Vocal Voices

An article from Al-Jazeera.

Beyond the lack of defence spending which Trump highlighted and the usual shenanigans with inter EU politics, there were a few nuggets of very important information.

One was

“The risk of an individual country using its veto and preventing all the others from forging ahead increases with each additional member state,” said Scholz in a speech to Charles University in Prague last August. “I have therefore proposed a gradual transition to majority voting in common foreign policy.”

What this tells you is that Germany is not happy with the position of Poland and other Eastern EU states over the Ukraine response and they are not happy about the German position on Russia.

Germany wants to take away the ability of any single state to stop Germany watering down their defence to fit within the German agenda.

Personally I can't see it happening in the short term. However the fact that it is being attempted at all, especially at this time, is highly noteworthy and anyone impacted by it should follow it closely.

Sadly people won't follow it and won't vote for it. Personally I hope they succeed. Because there is no single issue more important to the UK than being able to determine our own foreign policy, especially as pertains to the Commonwealth of nations. If the EU goes to QMV for defence, the question of the UK ever rejoining the EU ends.

The article really was a very interesting read. Lots of information you will not get in the western press easily as it is not palatable. Like the countries where support for military aid to Ukraine is lower than 50%. Although it varies by poll.

that support fell just below 50 percent in Bulgaria, Greece and Slovakia, and just more than 50 percent in Cyprus, Hungary, Romania and Austria.

A January poll by Euroskopia revealed that most people in Austria (64 percent), Germany (60 percent) and Greece (54 percent), and 50 percent in Italy and Spain were in favour of an early land-for-peace compromise with Russia.

Nice to know so many people were in favour of giving away parts of Ukraine to an external aggressor (Russia). I wonder how many of those people would be willing to give a part of their own country if Russia had invaded and what their expectations would be for others to support them?

It's just how things are.
Some people think that we haven't been given the full story on the conflict, and hence their support for the Ukraine is lukewarm to say the least.

As long as European politicians think that the USA will defend them come what may because they are NATO members they aren't too bothered about the Ukraine. Perhaps it isn't the done thing to say this but I reckon it's true.

The German politicians think that economics will outweigh military avarice. Load, aim at foot, shoot, reload....

Many EU countries - Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal - have long standing historical ties with former colonies and allies. They go back centuries and stretch from South America through Africa, the Middle East and on to South East Asia.

They were there long before the EEC, EC and EU and make it almost impossible for a comprehensive common diplomatic and foreign policy. There would need to be many caveats in place. See the French mission to the Sahel - Mali and Niger.

When it comes to how the different EU countries deal with their support for Ukraine it is entirely up to them except when they try to move on military assets such as the Leopard 2 tanks and F-16 jets, where there might be bilateral agreements forbidding such a deal.

When it comes to an EU military arm the arguments for are hard to make. Not least because of what I mentioned above, but also because that all it would do is add another layer of complexity to what NATO stands for and does.

Let us not forget that only Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Cyprus and Malta as EU mebers are not in NATO, and even then Sweden and Finland could be members sometime soon. Any attack on an EU country would essentially be an attack on NATO. That could, in theory, bring in all the military assets - ships, planes, tanks, guns and manpower - from the 30 member states, as Article 5 outlines.

What is true, however, is that member states do need to up their individual and collective spending, especially in Europe.

Workingman wrote:What is true, however, is that member states do need to up their individual and collective spending, especially in Europe.

And especially in Germany. They added another €100bn but haven't even begun spending it. The cuts were so deep the structure has to be rebuilt before the rest of it can be put in place.

Sad state of affairs and the defence minister fell on his sword.

Whatever happens It will take generations, or a really serious war, before an real structural change happens.

It is not only Germany it is most NATO countries falling below the 2% of GDP target and some of the biggest are the worst offenders.