:Γράφει στο άρθρο.." At the same time, an EU army would be a tremendous tool for normalizing relations with Russia." .
....ανάλογα ποιος θα είναι ο " χειριστής" αυτού του Ευρωπαϊκού Στρατού. Κάθε "εργαλείο" έχει διττή χρήση.!! Για κάθε "εργαλείο" υπάρχει και ο κατάλληλος "μάστορας"
. Για να μπορέσει να γίνει αυτός ο Ευρωπαϊκός Στρατός ο οποίος όντως θα ενεργεί και θα προασπίζει τα συμφέροντα της Ευρώπης και μόνο, πρώτα θα πρέπει να υπάρχουν οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της Ευρώπης.!!
Όχι αυτό που έχουν δημιουργήσει οι εβραιοχαζάροι τραπεζίτες, ένα Γερμανικό Δ΄Ράιχ....αλλά μια κυριολεκτικά ενοποίηση των κυρίων αξόνων της εξωτερικής πολιτικής των χωρών της Ε.Ε , σε μια στενή αμυντική συνεργασία για ένα κοινό ευρωπαϊκό μέλλον. Καμία σχέση με την Εβραϊκών συμφερόντων Ε.Ε που υπάρχει σήμερα.
Τα γράφαμε και εδώ
..." Κατά συνέπεια εάν μια Ευρώπη ενωμένη κάτω απο μια δυνατή ηγεσία, και με
αυτόνομη γεωπολιτική υπόσταση, ιδιαίτερα εαν σε αυτή εντασσόταν με
κάποιον τρόπο και η Ρωσία, θα ήταν ένας τεράστιος αντίπαλος τόσο για
Κίνα όσο και για Η.Π.Α.".....ΤΩΡΑ ΑΡΧΙΖΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΤΑΛΑΒΑΙΝΟΥΝ ΤΙ ΛΕΓΑΜΕ.
The creation of a European army would be a boon for Russia-EU
relations, various military experts have told RT. It would mean getting
rid of the US political diktat – and that's why Washington will not
Were the European Union to
create an army of its own, as French President Emmanuel Macron and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel have recently suggested, the friction
with NATO would be enormous, several military and political analysts
predict. At the same time, an EU army would be a tremendous tool for
normalizing relations with Russia.
NATO would be obsolete
For the European Union, having its own army is a sort of "national liberation"
says Leonid Ivashov, a retired general of the Main Intelligence
Directorate (GRU) and President of the Academy for Geopolitical
While NATO is there,
European security is always governed from Washington, Ivashov says.
It's always an American general or admiral in charge of the force in
Europe. Washington dictates what the EU should be afraid of – and it
says the main threat is Russia. That threat is, in fact, an imagined
Nobody is threatening Europe. Russia
doesn't want to conquer Europe in the least. Russia wants to trade, to
cooperate, mostly in economy. And Europeans understand that.
problem with NATO is that Europe has come to trust it too much. After
the Soviet Union fell apart, the trans-Atlantic alliance has been
looking for a pretext to remain intact. It took upon itself to protect
Europe from terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, illegal drugs and
"The Europeans put their trust [in NATO], weakened their
own security. And today they suddenly see they're not protected from
terrorists, drugs, or especially migrants,"
has never been about protecting anyone, Ivashov says. It's always been
about holding Europe hostage and bringing profit to trans-national
corporations run from the USA.
There would be normalcy with Russia (though no love)
free from NATO would allow Europe to pursue its own interests – and
that would naturally lead to better relations with Russia.
will simply become independent. It won't start loving Russia, it will
just start working towards its own interests in the gas sector and other
fields of the economy,
" Ivashov says.
That, of course, will lead to a political improvement: We will simply have normal, business-like relationships.
there be a break from NATO, the EU will come looking for new allies,
believes Konstantin Sivkov, military science PhD and one of the founders
of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, – not least in order to stand
up to its former trans-Atlantic partners.
"No enemy is worse than a spurned ally. That would make the US an enemy of Europe
," he says.
new system would enable real agreements with Russia, whereas now they
mostly remain on paper – and will go down the drain should there be an
order from across the ocean to attack Russia.
"The people in charge are all far away, across the big pond,"
says Aleksandr Zhilin, a politologist, military expert and President of the Center for Research of Applied Social Problems.
can negotiate with Germany, France, Italy and the like all we want, and
seem to have a good relationship. And then suddenly there's an order
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Get in your tanks and march on Russia!
Why did we even talk to them in the first place?
independent European army could, in time, allow Europe to enjoy
military cooperation with Russia. There's a dramatic gap in some of the
EU nations' capabilities – mostly aviation and air defense – that
Russian hardware could fill.
"Who would mind S-400s protecting the borders of [European] nations?
" Zhilin asks. "Only one country: The United States of America."
Forces within Europe don't want an EU army
much as Macron and Merkel would like Europe to have a capable fighting
force of its own, there are others in Europe who would not stand for it.
The UK and Poland, namely, are too deep in Washington's pocket, says
Ivan Konovalov, the director of the Center of Strategic Conjuncture. The
UK will soon no longer be part of the EU, but Poland remains and will
continue to oppose the creation of Europe's own army.
"Poland has always been a conduit of
American policies, and now it's receiving a big blank check… and it
will never support a parallel military structure like a united European
armed force. Neither will Norway, or the Baltic countries."
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has also rejected the idea of an EU army.
"The idea of a European Army goes way too far for the Netherlands,"
he told journalists on Friday. "NATO is and remains the cornerstone of our defense policy."
Austria's defense minister has also said his country wants no part of a European army
, since it would be "contrary to the Austrian constitutional position"
Chances an EU army will be created are slim
Ivashov assessed the real probability that a European army will appear
at 50 percent, other experts were much more skeptical, many noting that
the US will never allow it.
NATO is a convoy for the European Union. A step out of line, and it's "down on your knees!"
from the pressure that can be applied through the likes of the UK and
Poland, the US is providing a huge chunk of crucial military hardware
European nations use, experts agree. And should that fail as a lever,
NATO can always resort to obstructionism and outright sabotage,
The most Merkel and Macron can hope for, he
believes, is creating a nominal bureaucratic structure like the Western
European Union, which was created after WWII and later completely
eclipsed by NATO. Any such alliance would lack real military capability
and serve only as a political tool in talks with the US.
of all would be the technical difficulties, Sivkov says. The EU has
come to rely on NATO so much it has gaps in key military capabilities.
Its members' fleets are either too small or too limited in reach. Its
air forces are mostly represented by the Eurofighter, which is a joint
creation of the UK, Germany and France and thus susceptible to London's
whims, and the French Rafale –a light fighter and no match for the heavy
ones the US and Russia can scramble. And its anti-air and anti-missile
defenses are virtually non-existent, fully reliant on American Patriots
Importing Russian hardware is not an option either. When it comes to military technology, Russia and the EU are "on different planets,
Sivkov says. And if the EU were to break from NATO, it might as well
just build its own weaponry from the ground up – a task that would
obviously require enormous expense.