I find the debate interesting it seems that the same people that criticize the EU for not being able to defend itself also don't want the EU to have an institution dedicated to that mission. What is the alternative?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Keeping one line of communication open seems reasonable.
NATO
Are the Germans even allowed to have a huge army?
We got NATO, what is the point of an EU army.
Yep, the bickering alone will make it no more effective than Nato.
Germany and Italy have broken ranks on the Swift decision, they'd do the same when it came to actual conflict. Or someone else would.
being US puppets and dependant on their senile or insane leaders I guess
makes Europe weaker, helps the US
So an institution that has no issue having a member that attacks EU members? That also means that the EU wouldn't be able to defend itself since NATO isn't the EU.
Why is expelling a diplomat a big thing? It seems so trivial.
Ooh smack on the bottom time. Bunch of pussies
They are going up against vets that have been fighting a war for 8 years and fighting for their very existance and that of their country... Not surprising they are getting wrecked.
If Germany had built up it's army last week we'd have had half the posters critizing that... It doesn't really matter what the EU does. If Brexit has shown me anything the thoughts of other's shouldn't play a role in the EU's actions, because they won't be satisfied anyway.
Back on topic: Any new developments on the ground? There seems to be a lot of conflicting information
If we have NATO then why people are criticizing the EU for not being able to defend itself? Also what is NATO doing against Turkey when they attack Greece and Cyprus?
Imagine the airport battle right now. Fecking hell. Hopefully they can eliminate those airborne Russians.
diplomatic cringe communication
I think they're still bound to some restriction that limits them to 350,000 active servicemen. I could be wrong though.
Spoken to a friend of mine based in sumy region said they are hiding in the subways whilst the shelling goes on above them. They have no idea what will be left come the morning. Also Ukrainian men based in czech Republic are being called back now for military.
But isn't that largely because they are nuclear powers? Aside from other technological advantages, the deterrent is really what sets them apart and because of non proliferation (India/Pakistan/North Korea/Israel notwithstanding) they are guaranteed to retain that qualitative advantage.
2 plus 4 contract says it's gotta be a maximum of 370.000 soldiers, yes
Considering Turkey is NATO's second largest military power, not a whole lot as you'd expect.
No, sorry, it’s something so obvious for me that I forgot to clarify — for going to an anti-war protest in Moscow. Thankfully I’m using VPN and I doubt that they’d check something like caf in order to find those with a different opinion.
But isn't Germany's problem more the state of their equipment that the sheer manpower?
It's essentially a closed shop and was designed that way. The five permanent members control global politics, though it's not unusual, similar arrangements happened after the Napoleonic wars and WWI and with that in mind, it can change, the only problem is that it takes a major conflagration to get great powers to admit that the current system of international relations is ineffective and needs to be replaced by something better.
Which is a pretty big problem, when it happened France went there alone. I don't even remember a head of state of the EU or NATO say a thing but I could have missed it.
I see. Stay safe out there. I saw a clip of a big demonstration. Well done by the people advocating peace and I take it you were there as well? Good lad, much love.
You're safe mate, they'll see redcafe in your browsing history and think, ahh...he's one of us.
Where are you now my friend?
To be honest, I don’t know but, if there is a constitutional limit, it’s time to update it.
Ultimately it's not a NATO problem yet, as Ukraine isn't NATO. But it is a problem for Europe.
I think with Cyprus the UN got involved so there wasn't really a need to go outside of it, although not something I'm that knowledgeable on so happy to be corrected.
It's more of a history limit
Wasn't the idea to keep German militarism down after the war? It was pretty intentional. And the Germans don't really care because they are in NATO and the US has a massive base there. If they were to militarise, would that not be a threat to NATO? The Germans and French basically control the EU now, so a European army would surely run into problems with NATO long-term (same states, more or less, but slightly different goals).
That's a nice comparison
You good?
It's both. It lacks the right personnel and the right equipment. In other words: it lacks funding mostly. Another huge thing it lacks is prestige. Most people look down on soldiers, it's simply an unpopular job which really doesn't attract the cream of the crop, to say the least. It's kind of frowned upon. We dislike it, for obvious historical reasons and a general left oriented trend since the 1990s: we are absolutely spoiled by our economical prosperity.
Edit: I also always advocate for compulsory service. The legal possibilities exist, we're just very reluctant to pull that trigger, as - stated above - the military is something our society looks down on. We need cumpulsory service for several reasons, one being to actually attract fitting personnel and show people that working in the military can be very beneficial.
Perhaps they shouldn't have joined NATO if they weren't willing to spend the agreed amount? Not aiming that at you, you're right they get to ride along on security paid for by others.