Poland`s aid to Ukraine if Russia invades - part 8

Which of course we can do without being some sort of federation.


Your mistake is mentioning India (never entirely either a colony or British) or assuming that the better off colonies don't look towards Europe countries. And of course the richest country in NATO started off as 13 colonies of independently-minded British settlers plus a couple of territories under French and Spanish tyranny.

Against who exactly? Very little chance of China invading Europe. Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to have a federal EU army.

I dont see how. Modern warfare, particulary air defence and aircraft have become so expensive that smaller countries can hardly afford it. And the price is only rising. We cant do it now and even the war in Ukraine was motivation enough for the countries to the West of Poland to raise their defence spending accordingly. The UK, France and Germany could each field one division at best. The smaller countries could do even less.


I don't need to assume anything. I can just point to the decisions those countries have made regarding Ukraine and Israel.

They look out for their own interests and their experience with British, French, Spanish tyranny has given them no reason to like us. If anything their experience with colonialism gives them views e.g. on the Palestinians that does not alogn with ours.


A lot of people thought the same about Russia a few years ago. The Chinese have a long memory. Their government reminds them about the time Europeans colonized them and forced them to buy Opium. They see how the Europeans oppose "reunification" with Taiwan. We have given them pretext for payback, even if it is just supporting out enemies.

Did you read the actual interview in the SPIEGEL with the green grande Joschka Fischer?

Even he makes a U-turn and advocates for nuclear weapons in Germany now....can you believe it!


spiegel.de/politik/joschka-fischer-fordert-neue-atomwaffen-in-europa-a-d99f081d-b281-43c5-a167-a2c9ef2d1d83

I guess it would be easier (and alot faster) to get nukes than to become a federal union plus building a common army.....the deterrent effect would be the same, wouldn't it!

Why not? NATO and AUKUS work well enough without any of their members losing sovereignty.


The US, Canada etc?


The UK and even France already have them. Does the world need more?

That is the big question, isn't it?

Can Europe depend on the US always and forever? In ANY case? Or on the UK for that matter?

You know what the USians here on that board prefer, not to mention a future president like Trump!

A situation could always arise that the EU will need to defend itself, without depending on foreign non-EU military powers....

As long as this question can't be cleared to one hundred percent the question of a common EU army or at least a common EU defense will always be on the table!

We don't depend on them.


We always win wars when someone starts a fight against us. Never underestimate us, try to understand us or try to predict our course of action.

....but that doesn't answer the question for core Europe at all.

This mess of small and middle sized countries which all for itself would stand no chance whatsoever. To keep our chances in a steadily changing world we might not have a choice if to unify, to merge, to pool our resources!

Our viewpoint is naturally another than from the UK...

Is there such a thing?


You can pool resources without 'merging' or losing sovereignty.


Whose?

France, Germany, Poland plus assorted bordering tinies for starters :)


It will be gradual, I guess....but every command structure is also a hierarchy, an army without it wouldn't be an army and wouldn't work.


Mainland Europe? How do you call the european landmass outside the british isles? :)

And that's the issue. What about Italy, Spain?

The idea of a 'federal' Europe just repeats the problems in Europe's most successful and longest running union, the UK. With 55 million in the core part and 6 million, 3 million and 2 million, tho outside the so-called 'core' will always be considering leaving.


What about all of Europe, plus our key allies?

We call it southern Europe, I guess they would agree.....there is also nordic Europe....and eastern Europe....it's a geographic thing, not a power thing at all!


...again....mainland Europe is the landmass outside the islands....do we have a misunderstanding here? It seems so....

Why outside the islands and not GB, Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Malta, Cyprus, Azores? Why omit partners like Morocco and potentially Turkey? What about Canada?

....well...na ja.....honestly I don't see Morocco or Turkey as belonging to Europe...or Canada...*shrugs*

That's also a point FOR a common european defense....should the US back out of NATO I don't see Turkey defending us if pushes come to shove, not seriously...

Why not?

Seriously?

Which map tells you otherwise? :)

My map puts Morocco to North Africa, Turkey to West Asia and Canada to North America....

Iceland is further away from the mainland than Morocco which is within spitting distance from Gibraltar. And part of Turkey is in Europe, isn't it...

...you see...maybe it is your special UK viewpoint which puts Turkey into Europe, or Morocco...

I would be interested in which maps you teach geography in british schools! :)

But anyhow....this short conservation was a great proof why Europe will need its own defense....we already differ about geographics, heh:)

I don't think there is one, and anyway, I spend more time in Africa and Poland than there and that has been the case for decades.

Nevertheless, part of Turkey is certainly in Europe. as any map will show you.


We already have it. A NATO without America is very possible.


As I ay, have a look at the map. Europe goes as far as the Bospohorus and arguably includes Georgia and Armenia.

That's what I meant....the british view of the world has to be a different one from a core european tiny...without judgement at all, just a fact!


Is it? I doubt it....

This current ME catastrophe has shown again that NATO isn't a union of countries with the same values anymore....it has maybe become to big...I wouldn't put european security in the hands of Turkey for example.

Without the US as the big boss, it would probably fall apart quickly...

You've summed up the mainland European outlook. NO wonder the frogs were so craving angry about AUKUS.


You were suggesting such a thing but confusing it with the EU a while ago.


NATO's current role is very circumscribed and doesn't have much to do with the Middle East unless the issue directly threatens a NATO member state. No bad thing at all.

It's a good first step to acknowledge our different viewpoints....that goes along way to understand our different opinions about the idea of a closer Europe and a common defense!


Yeah...here it has grown so close EU and Europe is often used interchangeable...


Well...think it through....should the **** hit the fan, I don't see Europe as an ally in need of turkish help...not with autocrat Erdogan's jew-hating Turkey...in that case the Middle East cleared things up alot, even in a shocking way!

This is a mistake, however it sadly happens. Much better to take a broader outlook; AUKUS and Five Eyes are a step in the direction, very much the adults in the room.


It's the second most populous country in NATO and more complex than that (and President Erdogan's hold is tenuous). It's on the up too.

....maybe....and he won't stay on top forever, won't he! :)

Turkey is about 50% for him, 50% against. With a growing population and economy, a decent education system and a high level of political engagement, it is somewhere to watch.

I prefer them on our side.

And I am absolutely not sure they are or ever will be fully on our side!

Hence my and Europe's dependency on the US (with NATO or without).....but NATO without the US but with Turkey would not be as dependable...and that would be the end, nobody wants an alliance without knowing it could count on it if need be!

Maybe the West needs a new economic union and a new military alliance, with fully western countries only....

An economic agreement of equals perhaps, rather than a 'union', and of course Australia, Canada and NZ, all of which are fully western. Perhaps South Africa, Zambia, Botswana and parts of the Caribbean plus Singapore too.

Reminds me of something.

....you are for sure more foreign experienced than me...I wouldn't think about Botswana or Zambia or Singapore in the first place, my fault!

*takes helmet*

@Bratwurst Boy


To Fischer's credit, he has been more rooted to reality than most in his party. This is the man who ended the pacifism of the Green party during the Kosovo crisis.


I dont think anyone can confirm either of those questions with a good conscience. The most likely next president of the USA has made it clear that he would not defend Europe. He said so word for word. We got incredibly lucky when Biden won the election, but our luck is going to run out someday.

It is hopelessly naive to think otherwise. Same for any ideas of relying on former colonies. South Africa has made it clear that they won't side with us against Russia in a very clear case of Russian agression. Not sure how anyone could even contemplate that they are a viable alternative to a close European Union.

....yeah....we might have to stand up for our own someday!

I wonder what now comes of that huge shield deal Germany has with Israel....that it works the world could see now....