Karl,
This thread in my opbjective, since we have various nationalities on board, has a journalistic, diplomatic, informative, educational and exchange of ideas intend, just like you stated.
The idea of a European Defense Cooperation in my idea is not a bad idea, as part of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
The present shape of the European defence community is fragmented as you describes. Jaga, has a valid point when she says: "
I worry about the moral and discipline of Polish army. It was not that good when I was still living in Poland." I don't know much about the present Polish army and defence ministry, I do know that
Poland has one of the largest defence budget in Europe and that the country is investing a lot in modernising it's armed forces.
The
EU is and will be like you say (
Karl) in the foreseeable future, in a military sense, fragmented. And that is in itself a worrisome fact if you consider external and internal threats the EU is facing.
I hope that
Europe has learned from it's mistakes in the past and that
European wars or foreign invasions of non-European soil, or '
Lebensraum' like foolish aims will always end in disaster, failure and suffering.
Napoleon Bonaparte's and
Adolf Hitlers desire to conquer Czarist Russia and the SovjetUnion ended in climatological suffering (the Russian winters and autumns and summers), and final defeats. The colonial enterprises of the European colonisers have not only disrupted Africa, Asia and the America's for instance in the past due to the colonial exploitation, slave trade, slave system, inequality and oppression, but also lead to present day problems like civil wars, wars and even terrorism. Why, because the colonial powers disrupted the natural status quo, the national balance, the territories of clans, tribes and peoples in
Africa,
Asia and
the America's and ever since you have troubles in
Africa,
Asia and
Southern-America for instance.
Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf HitlerOfcourse new developments and occurrences due to Global heating (climate immigrants next to human rights violations and economical decline), conjunctures in International Relations, corrupt Third World regimes, nepotism, fraud (bribing), clientelism, totalitarian regimes, dictatorships, lack of personal freedom, lack of free enterprise, the lack of a balance between
Laissez faire and
etatism, the lack of
Trias Politica (
Separation of powers),
legal justice (
fair and well developed and functionating legal systems with a Rechtstaat base),
trade laws or legislation to make
sophisticated economies,
financial markets,
trade (
Import & export) possible, tribal wars, because colonial powers disrupted the powerbalance between nations, tribes and peoples, by changing borders (African borders became European colonial borders, the European colonial borders, destroyed the natural boundaries and borders between tribes and peoples in Africa, causing troubles like the
Hutu-
Tutsi problem in
Rwanda, and other disbalances. The mess the Colonial powers made in these territories is one of the present causes of the wars, civil wars, terrorism and corruption in several African countries, because many corrupt leaders came from the colonial system -their mindset is still colonial, and they treat their people as the former colonials. The white European colonials left and the Black African leaders became the new colonial class).
Robert Mugabe and Mobutu Sese Seko; were political Siamese twins. They continued to oppress their population like the colonial rulers before them.The unrest and disbalance of the disruptive colonial system was continuated or imported to Europe when people of former colonies immigrated to Europe. In the French case the North-African Moroccans, Algerians, Tunesians and people of French Sudan, Senegal, Chad, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, the Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Gabon, Mali and Djibouti. In the Belgian case, the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi and Rwanda. In the British case Kenya, Zimbabwe, South-Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Gambia and etc. Today we have Islamist Jihadist terrorists who come mainly from former European colonies in Africa and the Middle east. Some use in historical sense, looking from the past to the present,
Communicating vessels (
Naczynia połączone,
Kommunizierende Röhren,
Forbundne kar and in Dutch '
Wet van de communicerende vaten'). We European Imperialists put pressure, intimidation, exploitation and abuse on the African and Middle-eastern people, and they came back as a boomerang to our shores and our continental lands.
What goes around comes around!
A Belgian white missionary posing with Congolese man, mutilated by the Congo Free State government. The Congo Free State also known as the Independent State of the Congo (French: État indépendant du Congo, Dutch: Kongo-Vrijstaat) was a large state in Central Africa from 1885 to 1908. It was ruled personally by Leopold II and not by the government of Belgium, of which he was the constitutional monarch. Leopold's reign in the Congo eventually earned infamy on account of the atrocities perpetrated on the locals.Back to
the European army. Wether you have a
NATO alliance or
a European alliance in the form of a
European Defence Force, both will have to face numerous 21th century challenges which are different than the 18th, 19th and 20th century problems we had and we know how the former European, American, Russian, Japanese and Chinese leaders dealt with. The difference with the 18th, 19th and 20th century is that today new powers have emerged. Powers like the
Saoudi lead Sunni Muslim Block in the Middle east,
the Shia Crescent (or
Shiite Crescent) (the notionally crescent-shaped region of
the Middle East where the majority population is
Shia.
The Shia Crescent is lead by
Iran), independent and powerful non-Arab Muslim states like
Pakistan,
Indonesia,
Afghanistan,
Sudan,
Somalia and
partly Muslim states like
Nigeria. Next to that you have the new powerhouses India and Brazil. China today is much more dangerous than China in the 20th century with it's modern arms, Industrial bases, Cyberwarfare tools, very sophisticated intelligence, diplomatic and trade organisations. We live in a different, ultra-modern, advanced, Futurist time today. Military technology is different and more advanced than in the past, we have robotics, signal intelligence, clone technology, nano-technology, space science (also space war means), sattelites who can monitor every single meter or square kilometer/mile on earth.
The old and tested systems that have worked from the past into the present, the
UN and NATO. And they are still working and employed in
peace keeping missions all over the world.
UN forces for instance like the
UNIFIL troops on the Lebanese-Israeli border and
UNDOF on the Israeli-Syrian border on the Golan Heights. The other UN peace keeping troops are
MINUJUSTH (
the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti) in Haiti,
MINURSO (
the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) in the Western Sahara,
MINUSCA in the Central African Republic,
MINUSMA in Mali,
MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
UNAMID in Darfur (western Sudan),
UNFICYP in Cyprus,
UNISFA in the Abyei Area in Sudan,
UNMIK in Kosovo,
UNMISS in South-Sudan,
UNMOGIP in India and Pakistan, and
UNTSO in the Middle east.
Source: peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/unamid
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO) Even though both
NATO and
the UN Peace keeping missions are owned by
the Americans, it would be very possible that in the future the central control would go to
the EU members Germany (
Bundesrepublik Deutschland) or France (
République française) (not one other European EU member has such a powerful, organsied or well equipped army, navy and ariforce as the Germans and the French -Maybe
Poland in the near future?-. Maybe
the United Kingdom if it stays in
the European Union).
Karl, next to
Adolf Hitler who turned against us by use of trick or treat, there were also
Joseph Stalin, Emperor of Japan
Hirohito and his prime ministers and generals. It is true that
the Führer ("
Leader")
Adolf Hitler and Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel
Heinrich Himmler, Reich Minister of Aviation and leader of the German Luftwaffe
Hermann Göring, Field Marshal
Wilhelm Keitel, Colonel General
Alfred Jodl, admiral
Karl Dönitz; head of the Nazi Party Chancellery
Martin Bormann, and Reich Minister of Propaganda
Joseph Goebbels turned a wonderful viable state in to a smoking pile of ruins in the end.
Adolf Hiltler and Martin Bormann. You have to avoid that Martin Bormann like techocratic bureaucrats (Civil servants) get power in Brussels.We certainly do not have any insurance against corruption that central control in
Brussels, a Federal or centralistic European power, creates. We don't have the centuries, founding fathers and their excellent and ingenious plan for
the American democracy with their
Constitution,
Bill of rights and
checks and balances to guarantee that
the American democracy will stay in tact and will functionate well. Therefor more power should be in the hands of
the National parliaments and
the European parliament should be stronger than
the European commission.
The European parliament should be the most powerful instrument of
the European democracy, but it isn't and
the European bureaucracy is to powerful, because a new powerbase is built there and in Strasbourg and Luxemburg, the European centers of Power; Brussels, Luxemburg and Strassbourg. You can add the
European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany and
the European Court of Justice in Kirchberg, Luxembourg City in the country Luxembourg, to that.
A militarisation of continental Europe, which has a problematic past of wars, civil wars, blood baths, internal strive, religious, political and ideological and power block conflicts
would lead to disaster. Because fanatic
Martin Bormann like centralistic
Brussels bureaucrats would like to create
a Prussian like state and military.
Centralistic or
Federalist European bureaucrats would love to
enlarge the European Union with
Ukraine. Future leaders with
Napoleon or
Hitler like mindsets might get crazy ideas and will
attack the Russian Federation.
That would lead to a world disaster, in which the West stands against the East (Russia, China and probably Middle-Eastern and some Pro-Russian European allies).
Large parts of Europe, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, the Middle east and probably China will turn into Nuclear wasteland.
Fantasy, Computer game or movie image? Moscow, Russia in 2033, after being ravaged by Nuclear War. Berlin, Copehagen, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Bratislava, Rome, Washington D.C., LA and New York will look the same after a Nuclear Third World War.
Washington D.C. after the nuclear Third World WarTherefor the
diplomatic, continued negotiation version of conflict (
words in staid of arms), financial and economical development tools,
compromise seeking, cooperation in staid of conflict,
restraint and other non-military options are always better than war, civil war, armed conflict or terrorism or devastating cyber wars.
Brussels ordering a unified military march in to
Poland, would be like the British or Sovjets invading Afghanistan. Nor the Brits, nor the Sovjets ever really conquered Afghanistan.
The Poles in their nature would never accept
a European invasion or
occupation of their soil. That would be a blood bath for the poor German, French, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, Danish, Spanish, Greek and Portugese troops. Some armies, countries and soldiers would simply refuse to attack Poland. I mention Turkey, Hungary, the Czech republic, Slowakia, the Baltic states and probably also others.
Herr Hitler conducted his business and no one held a hand against him until it was too late. But thousands of
Wehrmacht soldiers and
officers died in
Poland. It wasn't a pleasant stay for the Germans. The possibility of future
EU concentration camps filled by those who he deemed unworthy to live in
21th century Europe is an interesting thing to think about. Could there be
a new bureaucracy, system, military apparatus who would create a new sort of
Nazi or
Sovjet stalinist system in Europe in a new
21th century form?
A dead Wehrmacht's Gefreiter on Panzerkampfwagen III medium tankKarl, we both are of
old Europe, with
old ideas and
old memories. The Second World War experience of my grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles and you Karl, and both our Cold War memories and experiences (you in service of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland and me with my childhood and teenage travels through the
DDR -East-Germany, the
GDR- and to
the Polish Peoples Republic -
communist Poland-) It is to the new thinking of new generations who are progressive and free of contamination of negative histories. But are they? I see a lot of old, reactionary, chauvinistic, isolationalist, closed minded, arch conservative
young Europeans. There was a research on Dutch Public tv of the present 18 year old generation about education, relationships, sex, work, future visions. In the case of the latter most or many of the interviewed 18 year old boys and girls were somber. Many of them believed that there would be tension,
war or
civil war.
They were pessimistic.
Germany acquiring nuclear weapons would be an unwise idea, seen the
Prussian and
Nazi imperialistic past of
Germany. It is better to invest in good conventional weapons, because future wars won't be Nuclear but conventional, because nobody, but a lunatic
Hitler,
Stalin or
Kim Jong-il like person would love to annihilate mankind or a large portion of humanity. Better would be
a united European French-German Nuclear force with Nuclear weapons as deterrent (
deterrent force).
Nuclear weapons on
Polish soil would scare
the Russian Government, but in the same time inspire
the Russians to built an even
stronger powerful Nuclear power than they already have. The arms race of the cold war would start again, leading nowhere.
The
Germans could purchases such weapons from Israel that owns such non-existent weapons in a deal in which the Germans help to improve the Israeli navy, airforce and army.
Karl, I don't know if the Americans will continue their cold war with
the Russians. If
the Russians are useful to
the Americans in
combatting terrorism,
space navigation and
astronautics cooperation, trade, scientific development,
financial markets,
banking businesses, the
entertainment industry (Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, agriculture (food industry)
tourism,
education,
professional sports,
airlines, mutual relationships (friendships, marriages, cultural exchange) and the fact that many Russian live, study and work in the USA. Both Americans and Russians would benefit more from peace and for instance a huge trade route from China to Europe, than war. In that trade, also American products would be imported and sold. The Europeans, Russians and Chinese would have more benefits from that huge trade area and economical zone than war.
Every leader, every general and every politician and every voter knows that a future war would lead to disaster, large scale destruction and a Nuclear winter in Europe. Millions of people might die, probably Europeans would have to flee the contaminated, barren, Nuclear radio active Europe. To believe
the Chinese would not think of
the Nuclear option is a bit of empty thinking, because
Chinese leaders can be ruthless, fierce and destructive.
Mao Zedong originally saw a new
China's struggle for security in terms of
conventional warfare and in
1946 satirized the atomic bomb as a ’
paper tiger’.
Mao found it difficult to understand why the
imperialists would venture to use
nuclear weapons in a war if they wanted to dominate other nations, because a massively destructive weapon would not serve the purpose of acquiring political control, but would instead destroy that which was to be controlled. However, he gradually changed his position, as he understood the deterrent value of the bomb. Frequent US nuclear threats against
China, Soviet pressures, and pressures from other
Chinese leaders who kept pushing
Mao to pay more attention to
nuclear‐weapon programmes are the important factors that contributed to his ’
nuclear revolution’.
Consequently, his thinking on the atomic bomb came to dominate China's defence policy and brought about the policy changes that turned China into a major nuclear power.
Chairman
Mao Tse-Tung in 1964 said that
Communist China has nothing to fear from
nuclear weapons. But his people have paid a fearful price to develop the atomic bomb of their own.
Mao is said to have told a Yugoslav visitor to Peking in 1957, "
We have a very large territory and a big population. Atomic bombs could not kill all of us."
"
What if they killed 300 million of us? We would still have many people left."
The Soviet President, Andrei A. Gromyko, reports in his forthcoming memoirs that Mao Zedong sought Soviet cooperation in 1958 for a plan to lure United States troops into the interior of China, then attack them with Soviet nuclear weapons.
Mr. Gromyko, who was Foreign Minister from 1957 to 1985, says in the memoirs that he rejected the Chinese proposal on behalf of the Soviet leadership during a secret visit to Beijing in August 1958.
USSR Foreign Minister Andrei GromykoThe discussion with Mao appears to be the same one in which the Chinese leader, according to Soviet historians, argued that his country could survive a nuclear war, even if it lost 300 million people, and finish off the capitalists with conventional weapons.
The visit took place at a time of increasing tensions between the Soviet Union and China that were little known then. China was seeking its own nuclear deterrent, and the Russians had promised to supply an atomic bomb, only to rescind the offer in 1959. Soviet officials later accused Mao of recklessness, while Chinese officials charged the Soviet Union with reneging on its partnership. China exploded a nuclear device in 1964.
Mr. Gromyko, recalling that he was surprised by the audacity of the plan and Mao's seemingly cavalier discussion of nuclear conflict, says that he told the Chinese leader: ''The scenario of war described by you cannot meet a positive response by us. I can say this with certainty.''
Mao's plan, according to
Mr. Gromyko, anticipated an
American attack on
China as a result of mounting tensions over the islands of
Quemoy and
Matsu. The islands, held by
the Nationalist Government in
Taiwan, became the center of
an international crisis in September 1958 when they came under artillery bombardment from
China.
Telling
Mr. Gromyko that he intended to act according to the principle of ''
blade against blade,'' Mao said
Chinese forces would retreat to the interior of
China, drawing
American forces after them.
Once
American forces were deep within
Chinese territory,
Mao proposed that ''
the Soviet Union should catch them with all its means,''
Mr. Gromyko reports.
Sources:www.nytimes.com/1988/02/22/world/gromyko-says-mao-wanted-soviet-a-bomb-used-on-gi-s.htmlwww.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198294689.001.0001/acprof-9780198294689-chapter-9I agree with Karl's last words; "
Our shared future has many possibilities that are thinkable and yet, unthinkable." Karl, you are right that the rule of war is: Do not lose. I do believe that our leaders, rulers, politicians, parliaments, congresses, senats, generals, admirals, scientists, entrepreneurs, lobbyists and diplomats have to be smart, human, intelligent, experienced, responsible, sensible, ethnical (moral), and think about how they can make life for their people in particular and people in general (humanity) better. Inequality, imperialism, oppression, poverty, humiliation, fear, anxiety, hatred, rivalry, having grudges against other groups, alliances or people, frustration, irritation, hurt pride, own interests (first), lack of understanding of 'the other', lack of communucation and negotiation and old ideas which got a new design, create war.
With more contact, more (real communication), more diplomacy, more cultural exchange, more understanding and mutual interest we can avoid war and armed conflicts. War has only losers, because the winners always get the revenge of the losers, and the losers always want to win again and strive for national pride, their own clan, tribe, people or group of people and nations. In my opinion the Corps diplomatique should be enlarged and not the armies. More conflicts should be solved by heavy diplomatic delegations in multi-lateral and bilateral negotiations. You will think, are you a pacifist? No, I am not, I do believe in a strong defence, but also believe in a strong diplomacy first.
Cheers,
Pieter
