Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
Someone may be able to to correct me but I'm sure the last time this came up for discussion that there is no suitable dock in England. It would take decades to convert the most suitable and it would be too close to home.surrey_commuter said:
why would they not be more irrelevant? could we not just move the boats?ballysmate said:
Unless I misread Rick's post, I thought he said they probably should be a superpower.surrey_commuter said:
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.
The SNP were an example of anti nuclear feeling and to show that there is not overwhelming support of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that they would become less irrelevant if they managed to secure 51% in any referendum.
There are reasons for it being where it is, and it wasn't to give the jocks jobs.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
This is true. It is thought they would have to relocate to the East coast US of A. until facilities could be built.pblakeney said:
Someone may be able to to correct me but I'm sure the last time this came up for discussion that there is no suitable dock in England. It would take decades to convert the most suitable and it would be too close to home.surrey_commuter said:
why would they not be more irrelevant? could we not just move the boats?ballysmate said:
Unless I misread Rick's post, I thought he said they probably should be a superpower.surrey_commuter said:
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.
The SNP were an example of anti nuclear feeling and to show that there is not overwhelming support of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that they would become less irrelevant if they managed to secure 51% in any referendum.
There are reasons for it being where it is, and it wasn't to give the jocks jobs.0 -
Perhaps I phrased it clumsily. I was saying that the US navy has the 3rd largest air force in the world. Not that it is the 3rd largest navy.rick_chasey said:
Well yes one follows the other.ballysmate said:You say the US is dwindling in importance, but militarily, Europe is light years behind. For instance, the US has the largest air force in the world and the US navy has the 3rd largest. It would take decades of eyewatering spending before Europe could begin to catch up.
The EU wasn't even invited to the talks concerning Ukraine, a country right on its border.. Russia dealt solely with the US in Geneva and with Nato in Brussels. And the only reason that Nato got a look in was because of the huge contribution made by the US.
Europe (collectively) is not a military superpower so no, why would it be invited? What about the Afgan withdrawal would make anyone think European powers have a say at the global table. The caveat is that all the main European powers are part of NATO which is led by the US but we both get that.
My point is Europe probably should and both Trump and Putin ought to be catalysts for changing that.
It is expensive, but security is, right? I'm open to alternative arguments.
(I'd also point out that most people would say the US Navy is the #1 naval power with few challengers - China is coming up the curve but is not there yet),
0 -
I think RC's view is a little out of date.ballysmate said:Why is it understandable? It has been argued on here that the war was a long time ago and people should let it go when anti German feeling was expressed in other threads. Likewise, the Germans can no longer use it as an excuse to not pay their way.
Unless of course they are afraid that they will wake up one morning and be unable to supress their irrational urge to march on Poland.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
How do you do that then? Get the Germans to buy the RAF or French Air Force some planes?surrey_commuter said:I agree with Rick that Europe needs to build a force to deter Russian aggression but if they/we are going to pull together for the collective good then why not allow the Germans to largely fund it without building up their own military.
Whilst I do not believe that Russia can launch an attack of 175,000 troops we would still need battle groups tens of thousands strong to act as an effective deterrent. If we stacked them all up in Ukraine what is to stop him driving over the Baltics in a couple of hours? Maybe the solution is centred around a massively powerful airforce.
Whilst Putin is power hungry it is also worth understanding the Russian psyche. They have never invaded the West whereas the West has regularly invaded them.
I doubt Putin has the funding and the Russian people the resolve to invade and hold Ukraine which is why he is bvggering around with separatists.
Plus how would you feel about Germans paying SC Jnr to go to war whilst Bavaria Commuter Jnr stayed safe in his bed?
0 -
They used to be. Not any more. However the combined airpower of the USA is unmatchable. Then again, a high number of the aircraft are logistical, so only good for shunting troops and materiel about (C-130 variants, C-17, C-5, KC-135, KC-10, KC-46 etc etc) and I'm not sure if they include all the mothballed / regeneration stuff in the huge boneyard at Davis Monthan.ballysmate said:Perhaps I phrased it clumsily. I was saying that the US Navy has the 3rd largest air force in the world. Not that it is the 3rd largest navy.
Top 10 Largest Military Branches in the World (by number of Military Aircraft) - Flight International 2022:
United States Air Force - 5,217
United States Army Aviation - 4,409
Russian Air Force - 3,863
United States Navy - 2,464
People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991
Indian Air Force - 1,715
United States Marine Corps - 1,157
Egyptian Air Force - 1,062
Korean People's Army Air Force (North Korea) - 946
South Korean Air Force - 898
Top 10 Nations with the Most Military Aircraft (All Branches Combined) - Flight International 2022:
United States - 13,247 (5,217 Air Force, 4,409 Army, 2,464 Navy, 1,157 Marines)
Russia - 4,173 (3,863 Air Force, 310 Navy)
China - 3,285 (1,991 Air Force, 857 Army, 437 Navy)
India - 2,186 (1,715 Air Force, 232 Army, 239 Navy)
South Korea - 1,595 (898 Air Force, 611 Army, 69 Navy, 17 Marines)
Japan - 1,449 (746 Air Force, 392 Army, 311 Navy)
Pakistan - 1,386 (810 Air Force, 544 Army, 32 Navy)
Egypt - 1,062 (1,053 Air Force)
Turkey - 1,057 (612 Air Force, 398 Army, 47 Navy)
France - 1,055 (570 Air Force, 306 Army, 179 Navy)
0 -
@thegreatdivide
I stand corrected, but hopefully people get the point.1 -
An option would be to use the EU machinery for leverage, but I sense people like yourself in the respective countries wouldn't appreciate that.ballysmate said:
How do you do that then? Get the Germans to buy the RAF or French Air Force some planes?surrey_commuter said:I agree with Rick that Europe needs to build a force to deter Russian aggression but if they/we are going to pull together for the collective good then why not allow the Germans to largely fund it without building up their own military.
Whilst I do not believe that Russia can launch an attack of 175,000 troops we would still need battle groups tens of thousands strong to act as an effective deterrent. If we stacked them all up in Ukraine what is to stop him driving over the Baltics in a couple of hours? Maybe the solution is centred around a massively powerful airforce.
Whilst Putin is power hungry it is also worth understanding the Russian psyche. They have never invaded the West whereas the West has regularly invaded them.
I doubt Putin has the funding and the Russian people the resolve to invade and hold Ukraine which is why he is bvggering around with separatists.
Plus how would you feel about Germans paying SC Jnr to go to war whilst Bavaria Commuter Jnr stayed safe in his bed?0 -
So the UK would be outside this European alliance then, making it weaker still.rick_chasey said:
An option would be to use the EU machinery for leverage, but I sense people like yourself in the respective countries wouldn't appreciate that.ballysmate said:
How do you do that then? Get the Germans to buy the RAF or French Air Force some planes?surrey_commuter said:I agree with Rick that Europe needs to build a force to deter Russian aggression but if they/we are going to pull together for the collective good then why not allow the Germans to largely fund it without building up their own military.
Whilst I do not believe that Russia can launch an attack of 175,000 troops we would still need battle groups tens of thousands strong to act as an effective deterrent. If we stacked them all up in Ukraine what is to stop him driving over the Baltics in a couple of hours? Maybe the solution is centred around a massively powerful airforce.
Whilst Putin is power hungry it is also worth understanding the Russian psyche. They have never invaded the West whereas the West has regularly invaded them.
I doubt Putin has the funding and the Russian people the resolve to invade and hold Ukraine which is why he is bvggering around with separatists.
Plus how would you feel about Germans paying SC Jnr to go to war whilst Bavaria Commuter Jnr stayed safe in his bed?
Still can't see how you get around the notion of German money paying for other countries' youngsters to do the fighting.0 -
I see it as a combined fighting force based on the USMC structure. Us ad the French can put in the hardware and technical knowhow and the Germans the money to recruit the dregs of society from around the globe along the lines of the French Foreign Legion but speaking Englishballysmate said:
How do you do that then? Get the Germans to buy the RAF or French Air Force some planes?surrey_commuter said:I agree with Rick that Europe needs to build a force to deter Russian aggression but if they/we are going to pull together for the collective good then why not allow the Germans to largely fund it without building up their own military.
Whilst I do not believe that Russia can launch an attack of 175,000 troops we would still need battle groups tens of thousands strong to act as an effective deterrent. If we stacked them all up in Ukraine what is to stop him driving over the Baltics in a couple of hours? Maybe the solution is centred around a massively powerful airforce.
Whilst Putin is power hungry it is also worth understanding the Russian psyche. They have never invaded the West whereas the West has regularly invaded them.
I doubt Putin has the funding and the Russian people the resolve to invade and hold Ukraine which is why he is bvggering around with separatists.
Plus how would you feel about Germans paying SC Jnr to go to war whilst Bavaria Commuter Jnr stayed safe in his bed?0 -
Not necessarily. UK can quite easily team up with an EU force - remember they are already aligned from a NATO perspective which has nothing to do with the EU.ballysmate said:
So the UK would be outside this European alliance then, making it weaker still.rick_chasey said:
An option would be to use the EU machinery for leverage, but I sense people like yourself in the respective countries wouldn't appreciate that.ballysmate said:
How do you do that then? Get the Germans to buy the RAF or French Air Force some planes?surrey_commuter said:I agree with Rick that Europe needs to build a force to deter Russian aggression but if they/we are going to pull together for the collective good then why not allow the Germans to largely fund it without building up their own military.
Whilst I do not believe that Russia can launch an attack of 175,000 troops we would still need battle groups tens of thousands strong to act as an effective deterrent. If we stacked them all up in Ukraine what is to stop him driving over the Baltics in a couple of hours? Maybe the solution is centred around a massively powerful airforce.
Whilst Putin is power hungry it is also worth understanding the Russian psyche. They have never invaded the West whereas the West has regularly invaded them.
I doubt Putin has the funding and the Russian people the resolve to invade and hold Ukraine which is why he is bvggering around with separatists.
Plus how would you feel about Germans paying SC Jnr to go to war whilst Bavaria Commuter Jnr stayed safe in his bed?
Still can't see how you get around the notion of German money paying for other countries' youngsters to do the fighting.
It's more if Europe wants to take security seriously (and I'd argue they don't really), then you could, if you wanted, use the EU machinery to lean on certain countries to pull their weight, though granted it is a longshot.0 -
Which EU state or person would have the launch button. Which EU nation would be happy if it was not their guy.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.0 -
"A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought" so no buttons required.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/p5-statement-on-preventing-nuclear-war-and-avoiding-arms-races/
Mind you, Israel, India, Pakistan, S Africa, Elon Musk et al ain't signatories so....0 -
In true eu style, the launch button would get passed around every 6 months. What that means for nuclear non proliferation I don't know. At some stage the military powerhouse such as Malta gets to launch a nuclear missile.john80 said:
Which EU state or person would have the launch button. Which EU nation would be happy if it was not their guy.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.0 -
If a place like Russia is hit with a load of nukes. They have the land to relocate, we'd be screwed though, I don't think we would all fit on the Isle of white.orraloon said:"A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought" so no buttons required.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/p5-statement-on-preventing-nuclear-war-and-avoiding-arms-races/
Mind you, Israel, India, Pakistan, S Africa, Elon Musk et al ain't signatories so....
0 -
The Isle of Wight which is near naval bases?focuszing723 said:
If a place like Russia is hit with a load of nukes. They have the land to relocate, we'd be screwed though, I don't think we would all fit on the Isle of white.orraloon said:"A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought" so no buttons required.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/p5-statement-on-preventing-nuclear-war-and-avoiding-arms-races/
Mind you, Israel, India, Pakistan, S Africa, Elon Musk et al ain't signatories so....
Look further.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Tim Marshall has written a couple of good books on geo-politics and his latest touches on the UK nuclear subs.surrey_commuter said:
why would they not be more irrelevant? could we not just move the boats?ballysmate said:
Unless I misread Rick's post, I thought he said they probably should be a superpower.surrey_commuter said:
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.
The SNP were an example of anti nuclear feeling and to show that there is not overwhelming support of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that they would become less irrelevant if they managed to secure 51% in any referendum.
There is no alternative location in the UK at present and it would take at least a decade to build somewhere. You then have the issue that no where else is as good a location either.0 -
White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?0 -
I think somebody already suggested the East Coast of AmericaDorset_Boy said:
Tim Marshall has written a couple of good books on geo-politics and his latest touches on the UK nuclear subs.surrey_commuter said:
why would they not be more irrelevant? could we not just move the boats?ballysmate said:
Unless I misread Rick's post, I thought he said they probably should be a superpower.surrey_commuter said:
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.
The SNP were an example of anti nuclear feeling and to show that there is not overwhelming support of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that they would become less irrelevant if they managed to secure 51% in any referendum.
There is no alternative location in the UK at present and it would take at least a decade to build somewhere. You then have the issue that no where else is as good a location either.0 -
100 troops.focuszing723 said:White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?
Hardly going to make the 100,000 Russian troops on the border worry.0 -
It's an effort, though. Is the EU making moves? It's akin to Covid, when the going gets tough it fractures, Brussels isn't heard just the independent Countries.rick_chasey said:
100 troops.focuszing723 said:White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?
Hardly going to make the 100,000 Russian troops on the border worry.0 -
Stark words of warning from the senior EU diplomat I've just been speaking to off the record about current tensions with Moscow, over its huge military build-up on the border with Ukraine.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60030615
The mood in Brussels is jumpy. There's a real fear that Europe could be spiralling towards its worst security crisis in decades.
But angst isn't wholly focused on the prospect of a long, drawn-out ground war with Russia over Ukraine.
Few here believe Moscow has the military might, never mind the money, or popular support back home for that.
True: the EU warns the Kremlin of "extreme consequences" should it take military action in neighbouring Ukraine. Germany's new Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was in Kyiv and Moscow saying just that on Monday.
Sweden moved hundreds of troops over the weekend to its strategically important Gotland island - which lies in the Baltic Sea. And Denmark strengthened its presence in the region a few days before that.
The rising tensions have also re-ignited the debate in both Finland and Sweden as to whether they should now join Nato.
But the overarching concern in the West - Washington, Nato, the UK and the EU - is less the possibility of conventional warfare over Ukraine, and far more, that Moscow is seeking to divide and destabilise Europe - shaking up the balance of continental power in the Kremlin's favour.
0 -
Not quite sure why everyone's talking about the EU.focuszing723 said:
It's an effort, though. Is the EU making moves? It's akin to Covid, when the going gets tough it fractures, Brussels isn't heard just the independent Countries.rick_chasey said:
100 troops.focuszing723 said:White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?
Hardly going to make the 100,000 Russian troops on the border worry.
All the relevant powers are in a defensive military alliance *set up specifically to deal with Russian belligerence* i.e. NATO.
EU is not a military organisation. They have a Common Security and Defence Policy, but that is much weaker than NATO.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
Not quite sure why everyone's talking about the EU.focuszing723 said:
It's an effort, though. Is the EU making moves? It's akin to Covid, when the going gets tough it fractures, Brussels isn't heard just the independent Countries.rick_chasey said:
100 troops.focuszing723 said:White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?
Hardly going to make the 100,000 Russian troops on the border worry.
All the relevant powers are in a defensive military alliance *set up specifically to deal with Russian belligerence* i.e. NATO.
EU is not a military organisation. They have a Common Security and Defence Policy, but that is much weaker than NATO.Promoting European interests and values on the global stagehttps://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/eu-priorities_en
Building a robust foreign policy based on an ambitious neighbourhood policy with 16 of its closest eastern and southern neighbours and a comprehensive partnership with Africa. Promoting global peace, stability, democracy and human rights. Ensuring a robust trade policy in line with multilateralism and the global rules-based international order. Taking greater responsibility for security and defence,while cooperating closely with NATO.0 -
Sure, but this is a NATO issue. Russia even says it is about NATO expansion.
21 of the 27 EU states are NATO members, including all the big military powers.0 -
do you not remember that in some pockets of UK society it is a widely held belief that the EU has an armyrick_chasey said:
Not quite sure why everyone's talking about the EU.focuszing723 said:
It's an effort, though. Is the EU making moves? It's akin to Covid, when the going gets tough it fractures, Brussels isn't heard just the independent Countries.rick_chasey said:
100 troops.focuszing723 said:White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?
Hardly going to make the 100,000 Russian troops on the border worry.
All the relevant powers are in a defensive military alliance *set up specifically to deal with Russian belligerence* i.e. NATO.
EU is not a military organisation. They have a Common Security and Defence Policy, but that is much weaker than NATO.0 -
The Countries within the EU have armies, and Unification is the EU's aim. The point stands, which I made about Covid. What's the point if, when the going gets tough, it fractures? Don't forget, it was created as a result of two world wars within Europe to enforce stability within the region.surrey_commuter said:
do you not remember that in some pockets of UK society it is a widely held belief that the EU has an armyrick_chasey said:
Not quite sure why everyone's talking about the EU.focuszing723 said:
It's an effort, though. Is the EU making moves? It's akin to Covid, when the going gets tough it fractures, Brussels isn't heard just the independent Countries.rick_chasey said:
100 troops.focuszing723 said:White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?
Hardly going to make the 100,000 Russian troops on the border worry.
All the relevant powers are in a defensive military alliance *set up specifically to deal with Russian belligerence* i.e. NATO.
EU is not a military organisation. They have a Common Security and Defence Policy, but that is much weaker than NATO.0 -
Biden is going to give a news conference about the situation in Ukraine at 9:00pm.0
-
Aren't there some MFs OTP having a wee R 'n' R in or around the vicinity of the zone of concern? Should mean it's all cool, grazie.0
-
As you are well aware it started off as an economic construct and then became political. All members have differing views on the right level of integration but I think it is fair to say that the formation of an EU army would not happen in the next decade, if ever.focuszing723 said:
The Countries within the EU have armies, and Unification is the EU's aim. The point stands, which I made about Covid. What's the point if, when the going gets tough, it fractures? Don't forget, it was created as a result of two world wars within Europe to enforce stability within the region.surrey_commuter said:
do you not remember that in some pockets of UK society it is a widely held belief that the EU has an armyrick_chasey said:
Not quite sure why everyone's talking about the EU.focuszing723 said:
It's an effort, though. Is the EU making moves? It's akin to Covid, when the going gets tough it fractures, Brussels isn't heard just the independent Countries.rick_chasey said:
100 troops.focuszing723 said:White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Russia could carry out an attack on Ukraine “at any point,” underscoring the immediacy of the threat should Moscow decide to take action.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590206-white-house-says-russia-could-launch-attack-in-ukraine-at-any-point
“Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters at a briefing, adding later that her language was “more stark than we have been.”British Royal Air Force planes flew around German airspace when they delivered anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine on Monday, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed.https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uk-planes-long-detour-around-germany-deliver-weapons-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In recent weeks, Ukraine has called on the likes of the US, UK, and Germany to provide military aid to help counter the buildup of Russian troops at its border. Ukraine and the US have long warned of an imminent Russian invasion.
It doesn't sound too good. We've sent some troops and arms to Ukraine, what will the EU do?
Hardly going to make the 100,000 Russian troops on the border worry.
All the relevant powers are in a defensive military alliance *set up specifically to deal with Russian belligerence* i.e. NATO.
EU is not a military organisation. They have a Common Security and Defence Policy, but that is much weaker than NATO.0
