lot of the 'real' people around Europe would probably want.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Jan 31, 2019 11:20:23 GMT
I think the ERG are being hard nosed to force another referendum or a straight failure of Brexit so we just stay. Simple tactic, hard nosed and frighten the populace by continually blabbing about how they will not budge. It does not help that parliament is working with them on this, at least to a degree. The policy of the EU has always been to spoil and stop Brexit, if we leave, who will be next. Hard to take this 100% seriously but there is a lot of promotion for the federal state being pushed by the German and French leadership, including the standing EU military which is something the Russians are worried about too. Umm...the ERG is pro-Brexit (it's the lot Rees-Mogg "leads"), so I think you have your wires crossed.
And of course that it is the EU's policy. Why wouldn't it be? And why shouldn't it be.
You do have a remarkable fixation with this notion of a standing EU military, which is one of those things which is oft-discussed (mostly in response to Trumpish threats to NATO) but not actually at any real risk of materialising any time soon. So to favour Brexit on that basis is a bit like calling a ratcatcher to your home because somebody thinks they saw a rat in the nextdoor village.
And lastly anything that the Russians don't like on the military front sounds to me like something to be encouraged. Ask yourself: why does Putin want Trump to pull the US out of NATO? Why does Putin not like the idea of a EU-wide defence force?
It's because Putin, not content with ruling being a country that stretches from the edge of Europe to Alaska, would like very much to regain sovereignty over at least the bits of eastern and central Europe that Russia lost in the last decades of the 20th century and deems rightfully his own. And since the populations of such countries largely have grim memories of the USSR and are not keen on losing their independence, there is really only a military solution to that, which becomes much more possible if there is no NATO and no substitute for NATO.
PESCO PESCO is both a permanent framework for closer cooperation and a structured process to gradually deepen defence cooperation within the Union framework. It will be a driver for integration in the field of defence.
Each participating Member State provides a plan for the national contributions and efforts they have agreed to make. These national implementation plans are subject to regular assessment. This is different from the
voluntary approach that is currently the rule within the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.
PESCO is designed to contribute to making European defence more efficient and to deliver more output by providing enhanced coordination and collaboration in the areas of investment, capability development and
operational readiness. Permanent structured cooperation in this domain will allow decreasing the number
of different weapons’ systems in Europe, and therefore strengthen operational cooperation among Member
States, connect their forces through increased interoperability and enhance industrial competitiveness. PESCO will help reinforce the EU’s strategic autonomy to act alone when necessary and with partners whenever possible. Whilst PESCO is underpinned by the idea that sovereignty can be better exercised when working together, national sovereignty remains effectively untouched. Military capacities developed within PESCO remain in the hands of Member States that can also make them available in other contexts such as NATO or the UN. Not directly an EU army, but a bloody great leap towards Verhofstadt's dream.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 14:55:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 31, 2019 20:04:33 GMT
I know you will not believe that but the level of 'persuasion' aimed by Russia at the Ukraine to stay away from the eu is huge. It does have an effect whatever is thought here. ??
I know that very well! But I don't agree that the cause is EU meddling. Rather, it is a mess of Ukraine's own making (or at least of the making of a former president who thought he was being clever).
Ukraine became a sovereign state. Russia had no choice at the time. Russia put pressure on Ukraine to effectively become a Russian vassal state. Ukraine objected. Russia rigged an election, poisoned the candidate they didn't favour and got their corrupt crony installed. He however decided to makes advances to the EU in a game of brinksmanship aimed at getting a better deal from Russia. That backfired badly on him. He was deposed and replaced by an anti-Russian, pro-EU government. The Russians took it badly, annexed the Crimea and sent their LGM into the east of Ukraine where there are a lot of ethnic Russians, and we end up where we are.
The critical bit is in bold. Ukraine made the advances to the EU, not the other way around, and it was Viktor Yanukovych who made them. Unfortunately, quite a chunk of the Ukrainian population liked the idea of closer ties with the EU rather than Russia, and it proved impossible to put that particular genie back in its bottle.
Sure it was naïve of the EU to think Russia would be pleased because I grant you that the Kremlin is paranoid. But I always take the view that where one person is paranoid about the risk of another person doing something, it's because they think that other person will do that which they themselves would do in that other person's position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 21:25:18 GMT
The eu have an active and ill defined desire to expand which some states have opposed without success, yes I know about the Ukrainian situation, there were a few Ukrainians on another site I am a member of but they have not been heard from for several years now. No point in wondering whether one or the other would do something if the boot was on the other foot. The situation is as it is. Russians are a paranoid nationality and Putin know how to keep them stoked up
If you add Ukraine to the eu states, how does that look to the Russians? Not hard to see where a nationalistic Putin can have his cake and eat it, especially with the new equipment coming on stream over the next few years. If Ukraine had not been cut in half, how far to Moscow? The eu are sleepwalking towards a massive federal state that was originally denied but has recently been accepted as desireable by the French and German leadership especially when you consider how they will not have to meet their NATO commitments and they are already using Belgian and Dutch units to field proper army maneuver brigades of armour and infantry. So we have ignorance on both the eu and Russian side, is that going to be a comfort when it hits the fan?
Yes there was collusion on Putin's side when it came to the Ukraine but if the eu big heads were so smart, why walk into that one with both eyes wide open?
Federal state. It's what a lot of the leaders of larger nations want regardless of the cost.
This lighting designer was not an 'arse/leg' man.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 1, 2019 11:45:37 GMT
Nice tits.
But as regards the above image? It conveniently ignores how tiny that is to Russia!
And the notion that Moscow being close to the European border is somehow relevant is disingenuous. That's relevant to a 19th century mindset surely discredited by the strategic military disasters committed in the 20th century during both world wars by military commanders still stuck with a notion of battle being fought on the ground by men.
Europe, standing army or otherwise, isn't going to attack Russia. Russia is too big and has much too large and powerful a military (which also has a vast stockpile of nuclear arms). Martin Selmayr and his ilk are not the next Napoleon or Hitler.
The Kremlin knows this perfectly well. They just don't like having neighbours that they can't push around for their own gain. That's why they have always had an uneasy relationship with China.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 12:44:25 GMT
The image reference is that it takes two tits, Russia and the eu. Never underestimate the power of paranoia. Especially with Putin and his merry band. The eu going superstate/federal is still a mistake but is still on the cards.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 1, 2019 12:45:56 GMT
I doubt the Yankees nuclear missile announcement today is going to help the situation any.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 1, 2019 13:48:07 GMT
The image reference is that it takes two tits, Russia and the eu. Never underestimate the power of paranoia. Especially with Putin and his merry band. The eu going superstate/federal is still a mistake but is still on the cards. So, it's a mistake because of what?
It provokes Russia into an invasion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 16:21:28 GMT
The eu does not have to give Putin the reason to stir up his people. There is no good reason to grow the eu out of control and the federal eu that is coming along with the stated aim of a federal military which will have no control by individual states, especially so once the national veto has (as has been stated by juncker) been removed. The eu should have remained a trading group and left it at that. And no movement of the eu parliament twice a year wasting millions either. Or any of the other wasted drains.
I do not respect the eu or the people at the head of it and that is no secret. Not out of pettiness or spite but because I cannot stand what they do and I am not alone in this.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Feb 2, 2019 10:53:46 GMT
I doubt the Yankees nuclear missile announcement today is going to help the situation any. Funny how America saying they will withdraw from the treaty is provocation, but Russia actually ignoring the treaty and building new intermediate range missiles isn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 12:22:11 GMT
The Russians have at last openly stated they will ignore it rather than developing these weapons on the QT. Now everyone knows.
|
|