Could kyiv be the new fashionable diplomatic destination? In any case, the Western dignitaries take turns there with application and after Biden or Von Der Leyen, it is the turn of the Spanish Prime Minister to go there. Apparently, the Ukrainian capital would be the essential place to show up to hope to be entitled to a photo in the mainstream media…

From a distance, one could almost believe that everything that is diplomatic, military and European happens according to kyiv: on the surface, the economy of the European Union seems to be organized for the war effort against Russia. They would have us believe that the Union is becoming a center of military defense that we wouldn't go about it any other way.

by h16

Unfortunately, the reality is a little less palpable.

Thus, we force in a somewhat crude way the image of a Europe suddenly united in the face of what we now paint as a common enemy while, in this as in everything else, Europe is once again moving forward in a cloud dispersed, undisciplined and whose members are clearly not all interested in the same goal or the same methods.

On the one hand, Europe's dependence on foreign and especially Russian resources (notably energy) is very different from one Member State to another; from this point of view, the obvious ambiguity is total on the part of Germany and its pretty inefficient windmills, which continued to feed on Russian gas until the explosion of the Nordstream pipelines. Now she continues to consume large, plump mouthfuls of Russian coal without the press or politicians getting upset (or else, it's very discreet).

On the other hand, the economic interests woven over decades on both sides of the Urals are so numerous that cutting ties with Russia is much easier to argue in front of parliamentarians or in the media than to actually achieve (and France is, moreover, quite misplaced for give lessons).

Finally, it has been widely observed that the heavy-handed distribution of particularly ill-conceived sanctions has more surely embarrassed Europe than Russia. Is it useful to come back to the strident little prouts that Bruno de Bercy now broadcasts that the Russian economy has not collapsed at all, unlike the French economy?

In other words, as the months of conflict add up, European unity is no more than a facade maintained by the press and the strained smiles of politicians. In the hushed corridors of the Council of the Union, things are much less rosy.

In fact, beyond the disagreements between Member States on economic and political matters, the disagreements on the military aspects are not diminishing either, especially since the war in Ukraine has become a pretext to launch the idea that "the Europe of defence" would be something desirable or even possible, even though the simple cooperation of two or three European members on the same military program is a challenge that has failed more than once; one only has to remember the tests of "European" planes or helicopters (or now drones) to understand that this military Europe is for the moment more a wishful thinking than a reality or a tangible, solid possibility.

Moreover, the European Union seems to want to add to the military institution already in place, namely NATO.

This cannot happen smoothly: in the best of cases, we will obtain a doubling of the administrative floors. It is difficult to see the interest. In the worst case, we will end up with bureaucratic competition that is hardly healthy for a military command, especially since the goals of NATO certainly do not overlap with those of the Union in geo-strategic matters.

To illustrate this last point, one only has to look at the recent and tragicomic episode of the idea of ​​delivering tanks to the Ukraine to understand the smoke-filled mechanism currently at work in Europe, and the absence of any European coordination on this subject.

Remember that Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, recently called for new tank battalions, his having been more or less scattered over the past year. It was therefore – rather limply – decided that European countries would provide some of them (we are talking about a hundred different types since the Germans, the French and the British seemed ready to provide these vehicles).

Without even dwelling on the purely logistical aspects – so many different machines require spare parts and a sufficient number of trained manpower, which is neither easy nor quick to obtain, to put it mildly – ​​let us remember that the Germany had made its delivery of Leopard tanks conditional on the delivery, by the United States, of Abrams tanks. Bad (convenient) luck for the Americans: it turns out that these last tanks will not be delivered before several months at best ; not only does the American army not want to part with those it has for itself, but in addition it also appears that those which will be delivered (one day perhaps) will have to be "adapted" for the Ukrainian terrain, c ie retrofitted to avoid any technological recovery by the Russian enemy.

In other words, these American tanks could well arrive like the cavalry of the Bluecoats, that is to say after the war. The Germans, with some of their Leopards apparently already on their way to Ukraine, could have it brackish, passing once again like the turkeys of a tragic American farce that pretty much demonstrates NATO's goals little Europe-compatible.

In the matter of creating a unified armed force, Europe, as usual, is languidly bogged down in its usual petty posturing and political politic shenanigans. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Poland seems determined to greatly reinforce its own army, even thinking that it can quickly claim to become Europe's leading military power. We wish him much courage (note nevertheless that being outside the euro zone, the Poles could come out of it better than the other European military powers).

Ultimately, this is probably the only salient point of the military aspect in Europe, caused by this Russian invasion in Ukraine: it has clearly shown the sub-optimal state of the current European armies, which have relied far too much on the American umbrella to the point of having become its more or less voluntary vassals. The current explosion of European military budgets in the main Member States shows this awareness and the glaring absence of any European organization beyond NATO demonstrates, if necessary, that "Europe of Defence" is still a dream not even wet.

Besides, can we be surprised? A single army presupposes a much stronger, much deeper unification of the European States, and in particular a tax harmonization that no Member State really wants. And moreover, from the point of view of the average citizen, a European super-state, with an army and European taxation, is it really desirable ?

READ MORE:

https://en.reseauinternational.net/vers-une-europe-de-la-defense/

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....