Munin
I fully accept that I am not an expert my intention is to get alternative perspectives upon the future of the EU military alliances as EU integration evolves, the impact of these upon the future of NATO within Europe and whether unilateral actions of individual members of NATO who are not European is rising tensions unnecessarily within the EU members. I have my own perspectives, they may be naive but I need to have them challenged to further my own understanding.
If we look to the evolving nature of the EU, it is clear as you indicate, that there is clear evidence centralisation of key areas of decision making in Europe and away from the national parliaments, I believe that ultimately this will include national defense assets. When it comes to defense decision making I believe that ultimately all countries are self interested to this end I believe that the US placement of elements of the anti ICBM shield in countries which border Russia was in the interests of the US and not in the collective interests of the European. This has been suggested by some as being provocative and unnecessarily raising tensions.
Russia has historically posed a major threat however, post cold war, their military resources are underfunded with many assets unusable and no longer fit for purpose. I would suggest that the threat from Russia is not as high upon the European agenda as that of the US and would cite the drawdown of UK standing forces in Germany to support this. 20 Years ago the UK had 4 major airstations; Wildenrath, Bruggen, Laarbruch and Gutersloh which based Tornado and Harrier aircraft specifically to address the Russian threat, today there are no RAF strike aircraft on mainland europe. The drawdown of british army elements continues apace with the british lead Joint Headquarters which has been based at Rhiendahlen since the war downsizing and relocating. I would also suggest that the relocation of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC), deployed under NATO, EU, coalition or national auspices, from Germany back to the UK would indicate that the collective belief is that no viable threat to continental Europe from Russia.
The invasion of Georgia was indicated as an example of Russian aggressive posturing, this was not a flash in the pan with a long history of tensions between the two countries. There is a historical element to this with Russian troops already based in Georgia "protecting" ethnic russians in the disputed breakaway states, or perhaps Russia needed to show NATO that the fats tracking of Georgia into NATO was a step to far.
The lackluster response to calls for assistance from NATO members fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan from certain European NATO member nations has done little to suggest that the organisation has a future other than its historical cold war focus. In the present financial climate perhaps its time that the US reconsiders the cost of supporting such a large standing force on the European continent in what appears to be a rather one sided relationship.
Just my thoughts.
I fully accept that I am not an expert my intention is to get alternative perspectives upon the future of the EU military alliances as EU integration evolves, the impact of these upon the future of NATO within Europe and whether unilateral actions of individual members of NATO who are not European is rising tensions unnecessarily within the EU members. I have my own perspectives, they may be naive but I need to have them challenged to further my own understanding.
If we look to the evolving nature of the EU, it is clear as you indicate, that there is clear evidence centralisation of key areas of decision making in Europe and away from the national parliaments, I believe that ultimately this will include national defense assets. When it comes to defense decision making I believe that ultimately all countries are self interested to this end I believe that the US placement of elements of the anti ICBM shield in countries which border Russia was in the interests of the US and not in the collective interests of the European. This has been suggested by some as being provocative and unnecessarily raising tensions.
Russia has historically posed a major threat however, post cold war, their military resources are underfunded with many assets unusable and no longer fit for purpose. I would suggest that the threat from Russia is not as high upon the European agenda as that of the US and would cite the drawdown of UK standing forces in Germany to support this. 20 Years ago the UK had 4 major airstations; Wildenrath, Bruggen, Laarbruch and Gutersloh which based Tornado and Harrier aircraft specifically to address the Russian threat, today there are no RAF strike aircraft on mainland europe. The drawdown of british army elements continues apace with the british lead Joint Headquarters which has been based at Rhiendahlen since the war downsizing and relocating. I would also suggest that the relocation of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC), deployed under NATO, EU, coalition or national auspices, from Germany back to the UK would indicate that the collective belief is that no viable threat to continental Europe from Russia.
The invasion of Georgia was indicated as an example of Russian aggressive posturing, this was not a flash in the pan with a long history of tensions between the two countries. There is a historical element to this with Russian troops already based in Georgia "protecting" ethnic russians in the disputed breakaway states, or perhaps Russia needed to show NATO that the fats tracking of Georgia into NATO was a step to far.
The lackluster response to calls for assistance from NATO members fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan from certain European NATO member nations has done little to suggest that the organisation has a future other than its historical cold war focus. In the present financial climate perhaps its time that the US reconsiders the cost of supporting such a large standing force on the European continent in what appears to be a rather one sided relationship.
Just my thoughts.
