@@Avalozir Yes, the video miss to point out that the next attack if Putin wins and rearms will be against Finland, Poland or the Baltic states and Finland and Poland are probably the best armed and prepared nations in Europe, which do make the Baltic states the most likely to be attacked by far.
The video is wrong that each EU nations defense industry is still only operating in its own national boundaries. It's not. All big players in Germany, France, Italy, etc. already manufacture in countries all over the the EU (and all over the world in many cases) and not just in their own home country. This "evolutionary" step, when compared with US industrial spread across US states, is already much further evolved, than the narrator is telling you here.
Sorry. I laughed a lot at 1.40 when the guy says that Europe lives under the “American security umbrella”.XD. Not umbrella but interference, influence and interest. Many EU countries still prefer to buy American products in exchange for promises. Politico-strategic “aid” has organized Europe's dependence on the United States since the Second World War. Since then, our relations are no longer based on friendship, but on common interests. And a common, self-sufficient European army is of no interest to the United States, so it will never exist or in a very long time. At least, there's one area where we'll never need you: deterrence.
Not even,Romania was in a cold war with the soviets from 1968 till 1989,when the Soviet Union was disbanded,so no influence. I know a guy in Romania in the 80's who was condemned to 1 year of prison only for mentioning in a discussion at a bar about Soviet Union being a good political solution.
Eastern European countries were JUST LIKE NOW WITH THE EU ( but more or less forced to the EU) while before they asked the SOVIET russians for to get be protected by them and belong... just like you have a 50 states that kind of a relation Eastern Europeans countries had with Soviet or Russian as the AMERICANS wrongly call them for cummunits . The ONLY COMMUNIST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WERE CHINA. The others were socialist which means or other world for democratic.
@@mauk2861 Yep part of the warsaw pact alliance with the USSR after war turned against the axis. countries that we're from the axis alliance switched sides.
CaspianReport, a mediocre source of information. He says they need sponsormoney for research, writing and editing, yet NEVER shares any verifiable sources they use. Its no secret they are from Azerbeidzjan, not the Netherlands , contrary to what as it says on their YT channel. Just sayin'.....
Some European technologies are more efficient than US standards. The USA has been united for over 230 years, and you speak the same language. In Europe, each country has its own language, its own standards, and we have only been united for a few decades, and just a few years for some. It takes time to harmonize everything. Many Europeans criticize the EU, but we haven't had a war between EU countries for 80 years, whereas before there were always wars everywhere. The EU is a very new entity.
The USA is the reason you Europeans having been getting along since 1945. A European military industrial complex in Europe? No. The welfare hammocks must remain! LOL
You don't have an advanced economy unless you're advanced in a lot of areas, including technology, just that the US puts more effort into high-tech whereas Europe puts more effort into industry, but these policies on either side can change if needed and I do think the EU countries will push much harder on high-tech over the coming decades. Also, when it comes to high-tech military goods, we should remember that both the EU and US buy off each other, with usually Europe specialising in certain areas on the military front. But if the EU was all one in a lot more areas, including the military front, it would be a lot more powerful than the sum of it's parts, even at current military spending, it would be a potent military if it was all one, especially once they get rid of all the waste and duplication of having 27 individual militaries, which isn't very effective. Either way, I think the most effective way for the EU countries to build a single military is to do it like they did with the Euro and Schengen Zone, don't try and get all countries onboard, get as many as they can and let the others join at a later date, doing it this way, you are bound to get a few countries onboard at first, once the ball is rolling, others will likely want to join in future as they see the benefits of it, but if they try to get everyone on board in one go, it likely will never happen, whereas if they do it as I said, it likely will happen and progress like how the Euro and Schengen did with countries joining as time goes by.
Tho the EU people are not THAT united, they'd gladly share meals, drinks and weapons the very second on of their leaders tries and declare war on another EU country. We're no longer in the early 20th century. West EU people communicate with each other on such a regular basis, we can't fight each other anymore in conventional wars. Everyone knows the loss would overweight the gains (would there be any?). As for East EU....well, they hate each other but they fear Russia too much to destroy themselves on their own. Maybe? As for the rest, well, markets made the world evolve at the same pace, more or less, and EU is making sure we're not sacrificing safety for economic prosperity sake. That and UK's great success on the Brexit (LOL) ensure it won't collapse any time soon.
One of the first things politicians look at when gaining power is defence because hitting the people with extra taxes is hard enough so defence suffers .America has so much money [ok 32 trillion in debt but that is the can being kicked down the road] it only cuts back a little to make it look like good economics .
Simply put, no European country wants to be under the thumb of another European country. We have like 1000 years of history proving this, and the wars accompanying them. We have very strong, longstanding traditions that we don't want to give up. These are the sort of issues the EU faces hen trying to bring our countries together on any topic. Then there is the fact that EU policy is not always the best for certain countries, and they then go against said policy.
What make you think that the 70-80% analphabet US is better...? THEY ARE TODDLERS compared with the rest of the world .... and their way they all turned neger in the movement and speak and dress and so THANKS GOD SOME PEOPLE THERE IS NOW WAKING UP and get back to their nice and kindness as the White americans were kNOWN and LOVED for, before the last century really and nearly killed them
Not really. There are tons of multinational European defense companies and just buying stuff from outside the EU. Ultimately it comes down to negotiating distribution of benefits from this.
12:35 It depends on American votes (Trump): And that's the problem right here. It is not supposed to be dependend on the specific person who runs the USA. NATO is a defensive alliance - it's promise with each other, to defend each other in times of need, can never be questioned, or it will fall apart and the promise will become worthless. But Trump did question it, hence the new efforts to correct this problem and strenghten the EU itself.
Hello Connor You and american people make confusion between Union Soviet and East European country, aka military Varșovia pact. Poland, Romania, Czech, Slovacia, Hungary, Bulgaria NEVER make part of Union Soviet.
Yes,you are right,also worth mentioning that Romania was in a cold war with the Soviet Union from 1968 till the end ,in 1989,because Ceausescu critisized and condemned the invasion of Chechoslovakia, so the Soviets began to gather troops at the fronteer with Romania (just like Russia did before invading Ukraine) ,But they didn't got the chance to cross the Prut river,because the romanian army launched some dozens missiles by surprise on the soviet temporary campaments....very few survived and they didn't tried again and kept it secret like it never happened,
the whole french doctrine of warfare is to have light armoured vehicles, that are very mobile. no heavy tanks have been built in france for decades now
France war are far from their border ( even Russia treat is on the other side ) so it's normal for us to have army you can deploy fast and far . and to be fair when you see Ukrain war ... tanks don't go so well today, not sure heavy tank have good futur ...
Parliament = House, Council of Ministers = Senate, both form equivalent of Congress. The Commission is the executive. The major difference is that the Commission is the one that proposes new laws, based on what the heads of states, the people, and the parliament requests. There are of course more differences, but that's basically it to understand the basics. I really like that the Commission is responsible for crafting legislative proposals (bills), because that means that a body that is filled with experts in all the different legislative areas research, and write the laws, and then the Parliament and Council are responsible for reviewing, and amending those, and if both the Parliament and Council agree, you have a new law on the books. And at no point was the law based on personal or national interests on EU level if all goes as it should, or drafted by morons as a political move to score brownie points with voters.
1:27: Germany is the richest economy in Europe BECAUSE they haven’t had to spend much on their military with American presence on their soil and heavily rely on the ricans. 17:28: you design, develop them in common an and each country build it in its own country, that’s exactly what the French and Italians have done with the MU90 light torpedo. Or you design, develop it in common and each country gets to build a part, like for the Euro fighter Typhoon or airbus airplanes.
Given the US shift towards authoritarianism (at least on one side of the aisle) and a former and possibly future president's fondness for dicators like Putin and antipathy towards NATO, it is hardly surprising that Europe would wish to create a new military pact to defend itself independent of pervasive US influence. Its notable that even in post-Brexit Britain, where the idea of general realignment with the EU is considered political suicide by leaders in the two major parties, both are determined to join other European democracies in matters of defence. The EU already had EUROFOR and is finalising the EU Battlegroup, expanding it to encompass non-EU nations seems like a good way to bring other European democracies together - all the more so if the US does end up abandoning NATO. (Even if the US steers back from the brink again, incidents like the invasion of Iraq based on lies, the betrayal of the Kurds and the sudden and disasterous abandoning of Afghanistan has hardly endeared the US to its allies in recent times.)
It should have happened a long time ago to protect European interest, but now it's becoming more of a pressing matter because the US is becoming less trustworthy, more erratic and not as stable, it also looks like democracy in the US could be under threat from the far right in the Republican Party, and this rise has been happening for quite some time now, but it looks like Harris might put some calm on the storm, but that's likely only temporary unless the American people wake up to the threat of the far right. As for Europe, we have our own far right, but they are tame in comparison to what's going on in the US, you only have to listen to their policies and what they say to see that. In any case, the US is creating a lot of problems for its self that it might not be the bacon of democracy any more, the EU is the only other major player big enough to defend those values, in a world that is becoming more hostile towards those values, in other words, European countries in the EU might be forced to integrate more to protect there political, economic and social interest in a world that is becoming more hostile and unstable, especially as the US is becoming less reliable and could actually become a threat if the far right does manage to become a real threat to democracy over there and if the US falls on that, other countries could follow around the world unless the EU is strong enough to step up, without that, they would be easy pickings for the likes of China and Russia, and that could weaken democracy all over the world. In an ideal world, both the EU and US needs to get there act together to the real threats growing around the world and need to work together to contain that threat before it gets out of hand, we are already seeing the rise of that rise in both the EU and US with the rise of the far right, we also see a lot of political meddling in both the EU and US by Russia and China, it's time we in the west wake-up and start clamping down on this threat before it leads to something far bigger then it is today.
Concern about their military dependance upon America and whether America will honor re-supply contracts also results in political and economic concerns when dealing with America.
about the standard (19:30) it s not about a standard on ammo for instance. This is now a standard in the NATO countries and it s good (for a lot of small rounds for rifles, for shell for artillery etc) However it s about interoperability of communication of US fighter jets and the EU jets. For instance Rafales, Eurofighters and Grippens fighter jets can communicate between each others. Us figter jets use an another crypted protocol that US does not not share with other NATO planes: in another word they do some blocking to avoid interoperability. They say it s for security reason, but we could argue it s to block you as a consumer to use other systems. The best comparison I can see is that the European are Android and the US is Apple and do not let your phone to be recharged with an android cable. The same for weapons - USA do not authorize any other jets to be able to carry their missiles - especially the nukes - Countries that rely on the nuclear umbrella of the US (such as Italy, Germany, Belgium and UK) they NEED TO BUY US fighter jets and only US figther jets if they want to keep this functionality. (for example the unfamous F35 that a lot countries are critizing) The best NATION I could say is FR (yes again) they are at 99% independant on the US and rely on national or EU defense system only. EU countries, even European countries (UK, Norway, Switzerland etc) should make more a global European market to be less dependent on US, South Korean, etc manufacturers.
Since the Second World War, the USA has manufactured so much weaponry that it resells them at low prices, and the Europeans bought them, and continue to buy them, for reasons of economy. The problem is that in the event of conflicts, we will be dependent on the goodwill of American politicians. Even today, several European countries are equipping themselves with F35s and Ahrahams tanks. But fortunately this is changing. The EU relied on the fact that France and the UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The UK has left the European Union, so only us in France remain who own it. Faced with a country like Putin's Russia, and its extensionist ambitions, this is a meager defense. But for the moment I'm not too worried: Russia, the 2nd army in the world, can't beat Ukraine, and worse, it's been a week since Ukraine crossed the Russian border , and conquered 78 Russian localities, over 1,000 km²
The US wanted or want to FORCE in the name of west democraty the DICTATORSHIP on EUROPE. Yet they are so damm and unexperience compared with the European. but because they damm and violent with wars and weapon money and kill both their owns and others for their profit. IT IS NOTHING NEW THE EASTERN and a bit the WESTERN EUROPEAN NEW THAT short after the WW II.
This is also a big business and its main beneficiaries will be Germany and France. The rest of the countries don't have to like it. The EU likes to unify everything and in a few years it may turn out that why do we need three manufacturers of tanks or IFVs? The EU will force other countries to arm themselves with selected producers and if someone does not comply, it will impose financial penalties.
You’re right, but that wasn’t his question. His question was if those countries were heavily influenced by the USSR enough to be considered part of the USSR’s dominion, which it was.
@@togerboy5396 Not Yugoslavia. They were non-aligned, and on the western side of the "iron curtain", and should not be "red". They were communist - but that's not the same as being part of the soviet union.
Yes, was painted light red instead of red in my schoolbook to distinguish it from the rest of the countries behind the iron curtain. NATO countries where blue except France that as light blue (as they at the time was part of NATO but separate from the NATO command and support structures).
@@cynic7049 Also this is where 1st, 2nd and 3rd world stems from. 1st world = NATO/"The west" + allies (South Africa, Australia, etc) 2nd world = Warsaw pact and allies (such as Cuba, China and NK) 3rd world = everything else (most of South America, Africa, India, etc.) However today only 3rd world is in use and have become to mean "undeveloped".
Great opinions you took with you. The core is pretty much as you said. A common perspective and an common goal is the driver for interoperability in the EU. Much regards from Germany
the standards being a problem , ...sorry but american 'standards' its not always a positive one specially with how greedy even a open u.s was about specifications aka ,capability of local production the one thing that is the most NEEDED if engaged in a actual war ...as it said 'loyal customers' the u.s even when more open worked AGENST its supposed 'allies' self preservation ability that it was more about wanting to keep others 'addicted' to its weaponry , there is a reason why 90% of the european alternatives for a long time competed more with quality then numbers , though honestly this video sounded very 'american' angled ..after all putting a positive spin on lobbyists influencing civilian government ? ye great give the portion of a society with the least desire to defend it the most leverage to blackmail governments in the event of existential threats XD wouldet take it as bleak as it sounds here though , as the watcher mentioned ww2 , yep and the european nations slogged that out FOR YEARS before the u.s got torpedo'd up its posterior so the portions of its society that been admiring the n guys hade to shut up and start get involved on the allies side just like ukrane showed big fat giant if it STRONG ARMS its assets that often cause said assets produce lees quality , after all a lot of the american high tech production is already heavy supplied with european educated manpower to keep running because its society social spending having been sabotaged by lobbyists for decades no longer can sustain the manpower needed for its own industries if left all on its own , not to mention the health care to keep the civilian manpower base alive long term if on its own , something the european nations and europe part of nato is vastly more prepared for.
At 08:55 - This is the main reason why Putin finances the left and right extremist political parties in Europe... He fears that the EU leadership would be more powerful diplomatically, politically and very influential worldwide, while Putin wants a subservient EU to be able to weaken the US influence in Europe
The EU is already more powerful politically, economically and with how poor Russia is performing in Ukraine, probably even militarily, even thought EU militaries are divided over 27 countries. In any case, Putin is doing his best to weaken his position in the world, he's exposed that Russia is a lot weaker on the military front and his threats don't hold much bite, before the war in Ukraine, Russia was seen as a major political and military player, now they are seen as a joke, especially in the west. As for the EU and integration, they'll move depending on threat from the outside and need, in other words, if they have to integrate further to compete better with the US and China, they likely will, even if some members don't want too, it's better to be competitive then to be pushed aside and working as one in the EU allows them to compete directly with the US and China.
Caspian Report isn't the best channel to get a good idea of things. They have a weird way of putting things into their stories that usually don't turn out to be true. Like when they did a piece on the China and Australia soured relationship...saying the trade Australia, the US and UK does with China outweighs the cultural and historical ties between the US, UK and Australia when it comes to Chinese aggression to where none will support the other if conflict occurs...which turned out to be false. Also many countries have begun a disconnect with China and have diversified their trading with more countries...(not putting all their eggs in one "China" basket).
2:45 No. Russia + Ukraine + Belarus + Baltic nations (and a few more nations without name on that map) were the Soviet Union. The other East European nations such as Poland, Hungary, etc. were Warsaw pact nations - satellite nations or heavily aligned nations with the Soviet Union. They were communist / socialist countries and obviously formed an alliance with the Soviet Union against NATO and the west.
This reminds me of the game Mercenaries 2 when the Alliance gets involved. And you can hear the troops say, "woo yeah, U-S-A! U-S-A! Wait...Al-lies! Al-lies!"
The first attempt to create an EU army dates back in the 60ies but was rejected by DeGaulle who was concerned about Germany to be "armed" again. Bear in mind that at that time, both German and France were part of EEC (treaty of Rome, 1957)
The Airbus model could be used in part to get Europeans to vote for monies going to their fellow Europeans. In that part of the product is made in different countries. (if this was a problem losing economies of scale you could do it over a series of different products)
The warmongers in the US smell blood and that is money for them so now they talk bulshit propagand and missleadings to their own people not noticed that their people is ont not on their chain of a prisoners that they could foof for so many years and decades... and get shity over that the new generation are more cleaver or more and more than just go and die for them while and with a UNCLEAR and deliberate missleading propagand of their non stop wars
The person who runs Caspian Report is Azeri and has a pro-Azeri bias in many of his reports. At the very least he's distanced from NATO which might be good or bad, just take that into consideration
Saying the EU is creating its own "military-industrial complex" based on the changes presented here is like saying you're turning into Michael Myers because you bought a kitchen knife. Also, it's quite weird to hear the term being used as some sort of well-defined "policy" or "institution" which you can get by implementing some specific political changes - when it's just a fairly vague and usually derogative term like "corruption" or "decadence".
There was something called the Soviet Pact which was Russia's N.A.T.O. equivalent but after the Soviet Union collapsed those countries wanted independence apart from a few of little consequence which is why N.A.T.O. would always crush Russia in a "conventional " war and seeing the Russian incompetence and corruption during the war in Ukraine which only solidifies such beliefs. Both Russia and N.A.T.O. would be low on arms at the start of a conventional war but as in WW2 a war economy would be in full swing after a short while with accusations of political incompetence being aimed at the politicians .The crunch would come if N.A.T.O. crossed into Russian at which point Russia would for sure use nuclear weapons. Equally Putin has no intention of invading a N.A.T.O. country .
SOME of the USUAL ANTIQUE people of the shit imperialism is still alive despite they are close to 100 years old and still on the making war and kill us for their own profit. HOW STUPID IS THAT>
I think most poeple dont understand but France from thé 60's to 2008 never left NATO but left the opérationnel commandement, witch means that they were not oblgated to go on wars abroad but were still to défend any country from thé alliance... This saying no to War in Irak. Aldo french "freedom" Aldo Comes from its military industry unlike all of thé other EU countries and being a nuke power, éventuellement unlike thé UK witch disent have power over it but have to Ask permission from thé US. And maybe know that each F35 has a daily code provided by thé USA so they chose if youncan use those....
I say you got it right! And as you say.. USA is a country and when your military/defens department starts a new military project its not about if.. more about who get the order and wich state got the jobs! In EU its more about if.. and if different countrys develope there own military equipment.. so both money and jobs stay in there country. In anyway its kinda this why EU started in the begining, "coal and steel union", and there is more industrial projects like Airbus that actualy succeded! Anyway.. another thing was peace in Europe, no more infighting and wars! Ooops, nobody thought that Russia should go to war.. so now we need to consider an EU military-industrial complex altso! Or rather how to fund those projects/factories/research! Share the costs/jobs/imaterial propertys/knowledge.
with other world we have democracy in Europe while the US is still under dictatorship when it comes to war and many other things which is time for to set a stop for rather than support
@@erzsebetnilsson580 No I newer said that or even meant that.. USA is still a democracy.. its this that they is a "country" that elect a single goverment.. and have 50 states thats could/can legislate on there own domestic laws! Its rather this.. and that was one of the moste importante reasons why EU started.. no more war/infighting, get togheter.. and togheter we are stronger to safeguard our own living space and altso be more importante on the global market! Its still this, military expenditure is things that goes Boom and then is destroyed in worste case.. its an deterent in best case! Soo every little country in EU/EFTA cant afford to develope top notch military equipment by there own! We need colaboration and standarditaton.. our own Military EU complex to have this deterens! And keep the jobs in EU!
I'm always surprised by how surprised Americans are about the military reserves in Europe. Atleast Germany will be able to sing things out for 3 days. In Belgium we'll be able to keep up for 4 hours before the ammunation reserves are depleted. Hell, it's expected our police forces will be able to keep up the battle longer than the army.
In a short term war, that's true, we Europeans are not really ready for a major war, but if a war did break out, you can bet the economic might as well as manufacturing capabilities would kick in and become a lot more militarised and do so quickly, we've seen in the second world war how countries can change rapidly to war, today it's likely more so because of the tech we have. In other words, we in Europe, especially in the EU don't see any major threats to us, there is Russia making all the noise on the east, but they are not really a threat, in fact, many of us are seeing them as a joke not a threat. We in Europe are far more passive on the military front, probably because of the impact of the second world war, but that shouldn't be mistaken for weakness, real power in this world is the economy, if a major war were to break out, the EU countries would likely do 2 things, 1 is to put far more resources on the military front and 2, pool resources together with other EU countries, but the simple truth is, there is no major threat, at least not yet, but the world is becoming less stable, so EU countries probably should get better prepared in case things kick off.
I think for a long time the US loved to be the big brother for Europe and the US also was not interested in the EU arming up but with the rising of the military power of China, the US realized that they had no capacity anymore to protect Europe and have trouble with China. People in Europe are also not so open-minded about military stuff, if you are a Politcan in Europe and you say you spend a lot of money in the military. probably the people don't vote for you. Here in 'Europe, we often have war in or around us, and always is the US involved or part of the reason. Syria, Lybia, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine (also Balkan war). how much does the US take care of the refugees they produce with their bombs? I will not blame the US, I like the US but it's somehow also strange, the US is involved in so many wars but they never had war in their own country. Imagine the money that the world is spending on military shit they would spend in the clime crisis and poverty. Mindblowing !!!!
You would think they would realise, but I'm not so sure, there are a lot of conflicts going on in the US in how they see the EU, China and the rest of the world. But I think longer term, the US won't be able to compete with China, they've got too big of an advantage with population size which in time could become an economic power, after all, the only thing that's special about the US over European countries is its population size, that delivered economic, political and military power, China are quickly developing the economic and political muscle, if they wanted, they could also develop the military a lot more, China has the advantage of having a far bigger population then the EU and US combined, if they keep developing, I see little chance in the US competing with them and it might even be difficult for a strong EU and US working together to contain China, but the EU and US does have an advantage, they are far more trusted around the world and will likely get a lot of countries around the fold on there side. Either way, with how the world is shaping up and becoming less stable, we in Europe need to get our act together when it comes to the EU, and the EU and US will likely need each other a lot more than they realise, being as they are not that different from each other on the core values, but for that to happen, the EU countries will have to integrate more and the US will have to come of it's high horse in not trying to control everything, in other words, a more equal partnership.
love it ehrn videos point out britains land forces good or bad in a defensive scenario, despite the british army being 100% offensive. in the 364 years since it was formed its never been used in the defence of britain lol. if anyone wants to invade the UK they still need to get naval and air supremacy like every other time, and last i checked only 2 countries stand a chance of that, and both are allies lol.
Connar, answering your question of ‘Military Equipment Technical Standards’. You ask why don’t the European arms manufacturers just use USA Standards. There are three reasons for this: 1) Export Restrictions and Terms of Use - The USA does not allow Export Customers access to the ‘computer programming language’ Source Codes of their weapons system. For example, the Manufactured and sells to Poland F-16 Fighter Jet Aircraft. The F-16 is capable of firing 9 types of missiles, all USA designed and made. In order to fire a missile, the F-16 uses a Combat Management System (CMS). This CMS is basically a computer which speaks to the missile, and tell it what to do. So if a European country wanted to use a European made missile on their F-16 aircraft, they would first need access to the CMB computer programming language Source Codes. Which the USA will NOT give them. Then they would have to design and write new CMB computer programming language Source Codes for the new missile. Which they are NOT allowed to do, as part of the terms of purchase of their F-16 aircraft from the USA. Which means the only missiles they can buy and use on their F-16 aircraft are any of the 9 missiles the F-16 Combat Management System (CMS) can fire. One you buy an F-16 Fighter Jet, the ONLY missiles you can use, are made in the USA. Subject to export controls. 2) Incompatibility of Old and New Technologies - Most of the USA equipment is ‘old’ technology. Mostly designed and manufactured in the early 1990s (over 30 years ago). These are weapons systems designed and built before Smartphones existed. Despite being functionally useful, they do not meet modern standards, and are ‘technologically incompatible’ with the programming languages and digital electronics of today. The Abrams Main Battle Tanks “Shock and Awe” battlefield technologies of Operation Desert Storm of 1991, are being made into ‘tin cans’ by the new ‘Drone Warfare’ of the battlefields of Ukraine in 2024. These technology standards are incompatible, with what is required on the battlefields now. 3) The Rapidity of Technological Changes - Using the USA’s military equipment standards is limiting. It ‘stifles’, the ability to innovate in war. For example, the UK and France have just produced (mainly UK technology) a new ‘Cased Telescope’ 40mm programmable ammunition and gun, for the UK (Ajax) and French Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV’s). They USA has no such technology, and none of their systems and guns are compatible. Most of the USA’s weapons systems are over 30 years old in technology and design. The Rapidity of Technological Changes means they keeping up with what is actually required on the battlefield of today, has resulted in ‘ditching’ USA equipment standards and outdated technologies in favour of the new. So, just from a ‘Military Equipment Technical Standards’ perspective, there are huge ‘political’ and ‘technical’ obstacles, to European countries using USA standards.
BECAUSE EUROPE and ALL OTHER COUNTRIES (exeption the US best friends ) ALL WANT TO MAKE PEACE LIVE IN THE PEACE AND LET THEIR CITIZENS TO HAVE A GOOD standard of living
@@erzsebetnilsson580 Yes. the people do. But the Politicians DO NOT! They are all owned by the Zionists running the USA. Look at Germany! They are allowing the USA to put Nuclear Missiles IN THEIR TERRITORY, pointed at Russia. Now they are a "First Strike Target" for Russia's nuclear retaliation. Did the German people vote for that? Who asked them?
after finish wayching Conner i will checkout the original uploader: it seems to me it is a strange channel: blurring facts with a scary image of Europe!
It doesn't have to happen anyway, the real issue in the EU countries isn't their military spending, it's the division of having 27 individual militaries, with all the waste and duplication that gives. Spending more on 27 individual militaries will still be weak and not very effective, it would also be at the mercy of the US, so why bother spending more unless you're going to have a much more effective military on the world stage? The only way that will happen is pooling resources as one EU military, even at current spending, that would be far more powerful than we have today. The US wants European countries to spend more on the military for its own benefits, arms deals, and because it's far easier to control smaller independent countries than one big EU one, also, if the EU did have a single military, the EU countries wouldn't have to listen to the US, that would weaken US position in Europe and around the world, it would also mean the EU having a much stronger arms industry, that would be in direct competition with the US on the world stage. So I doubt the US wants a single EU military, even thought it might be wise that it happens as I don't think the EU or the US will compete with China over the long run, but a strong EU and US together very likely can. In any case, there is no threat to the welfare system, unless far more is being spent on the military whiles keeping them independent of each other, not only would those militaries be quite ineffective and weak, but it would be massively wasteful and could be a threat to the welfare system, and overtime, many countries will realise that it makes sense to pool resources together, until then, the US will continue to call the shots on military matters.
I know that France has 200 leclerc tanks plus 150 cocoon Thousands of modern heavy combat vehicules ( + 20 tonnes) France 2nd arm dealer in the world that is nonsensical
I said it once, I'll say it again. The reason of the current state of European armies is the reasonable complacency that stems from the forced US protection. See, since WW2, the idea of a European army had popped up multiple times, but US lobby always shut it down. In the eyes of the US, a militarily independent Europe would make nato, and thus US influence in the region obsolete. Few know this, but the bases that the yanks have here provide no real protection, since most are forbidden from operating outside of the base premises. They are simply logistical F.O.B.s for their operations in the MENA region. Regardless, if the US wants to protect Europe whether we want it or not, why should we spend money on it ourselves? My own take on this: I support complete strategic autonomy: unified procurement, the EU Army (as well as general federalisation). Once that's done though, we must distance ourselves from US interests, since they're not ours. We also need to decrease hostility towards China. Animosity towards them is not our interest either. If/When the two go to war over Taiwan, we must stay neutral. Our interests should be as follows: Keep Russia at bay. Keep a very strict external border policy backed by the army, complete remigration, also supported by the armed forces. In extension to this, we must take control of Africa, since they simply can not properly manage themselves. We waste billions upon billions to help them each year and for what? Let's spend that same money on occupation instead, that would at least have certain results: Doing so would finally stop migration once and for all. Oh, edit: The original video was utter garbage.
"we must take control of Africa, since they simply can not properly manage themselves." I see that two white supremacists upvoted your comment. Considering what a cesspool this ap is, I'm surprised it's not more.
Wtf? You suggest an invasion and subjugation of a whole continent!? Heh yeah right and China, US, Russia and co WON'T move a finger at all while we do so of course! What's more, the local will certainly NEVER try to destroy whatever we'll attempt to build there out of spite and whatever looks like pride. Nope. It's not a board or CIV game. Things won't go that smoothly just because we want it, especially if we go full insane and conquer A WHOLE CONTINENT. Do you even human??
Just tell the people of the states that Trump is the president prefered of the Comunist and the course will change ... The truth is thats is not any lie in that phrase xD
And EU IS a kind of dictaturship on européen states, even more since thé heads of thé EU are self elected ans not from poeple making thème thé ultimate non elected power of thé all world
@@keto0303 😎 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 'Don the Con' can ONLY rely on his gullible (as HE said "I love the stupid") base... AND that's getting smaller every day - Because SO MANY are seeing through his LIES - Just saying! 🤣
Idk what people think is wrong with this video, it seems pretty factual to me. CaspianReports does good videos, the only times I saw people mad at him is for taking scammy sponsorships.
I live in the UK and I telling you what the US on the top know: DO NOT BE SURE ABOUT IT> THE UK IS A KINGDOM and THEY ALWAYS DEFEND THEM SELF IN THE END and let the other stay smaller. The UK WILL NEVER ALLOW ANYONE FOR TO SAY ON THE TOP OF THEM and the US IS STUPID to believe they have or would have so much support from ANYWHEE IN THE WORLD as THEY BEEN TOLD TOO when it comes to war or power. UK IS DOUBLE AGED SWORD.
Frankly, a lot of countries look at arms industry very selfishly. Germany and France want rest of europe to participate in ararments by buying their weapons, not by participating in production. Poland was part of project to develop new european main battle tank, but then it was kicked out by France and Germany. Alright, fine, we'll make deal with Koreans then. 19:54 I'm not sure about that. I'm reminded on how USA gave up Philippines to Chinese encroachment during Obama presidency.
Heh yes. The language is of unity, but everyone has their own interests unfortunately. Military procurement is a topic in itself. It's bad enough within single nations anyway. I get the impression that proper cooperation will only happen when things get desperate, and too late as usual. Will be interesting to see how the K2 works out, they're going to be home built I believe. Is it the first time in modern history that Asia has sold a complete weapon system to "The West"? A changing world.
2:43 Not all of them, the western flank was part of Warsaw pact though. Funnily enough, the only thing that Warsaw pact ever achieved was invasion of one of its member states, Czechoslovakia, due to not being communist enough.
"Yeah, I'll react to that, sure" *Every* video you react to on geo-political affairs has the *exact same* right-wing, pro-militarist perspective. Your channel's slogan does not match the reality of your channel.
I find it hilarious that this new found European unity and joint military enterprise gets so much praise now, when Macron and many Baltic leaders have been advocating for it to no avail, long before the EU saw the Cyrillic writing on the wall. And as long as the EU remains a reactive entity and not a proactive one, I won't have much faith in its military endeavors. To be honest, I don't have much faith in an armed Europe where Italians are supposed to stand side by side in battle with their ... allies. 😜 Or where the Magyars have a determining say in how wars are fought. No offense meant to the people of Italy or Hungary, but your leaders suck! 🤓
What a terrible idea. I'm European and the LAST thing I want and Europe becomes a war machine Article number 11 of Italian constitution: "Italy repudiates war as an instrument of attack on the freedom of other peoples and as a means of resolving international disputes" I don't need more soldier. I need more care of homeless people, more rights for workers, more help for the weak, desperates. I would like LESS money to armies, LESS money for militars
The Italian constitution, article 11: "L'Italia ripudia la guerra come strumento di offesa alla libertà degli altri popoli e come mezzo di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali; consente, in condizioni di parità con gli altri Stati, alle limitazioni di sovranità necessarie ad un ordinamento che assicuri la pace e la giustizia fra le Nazioni; promuove e favorisce le organizzazioni internazionali rivolte a tale scopo." Translation: "Italy rejects war as an instrument to opress the freedom of other people and as a tool to resolve international disputes;" The first part says that Italy will not use war as an offensive tool, there is never a mention to prohibit build up or the use of the military for defensive purposes regarding herself and her allies. "grants, in situations of parity with other states, the restrictions of freedom that secures peace and justice in other nations;" Italy does allow the use of "war" as an offensive tool, but the article restricts the use to the will of international organizations (such as a UN mandate) or an allied mandate (such as NATO). "promotes and favors organizations with such an objective." Italy also promotes organizations that have peace in their goals, such as the UN and the EU. You made some fatal flaws, the first was not showing the full article and the full context and the second isn't getting informed about the topic (EU army and the Italian defence spending). Unlike you painted it, an EU army would actually be great if all steps are followed, an integrated industry, supplies, infrastructure and doctrine would MASSIVELY cut costs. The objective of an EU army isn't to attack other nations but to protect the EU borders and help with her (and by proxy her member states) peacekeeping missions. The Italian defence spending is atrocious not because is much, but becuase it's awfully spent, with a vast majority of the budget going into one time bonuses, humongous paychecks and pensions.
@@dwightk.schrute8696Italy is the 10th most powerful country in the world, with one of the most advanced Navy and Airforce in the world, with a decent amount of modern experience and a decent Army.
You realise everything you want is more easily achieved if the EU can take advantage of economies of scale in their arms procurement. Both the private sector and EU commission believe that joint procurement alone would save the EU 30% per annum on defence spending. Never be an ideologue; it clouds judgement and often hides solutions to your problems.
You are talking about what you want to happen, and what you'd like, which is different from what is likely to, or is happening. Agree with your sentiments though. The "peace dividend" from the 90's onwards has been squandered. Wealth is more concentrated in fewer hands than before. Houses are commodities to make money from, rather than places to live etc. There's no reason to think that a benign peaceful attitude to others will be reciprocated by everyone unfortunately. Do as you would be done by is a great base to work from. Some don't and won't comply with that sadly.
I have no problem with the U.K. or other ‘European COUNTRIES’ and NOT a United States of Europe working closely together militarily if the USA retreats from Europe but it mustn’t be as an excuse to call for a European army. Right now Russia is having difficulty with just Ukraine, so how will it fair against the U.K., France, Germany and Italy for example who are more then capable of having stronger militaries but right now even with smaller military budgets compared to the US is still enough to contain Russia or at least act as a deterrent to prevent Putin getting ideas about resurrecting the USSR. Sometimes I think the EU and its supporters calling for an EU army and closer integration use Russia and Americas exit from Europe as an excuse to give the EU even more powers. Those Brussel elites are narcissists and need to understand their hunger for more power by manipulating European countries will not work in the long run. I also agree Connor, European countries should not rely on America and should invest more in its own militaries but it should be done without creating an industrial military complex for all of Europe that is dictated to and controlled by Brussel elites who will act egotistical by calling for a foreign policy that would project the EU like the United States as a global superpower.
En Usa hay 50 millones de hispanoamericanos, 60 millones de italomericamos, millones de origen francés, millones de descendientes de irlandeses, todos son católicos y excepto irlanda con lenguas latinas, por no hablar de chinos, germánicos, eslavos o escandinavos. Cuantos britanicos hay en Usa? 😂
A lot of BS and speculation in the original video, along with vague assertions about the trajectory of European military planning. Fake news, as the orange man would say.
Denmark has no heavy artilleri, we gave it to Ukraine
Alas 🤔😪
@@carolinekofahl8867Well, Finland will act as the shield with our sizable artillery. Just have our backs in other ways.
@@Avalozir Yes, the video miss to point out that the next attack if Putin wins and rearms will be against Finland, Poland or the Baltic states and Finland and Poland are probably the best armed and prepared nations in Europe, which do make the Baltic states the most likely to be attacked by far.
@@cynic7049 Indeed.
@@cynic7049 "Finland and Poland are probably the best armed and prepared nations in Europe"
As french and past military, I can't let you tell that 😅🙏
The video is wrong that each EU nations defense industry is still only operating in its own national boundaries. It's not. All big players in Germany, France, Italy, etc. already manufacture in countries all over the the EU (and all over the world in many cases) and not just in their own home country. This "evolutionary" step, when compared with US industrial spread across US states, is already much further evolved, than the narrator is telling you here.
Sorry. I laughed a lot at 1.40 when the guy says that Europe lives under the “American security umbrella”.XD. Not umbrella but interference, influence and interest. Many EU countries still prefer to buy American products in exchange for promises. Politico-strategic “aid” has organized Europe's dependence on the United States since the Second World War. Since then, our relations are no longer based on friendship, but on common interests. And a common, self-sufficient European army is of no interest to the United States, so it will never exist or in a very long time. At least, there's one area where we'll never need you: deterrence.
The Eastern European countries were not part of the Sovjet Union - merely under the influence of ☺
Not even,Romania was in a cold war with the soviets from 1968 till 1989,when the Soviet Union was disbanded,so no influence. I know a guy in Romania in the 80's who was condemned to 1 year of prison only for mentioning in a discussion at a bar about Soviet Union being a good political solution.
Eastern European countries were JUST LIKE NOW WITH THE EU ( but more or less forced to the EU) while before they asked the SOVIET russians for to get be protected by them and belong... just like you have a 50 states that kind of a relation Eastern Europeans countries had with Soviet or Russian as the AMERICANS wrongly call them for cummunits . The ONLY COMMUNIST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WERE CHINA. The others were socialist which means or other world for democratic.
They were in the Warsaw Pact
Many East European countries are members of the EU.
@@mauk2861 Yep part of the warsaw pact alliance with the USSR after war turned against the axis. countries that we're from the axis alliance switched sides.
CaspianReport, a mediocre source of information. He says they need sponsormoney for research, writing and editing, yet NEVER shares any verifiable sources they use. Its no secret they are from Azerbeidzjan, not the Netherlands , contrary to what as it says on their YT channel. Just sayin'.....
Some European technologies are more efficient than US standards. The USA has been united for over 230 years, and you speak the same language. In Europe, each country has its own language, its own standards, and we have only been united for a few decades, and just a few years for some. It takes time to harmonize everything.
Many Europeans criticize the EU, but we haven't had a war between EU countries for 80 years, whereas before there were always wars everywhere. The EU is a very new entity.
The USA is the reason you Europeans having been getting along since 1945.
A European military industrial complex in Europe? No. The welfare hammocks must remain! LOL
You don't have an advanced economy unless you're advanced in a lot of areas, including technology, just that the US puts more effort into high-tech whereas Europe puts more effort into industry, but these policies on either side can change if needed and I do think the EU countries will push much harder on high-tech over the coming decades.
Also, when it comes to high-tech military goods, we should remember that both the EU and US buy off each other, with usually Europe specialising in certain areas on the military front.
But if the EU was all one in a lot more areas, including the military front, it would be a lot more powerful than the sum of it's parts, even at current military spending, it would be a potent military if it was all one, especially once they get rid of all the waste and duplication of having 27 individual militaries, which isn't very effective.
Either way, I think the most effective way for the EU countries to build a single military is to do it like they did with the Euro and Schengen Zone, don't try and get all countries onboard, get as many as they can and let the others join at a later date, doing it this way, you are bound to get a few countries onboard at first, once the ball is rolling, others will likely want to join in future as they see the benefits of it, but if they try to get everyone on board in one go, it likely will never happen, whereas if they do it as I said, it likely will happen and progress like how the Euro and Schengen did with countries joining as time goes by.
We are not united in EU! We only milk it for what its worth, but despise it overall. And we will never join your empire fantasy.
We are not united in EU! We only milk it for what its worth, but despise it overall.
Tho the EU people are not THAT united, they'd gladly share meals, drinks and weapons the very second on of their leaders tries and declare war on another EU country.
We're no longer in the early 20th century. West EU people communicate with each other on such a regular basis, we can't fight each other anymore in conventional wars. Everyone knows the loss would overweight the gains (would there be any?).
As for East EU....well, they hate each other but they fear Russia too much to destroy themselves on their own. Maybe?
As for the rest, well, markets made the world evolve at the same pace, more or less, and EU is making sure we're not sacrificing safety for economic prosperity sake. That and UK's great success on the Brexit (LOL) ensure it won't collapse any time soon.
One of the first things politicians look at when gaining power is defence because hitting the people with extra taxes is hard enough so defence suffers .America has so much money [ok 32 trillion in debt but that is the can being kicked down the road] it only cuts back a little to make it look like good economics .
Simply put, no European country wants to be under the thumb of another European country. We have like 1000 years of history proving this, and the wars accompanying them. We have very strong, longstanding traditions that we don't want to give up. These are the sort of issues the EU faces hen trying to bring our countries together on any topic. Then there is the fact that EU policy is not always the best for certain countries, and they then go against said policy.
What make you think that the 70-80% analphabet US is better...? THEY ARE TODDLERS compared with the rest of the world .... and their way they all turned neger in the movement and speak and dress and so THANKS GOD SOME PEOPLE THERE IS NOW WAKING UP and get back to their nice and kindness as the White americans were kNOWN and LOVED for, before the last century really and nearly killed them
Not really. There are tons of multinational European defense companies and just buying stuff from outside the EU. Ultimately it comes down to negotiating distribution of benefits from this.
12:35 It depends on American votes (Trump): And that's the problem right here. It is not supposed to be dependend on the specific person who runs the USA. NATO is a defensive alliance - it's promise with each other, to defend each other in times of need, can never be questioned, or it will fall apart and the promise will become worthless. But Trump did question it, hence the new efforts to correct this problem and strenghten the EU itself.
Hello Connor
You and american people make confusion between Union Soviet and East European country, aka military Varșovia pact.
Poland, Romania, Czech, Slovacia, Hungary, Bulgaria NEVER make part of Union Soviet.
Yes,you are right,also worth mentioning that Romania was in a cold war with the Soviet Union from 1968 till the end ,in 1989,because Ceausescu critisized and condemned the invasion of Chechoslovakia, so the Soviets began to gather troops at the fronteer with Romania (just like Russia did before invading Ukraine) ,But they didn't got the chance to cross the Prut river,because the romanian army launched some dozens missiles by surprise on the soviet temporary campaments....very few survived and they didn't tried again and kept it secret like it never happened,
Thanks. I hate it when I mention those and people answers me "Well whatever, same stuff, why making the distinction?"
the whole french doctrine of warfare is to have light armoured vehicles, that are very mobile. no heavy tanks have been built in france for decades now
France war are far from their border ( even Russia treat is on the other side ) so it's normal for us to have army you can deploy fast and far .
and to be fair when you see Ukrain war ... tanks don't go so well today, not sure heavy tank have good futur ...
@@TelManothHexperax exactly!
Parliament = House, Council of Ministers = Senate, both form equivalent of Congress. The Commission is the executive. The major difference is that the Commission is the one that proposes new laws, based on what the heads of states, the people, and the parliament requests. There are of course more differences, but that's basically it to understand the basics. I really like that the Commission is responsible for crafting legislative proposals (bills), because that means that a body that is filled with experts in all the different legislative areas research, and write the laws, and then the Parliament and Council are responsible for reviewing, and amending those, and if both the Parliament and Council agree, you have a new law on the books. And at no point was the law based on personal or national interests on EU level if all goes as it should, or drafted by morons as a political move to score brownie points with voters.
It IS not that eu countries dont want do be self sufficient it IS more that thé USA imposed their dependence
Say no to american soft power.
1:27: Germany is the richest economy in Europe BECAUSE they haven’t had to spend much on their military with American presence on their soil and heavily rely on the ricans.
17:28: you design, develop them in common an and each country build it in its own country, that’s exactly what the French and Italians have done with the MU90 light torpedo.
Or you design, develop it in common and each country gets to build a part, like for the Euro fighter Typhoon or airbus airplanes.
Given the US shift towards authoritarianism (at least on one side of the aisle) and a former and possibly future president's fondness for dicators like Putin and antipathy towards NATO, it is hardly surprising that Europe would wish to create a new military pact to defend itself independent of pervasive US influence. Its notable that even in post-Brexit Britain, where the idea of general realignment with the EU is considered political suicide by leaders in the two major parties, both are determined to join other European democracies in matters of defence. The EU already had EUROFOR and is finalising the EU Battlegroup, expanding it to encompass non-EU nations seems like a good way to bring other European democracies together - all the more so if the US does end up abandoning NATO. (Even if the US steers back from the brink again, incidents like the invasion of Iraq based on lies, the betrayal of the Kurds and the sudden and disasterous abandoning of Afghanistan has hardly endeared the US to its allies in recent times.)
Stop pretending that Democrats are virtuous. Biden is tight with the dictators in Saudi, Egypt and the UAE.
It should have happened a long time ago to protect European interest, but now it's becoming more of a pressing matter because the US is becoming less trustworthy, more erratic and not as stable, it also looks like democracy in the US could be under threat from the far right in the Republican Party, and this rise has been happening for quite some time now, but it looks like Harris might put some calm on the storm, but that's likely only temporary unless the American people wake up to the threat of the far right.
As for Europe, we have our own far right, but they are tame in comparison to what's going on in the US, you only have to listen to their policies and what they say to see that.
In any case, the US is creating a lot of problems for its self that it might not be the bacon of democracy any more, the EU is the only other major player big enough to defend those values, in a world that is becoming more hostile towards those values, in other words, European countries in the EU might be forced to integrate more to protect there political, economic and social interest in a world that is becoming more hostile and unstable, especially as the US is becoming less reliable and could actually become a threat if the far right does manage to become a real threat to democracy over there and if the US falls on that, other countries could follow around the world unless the EU is strong enough to step up, without that, they would be easy pickings for the likes of China and Russia, and that could weaken democracy all over the world.
In an ideal world, both the EU and US needs to get there act together to the real threats growing around the world and need to work together to contain that threat before it gets out of hand, we are already seeing the rise of that rise in both the EU and US with the rise of the far right, we also see a lot of political meddling in both the EU and US by Russia and China, it's time we in the west wake-up and start clamping down on this threat before it leads to something far bigger then it is today.
Concern about their military dependance upon America and whether America will honor re-supply contracts also results in political and economic concerns when dealing with America.
about the standard (19:30) it s not about a standard on ammo for instance. This is now a standard in the NATO countries and it s good (for a lot of small rounds for rifles, for shell for artillery etc)
However it s about interoperability of communication of US fighter jets and the EU jets.
For instance Rafales, Eurofighters and Grippens fighter jets can communicate between each others. Us figter jets use an another crypted protocol that US does not not share with other NATO planes: in another word they do some blocking to avoid interoperability.
They say it s for security reason, but we could argue it s to block you as a consumer to use other systems. The best comparison I can see is that the European are Android and the US is Apple and do not let your phone to be recharged with an android cable.
The same for weapons - USA do not authorize any other jets to be able to carry their missiles - especially the nukes - Countries that rely on the nuclear umbrella of the US (such as Italy, Germany, Belgium and UK) they NEED TO BUY US fighter jets and only US figther jets if they want to keep this functionality. (for example the unfamous F35 that a lot countries are critizing)
The best NATION I could say is FR (yes again) they are at 99% independant on the US and rely on national or EU defense system only. EU countries, even European countries (UK, Norway, Switzerland etc) should make more a global European market to be less dependent on US, South Korean, etc manufacturers.
Since the Second World War, the USA has manufactured so much weaponry that it resells them at low prices, and the Europeans bought them, and continue to buy them, for reasons of economy.
The problem is that in the event of conflicts, we will be dependent on the goodwill of American politicians.
Even today, several European countries are equipping themselves with F35s and Ahrahams tanks. But fortunately this is changing.
The EU relied on the fact that France and the UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The UK has left the European Union, so only us in France remain who own it.
Faced with a country like Putin's Russia, and its extensionist ambitions, this is a meager defense.
But for the moment I'm not too worried: Russia, the 2nd army in the world, can't beat Ukraine, and worse, it's been a week since Ukraine crossed the Russian border , and conquered 78 Russian localities, over 1,000 km²
The US wanted or want to FORCE in the name of west democraty the DICTATORSHIP on EUROPE. Yet they are so damm and unexperience compared with the European.
but because they damm and violent with wars and weapon money and kill both their owns and others for their profit.
IT IS NOTHING NEW THE EASTERN and a bit the WESTERN EUROPEAN NEW THAT short after the WW II.
This is also a big business and its main beneficiaries will be Germany and France. The rest of the countries don't have to like it. The EU likes to unify everything and in a few years it may turn out that why do we need three manufacturers of tanks or IFVs? The EU will force other countries to arm themselves with selected producers and if someone does not comply, it will impose financial penalties.
Minute 2:40 - Absolutely not. Some of them are in EU and some are also in NATO. This video is really terribly made
You’re right, but that wasn’t his question. His question was if those countries were heavily influenced by the USSR enough to be considered part of the USSR’s dominion, which it was.
@@togerboy5396 Not Yugoslavia. They were non-aligned, and on the western side of the "iron curtain", and should not be "red". They were communist - but that's not the same as being part of the soviet union.
@@drsnova7313 I pretty sure 99% of western Europeans would have considered Yugoslavia - "eastern Europe", "Commies" and "one of them" back in the day.
Yes, was painted light red instead of red in my schoolbook to distinguish it from the rest of the countries behind the iron curtain. NATO countries where blue except France that as light blue (as they at the time was part of NATO but separate from the NATO command and support structures).
@@cynic7049 Also this is where 1st, 2nd and 3rd world stems from.
1st world = NATO/"The west" + allies (South Africa, Australia, etc)
2nd world = Warsaw pact and allies (such as Cuba, China and NK)
3rd world = everything else (most of South America, Africa, India, etc.)
However today only 3rd world is in use and have become to mean "undeveloped".
Great opinions you took with you. The core is pretty much as you said. A common perspective and an common goal is the driver for interoperability in the EU. Much regards from Germany
The isolationism is a bipartisan trend just like the focus on China, it's just a matter of speed and method
And then there's poor Canada....
the standards being a problem , ...sorry but american 'standards' its not always a positive one specially with how greedy even a open u.s was about specifications aka ,capability of local production the one thing that is the most NEEDED if engaged in a actual war ...as it said 'loyal customers' the u.s even when more open worked AGENST its supposed 'allies' self preservation ability that it was more about wanting to keep others 'addicted' to its weaponry , there is a reason why 90% of the european alternatives for a long time competed more with quality then numbers , though honestly this video sounded very 'american' angled ..after all putting a positive spin on lobbyists influencing civilian government ? ye great give the portion of a society with the least desire to defend it the most leverage to blackmail governments in the event of existential threats XD
wouldet take it as bleak as it sounds here though , as the watcher mentioned ww2 , yep and the european nations slogged that out FOR YEARS before the u.s got torpedo'd up its posterior so the portions of its society that been admiring the n guys hade to shut up and start get involved on the allies side just like ukrane showed big fat giant if it STRONG ARMS its assets that often cause said assets produce lees quality , after all a lot of the american high tech production is already heavy supplied with european educated manpower to keep running because its society social spending having been sabotaged by lobbyists for decades no longer can sustain the manpower needed for its own industries if left all on its own , not to mention the health care to keep the civilian manpower base alive long term if on its own , something the european nations and europe part of nato is vastly more prepared for.
At 08:55 - This is the main reason why Putin finances the left and right extremist political parties in Europe... He fears that the EU leadership would be more powerful diplomatically, politically and very influential worldwide, while Putin wants a subservient EU to be able to weaken the US influence in Europe
Russia spends a lot of energy influencing opinions in the EU, via social media, newspaper commentaries, financing parties or political groups etc...
HE IS RIGHCOUS AGAIN and ALL EUROPEAN IN THE SILENT IS WITH HIM AND SUPPORT HIM ON THAT >
US HAS NOTHING TO DO HERE !
The EU is already more powerful politically, economically and with how poor Russia is performing in Ukraine, probably even militarily, even thought EU militaries are divided over 27 countries.
In any case, Putin is doing his best to weaken his position in the world, he's exposed that Russia is a lot weaker on the military front and his threats don't hold much bite, before the war in Ukraine, Russia was seen as a major political and military player, now they are seen as a joke, especially in the west.
As for the EU and integration, they'll move depending on threat from the outside and need, in other words, if they have to integrate further to compete better with the US and China, they likely will, even if some members don't want too, it's better to be competitive then to be pushed aside and working as one in the EU allows them to compete directly with the US and China.
oh, i see you received your little check from Soros
Caspian Report isn't the best channel to get a good idea of things.
They have a weird way of putting things into their stories that usually don't turn out to be true.
Like when they did a piece on the China and Australia soured relationship...saying the trade Australia, the US and UK does with China outweighs the cultural and historical ties between the US, UK and Australia when it comes to Chinese aggression to where none will support the other if conflict occurs...which turned out to be false. Also many countries have begun a disconnect with China and have diversified their trading with more countries...(not putting all their eggs in one "China" basket).
2:45 No. Russia + Ukraine + Belarus + Baltic nations (and a few more nations without name on that map) were the Soviet Union. The other East European nations such as Poland, Hungary, etc. were Warsaw pact nations - satellite nations or heavily aligned nations with the Soviet Union. They were communist / socialist countries and obviously formed an alliance with the Soviet Union against NATO and the west.
This reminds me of the game Mercenaries 2 when the Alliance gets involved. And you can hear the troops say, "woo yeah, U-S-A! U-S-A! Wait...Al-lies! Al-lies!"
The first attempt to create an EU army dates back in the 60ies but was rejected by DeGaulle who was concerned about Germany to be "armed" again. Bear in mind that at that time, both German and France were part of EEC (treaty of Rome, 1957)
Old dude went through two world wars against Germany and didn't want to create ideal conditions for a third and maybe last one.
The Airbus model could be used in part to get Europeans to vote for monies going to their fellow Europeans. In that part of the product is made in different countries. (if this was a problem losing economies of scale you could do it over a series of different products)
The warmongers in the US smell blood and that is money for them so now they talk bulshit propagand and missleadings to their own people not noticed that their people is ont not on their chain of a prisoners that they could foof for so many years and decades... and get shity over that the new generation are more cleaver or more and more than just go and die for them while and with a UNCLEAR and deliberate missleading propagand of their non stop wars
I believe anything (red) beside Ukraine and the Baltics were in the Varsavia pact and not in the USSR
A lot of this is untrue....
The person who runs Caspian Report is Azeri and has a pro-Azeri bias in many of his reports. At the very least he's distanced from NATO which might be good or bad, just take that into consideration
Whats untrue? Cant you specify instead of making pointless statements?
Saying the EU is creating its own "military-industrial complex" based on the changes presented here is like saying you're turning into Michael Myers because you bought a kitchen knife.
Also, it's quite weird to hear the term being used as some sort of well-defined "policy" or "institution" which you can get by implementing some specific political changes - when it's just a fairly vague and usually derogative term like "corruption" or "decadence".
There was something called the Soviet Pact which was Russia's N.A.T.O. equivalent but after the Soviet Union collapsed those countries wanted independence apart from a few of little consequence which is why N.A.T.O. would always crush Russia in a "conventional " war and seeing the Russian incompetence and corruption during the war in Ukraine which only solidifies such beliefs. Both Russia and N.A.T.O. would be low on arms at the start of a conventional war but as in WW2 a war economy would be in full swing after a short while with accusations of political incompetence being aimed at the politicians .The crunch would come if N.A.T.O. crossed into Russian at which point Russia would for sure use nuclear weapons. Equally Putin has no intention of invading a N.A.T.O. country .
Do you mean "Warsaw pact"?
SOME of the USUAL ANTIQUE people of the shit imperialism is still alive despite they are close to 100 years old and still on the making war and kill us for their own profit.
HOW STUPID IS THAT>
I think most poeple dont understand but France from thé 60's to 2008 never left NATO but left the opérationnel commandement, witch means that they were not oblgated to go on wars abroad but were still to défend any country from thé alliance... This saying no to War in Irak. Aldo french "freedom" Aldo Comes from its military industry unlike all of thé other EU countries and being a nuke power, éventuellement unlike thé UK witch disent have power over it but have to Ask permission from thé US. And maybe know that each F35 has a daily code provided by thé USA so they chose if youncan use those....
I say you got it right!
And as you say.. USA is a country and when your military/defens department starts a new military project its not about if.. more about who get the order and wich state got the jobs!
In EU its more about if.. and if different countrys develope there own military equipment.. so both money and jobs stay in there country.
In anyway its kinda this why EU started in the begining, "coal and steel union", and there is more industrial projects like Airbus that actualy succeded!
Anyway.. another thing was peace in Europe, no more infighting and wars!
Ooops, nobody thought that Russia should go to war.. so now we need to consider an EU military-industrial complex altso!
Or rather how to fund those projects/factories/research! Share the costs/jobs/imaterial propertys/knowledge.
with other world we have democracy in Europe while the US is still under dictatorship when it comes to war and many other things which is time for to set a stop for rather than support
@@erzsebetnilsson580 No I newer said that or even meant that.. USA is still a democracy.. its this that they is a "country" that elect a single goverment.. and have 50 states thats could/can legislate on there own domestic laws!
Its rather this.. and that was one of the moste importante reasons why EU started.. no more war/infighting, get togheter.. and togheter we are stronger to safeguard our own living space and altso be more importante on the global market!
Its still this, military expenditure is things that goes Boom and then is destroyed in worste case.. its an deterent in best case!
Soo every little country in EU/EFTA cant afford to develope top notch military equipment by there own!
We need colaboration and standarditaton.. our own Military EU complex to have this deterens! And keep the jobs in EU!
I'm always surprised by how surprised Americans are about the military reserves in Europe. Atleast Germany will be able to sing things out for 3 days. In Belgium we'll be able to keep up for 4 hours before the ammunation reserves are depleted. Hell, it's expected our police forces will be able to keep up the battle longer than the army.
In a short term war, that's true, we Europeans are not really ready for a major war, but if a war did break out, you can bet the economic might as well as manufacturing capabilities would kick in and become a lot more militarised and do so quickly, we've seen in the second world war how countries can change rapidly to war, today it's likely more so because of the tech we have.
In other words, we in Europe, especially in the EU don't see any major threats to us, there is Russia making all the noise on the east, but they are not really a threat, in fact, many of us are seeing them as a joke not a threat.
We in Europe are far more passive on the military front, probably because of the impact of the second world war, but that shouldn't be mistaken for weakness, real power in this world is the economy, if a major war were to break out, the EU countries would likely do 2 things, 1 is to put far more resources on the military front and 2, pool resources together with other EU countries, but the simple truth is, there is no major threat, at least not yet, but the world is becoming less stable, so EU countries probably should get better prepared in case things kick off.
Only in my town 2 factories are going up, and that's just a tiny little place in the north... 🇸🇪
I think for a long time the US loved to be the big brother for Europe and the US also was not interested in the EU arming up but with the rising of the military power of China, the US realized that they had no capacity anymore to protect Europe and have trouble with China. People in Europe are also not so open-minded about military stuff, if you are a Politcan in Europe and you say you spend a lot of money in the military. probably the people don't vote for you.
Here in 'Europe, we often have war in or around us, and always is the US involved or part of the reason. Syria, Lybia, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine (also Balkan war). how much does the US take care of the refugees they produce with their bombs?
I will not blame the US, I like the US but it's somehow also strange, the US is involved in so many wars but they never had war in their own country.
Imagine the money that the world is spending on military shit they would spend in the clime crisis and poverty. Mindblowing !!!!
You would think they would realise, but I'm not so sure, there are a lot of conflicts going on in the US in how they see the EU, China and the rest of the world.
But I think longer term, the US won't be able to compete with China, they've got too big of an advantage with population size which in time could become an economic power, after all, the only thing that's special about the US over European countries is its population size, that delivered economic, political and military power, China are quickly developing the economic and political muscle, if they wanted, they could also develop the military a lot more, China has the advantage of having a far bigger population then the EU and US combined, if they keep developing, I see little chance in the US competing with them and it might even be difficult for a strong EU and US working together to contain China, but the EU and US does have an advantage, they are far more trusted around the world and will likely get a lot of countries around the fold on there side.
Either way, with how the world is shaping up and becoming less stable, we in Europe need to get our act together when it comes to the EU, and the EU and US will likely need each other a lot more than they realise, being as they are not that different from each other on the core values, but for that to happen, the EU countries will have to integrate more and the US will have to come of it's high horse in not trying to control everything, in other words, a more equal partnership.
love it ehrn videos point out britains land forces good or bad in a defensive scenario, despite the british army being 100% offensive.
in the 364 years since it was formed its never been used in the defence of britain lol.
if anyone wants to invade the UK they still need to get naval and air supremacy like every other time, and last i checked only 2 countries stand a chance of that, and both are allies lol.
European standards most likely different from US standards, which creates incompatibly which complicates things
If u use U.S. standards you still rely on U.S. intellectual property and depend on them to a degree
Weird video with a very narrow view and very little substantial information. Not the first one from the original channel.
Yeah, its hard to think straight for us "westerners"🤣
Connar, answering your question of ‘Military Equipment Technical Standards’. You ask why don’t the European arms manufacturers just use USA Standards.
There are three reasons for this:
1) Export Restrictions and Terms of Use - The USA does not allow Export Customers access to the ‘computer programming language’ Source Codes of their weapons system. For example, the Manufactured and sells to Poland F-16 Fighter Jet Aircraft. The F-16 is capable of firing 9 types of missiles, all USA designed and made. In order to fire a missile, the F-16 uses a Combat Management System (CMS). This CMS is basically a computer which speaks to the missile, and tell it what to do. So if a European country wanted to use a European made missile on their F-16 aircraft, they would first need access to the CMB computer programming language Source Codes. Which the USA will NOT give them. Then they would have to design and write new CMB computer programming language Source Codes for the new missile. Which they are NOT allowed to do, as part of the terms of purchase of their F-16 aircraft from the USA. Which means the only missiles they can buy and use on their F-16 aircraft are any of the 9 missiles the F-16 Combat Management System (CMS) can fire. One you buy an F-16 Fighter Jet, the ONLY missiles you can use, are made in the USA. Subject to export controls.
2) Incompatibility of Old and New Technologies - Most of the USA equipment is ‘old’ technology. Mostly designed and manufactured in the early 1990s (over 30 years ago). These are weapons systems designed and built before Smartphones existed. Despite being functionally useful, they do not meet modern standards, and are ‘technologically incompatible’ with the programming languages and digital electronics of today. The Abrams Main Battle Tanks “Shock and Awe” battlefield technologies of Operation Desert Storm of 1991, are being made into ‘tin cans’ by the new ‘Drone Warfare’ of the battlefields of Ukraine in 2024. These technology standards are incompatible, with what is required on the battlefields now.
3) The Rapidity of Technological Changes - Using the USA’s military equipment standards is limiting. It ‘stifles’, the ability to innovate in war. For example, the UK and France have just produced (mainly UK technology) a new ‘Cased Telescope’ 40mm programmable ammunition and gun, for the UK (Ajax) and French Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV’s). They USA has no such technology, and none of their systems and guns are compatible. Most of the USA’s weapons systems are over 30 years old in technology and design. The Rapidity of Technological Changes means they keeping up with what is actually required on the battlefield of today, has resulted in ‘ditching’ USA equipment standards and outdated technologies in favour of the new.
So, just from a ‘Military Equipment Technical Standards’ perspective, there are huge ‘political’ and ‘technical’ obstacles, to European countries using USA standards.
BECAUSE EUROPE and ALL OTHER COUNTRIES (exeption the US best friends ) ALL WANT TO MAKE PEACE LIVE IN THE PEACE AND LET THEIR CITIZENS TO HAVE A GOOD standard of living
@@erzsebetnilsson580 Yes. the people do. But the Politicians DO NOT! They are all owned by the Zionists running the USA. Look at Germany! They are allowing the USA to put Nuclear Missiles IN THEIR TERRITORY, pointed at Russia. Now they are a "First Strike Target" for Russia's nuclear retaliation. Did the German people vote for that? Who asked them?
So we create a new monster namely the EU .
after finish wayching Conner i will checkout the original uploader: it seems to me it is a strange channel: blurring facts with a scary image of Europe!
At the expense of their welfare hammocks? LOL, not gonna happen.
It doesn't have to happen anyway, the real issue in the EU countries isn't their military spending, it's the division of having 27 individual militaries, with all the waste and duplication that gives.
Spending more on 27 individual militaries will still be weak and not very effective, it would also be at the mercy of the US, so why bother spending more unless you're going to have a much more effective military on the world stage? The only way that will happen is pooling resources as one EU military, even at current spending, that would be far more powerful than we have today.
The US wants European countries to spend more on the military for its own benefits, arms deals, and because it's far easier to control smaller independent countries than one big EU one, also, if the EU did have a single military, the EU countries wouldn't have to listen to the US, that would weaken US position in Europe and around the world, it would also mean the EU having a much stronger arms industry, that would be in direct competition with the US on the world stage.
So I doubt the US wants a single EU military, even thought it might be wise that it happens as I don't think the EU or the US will compete with China over the long run, but a strong EU and US together very likely can.
In any case, there is no threat to the welfare system, unless far more is being spent on the military whiles keeping them independent of each other, not only would those militaries be quite ineffective and weak, but it would be massively wasteful and could be a threat to the welfare system, and overtime, many countries will realise that it makes sense to pool resources together, until then, the US will continue to call the shots on military matters.
I know that France has 200 leclerc tanks plus 150 cocoon
Thousands of modern heavy combat vehicules ( + 20 tonnes)
France 2nd arm dealer in the world that is nonsensical
I said it once, I'll say it again. The reason of the current state of European armies is the reasonable complacency that stems from the forced US protection. See, since WW2, the idea of a European army had popped up multiple times, but US lobby always shut it down. In the eyes of the US, a militarily independent Europe would make nato, and thus US influence in the region obsolete.
Few know this, but the bases that the yanks have here provide no real protection, since most are forbidden from operating outside of the base premises. They are simply logistical F.O.B.s for their operations in the MENA region.
Regardless, if the US wants to protect Europe whether we want it or not, why should we spend money on it ourselves?
My own take on this: I support complete strategic autonomy: unified procurement, the EU Army (as well as general federalisation).
Once that's done though, we must distance ourselves from US interests, since they're not ours. We also need to decrease hostility towards China. Animosity towards them is not our interest either.
If/When the two go to war over Taiwan, we must stay neutral.
Our interests should be as follows:
Keep Russia at bay.
Keep a very strict external border policy backed by the army, complete remigration, also supported by the armed forces.
In extension to this, we must take control of Africa, since they simply can not properly manage themselves. We waste billions upon billions to help them each year and for what? Let's spend that same money on occupation instead, that would at least have certain results:
Doing so would finally stop migration once and for all.
Oh, edit: The original video was utter garbage.
"we must take control of Africa, since they simply can not properly manage themselves."
I see that two white supremacists upvoted your comment. Considering what a cesspool this ap is, I'm surprised it's not more.
Wtf? You suggest an invasion and subjugation of a whole continent!?
Heh yeah right and China, US, Russia and co WON'T move a finger at all while we do so of course! What's more, the local will certainly NEVER try to destroy whatever we'll attempt to build there out of spite and whatever looks like pride. Nope.
It's not a board or CIV game. Things won't go that smoothly just because we want it, especially if we go full insane and conquer A WHOLE CONTINENT. Do you even human??
This vidéo thinks of Europe as a country. Lol
Those Eastern European countries were known as soviet satellite countries
Just tell the people of the states that Trump is the president prefered of the Comunist and the course will change ... The truth is thats is not any lie in that phrase xD
ofcourse it would be NATO standard!
and what the HELL is the NATO standard... ?
And EU IS a kind of dictaturship on européen states, even more since thé heads of thé EU are self elected ans not from poeple making thème thé ultimate non elected power of thé all world
DUE TO THE US
Europe is NOT building it's own military.
But some of the NATO countries in Europe are building up their own defences.
Be interesting to see how Trump if he gets elected and two tier kier get along.very frosty I bet 😂
He WON'T get elected... Trump knows it too! 😂😂😂
@@stewedfishproductions9554 He will though :)
@@keto0303
😎 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 'Don the Con' can ONLY rely on his gullible (as HE said "I love the stupid") base... AND that's getting smaller every day - Because SO MANY are seeing through his LIES - Just saying! 🤣
Idk what people think is wrong with this video, it seems pretty factual to me. CaspianReports does good videos, the only times I saw people mad at him is for taking scammy sponsorships.
There is a left-wing audience here, so they dont like the hard facts that dont fit their rosy worldview.
Don't worry the UK will support the USA no matter what.
Shouldn't.
I live in the UK and I telling you what the US on the top know: DO NOT BE SURE ABOUT IT>
THE UK IS A KINGDOM and THEY ALWAYS DEFEND THEM SELF IN THE END and let the other stay smaller.
The UK WILL NEVER ALLOW ANYONE FOR TO SAY ON THE TOP OF THEM and the US IS STUPID to believe they have or would have so much support from ANYWHEE IN THE WORLD as THEY BEEN TOLD TOO when it comes to war or power.
UK IS DOUBLE AGED SWORD.
Frankly, a lot of countries look at arms industry very selfishly. Germany and France want rest of europe to participate in ararments by buying their weapons, not by participating in production. Poland was part of project to develop new european main battle tank, but then it was kicked out by France and Germany. Alright, fine, we'll make deal with Koreans then. 19:54 I'm not sure about that. I'm reminded on how USA gave up Philippines to Chinese encroachment during Obama presidency.
Heh yes. The language is of unity, but everyone has their own interests unfortunately.
Military procurement is a topic in itself. It's bad enough within single nations anyway.
I get the impression that proper cooperation will only happen when things get desperate, and too late as usual.
Will be interesting to see how the K2 works out, they're going to be home built I believe. Is it the first time in modern history that Asia has sold a complete weapon system to "The West"? A changing world.
Don't forget this guy is Azeri, he has an agenda
Whats his agenda?
That entire video is somewhere between ridiculous speculation and dumb hyperbole.
very missinformed video tbh
I often find that with his videos.
2:43 Not all of them, the western flank was part of Warsaw pact though. Funnily enough, the only thing that Warsaw pact ever achieved was invasion of one of its member states, Czechoslovakia, due to not being communist enough.
Childishly nieve analysis- would expect better comprehension from any good sixth form college
"Yeah, I'll react to that, sure"
*Every* video you react to on geo-political affairs has the *exact same* right-wing, pro-militarist perspective. Your channel's slogan does not match the reality of your channel.
Whats right-wing about this video?
I find it hilarious that this new found European unity and joint military enterprise gets so much praise now, when Macron and many Baltic leaders have been advocating for it to no avail, long before the EU saw the Cyrillic writing on the wall. And as long as the EU remains a reactive entity and not a proactive one, I won't have much faith in its military endeavors. To be honest, I don't have much faith in an armed Europe where Italians are supposed to stand side by side in battle with their ... allies. 😜 Or where the Magyars have a determining say in how wars are fought. No offense meant to the people of Italy or Hungary, but your leaders suck! 🤓
Europeans won't sacrifice their welfare hammocks for increased defense.
What a terrible idea. I'm European and the LAST thing I want and Europe becomes a war machine
Article number 11 of Italian constitution:
"Italy repudiates war as an instrument of attack on the freedom of other peoples and as a means of resolving international disputes"
I don't need more soldier. I need more care of homeless people, more rights for workers, more help for the weak, desperates.
I would like LESS money to armies, LESS money for militars
You're obviously misunderstanding your own constitution, plus no one really expects military prowess from Italians lol.
The Italian constitution, article 11: "L'Italia ripudia la guerra come strumento di offesa alla libertà degli altri popoli e come mezzo di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali; consente, in condizioni di parità con gli altri Stati, alle limitazioni di sovranità necessarie ad un ordinamento che assicuri la pace e la giustizia fra le Nazioni; promuove e favorisce le organizzazioni internazionali rivolte a tale scopo."
Translation: "Italy rejects war as an instrument to opress the freedom of other people and as a tool to resolve international disputes;"
The first part says that Italy will not use war as an offensive tool, there is never a mention to prohibit build up or the use of the military for defensive purposes regarding herself and her allies.
"grants, in situations of parity with other states, the restrictions of freedom that secures peace and justice in other nations;"
Italy does allow the use of "war" as an offensive tool, but the article restricts the use to the will of international organizations (such as a UN mandate) or an allied mandate (such as NATO).
"promotes and favors organizations with such an objective."
Italy also promotes organizations that have peace in their goals, such as the UN and the EU.
You made some fatal flaws, the first was not showing the full article and the full context and the second isn't getting informed about the topic (EU army and the Italian defence spending).
Unlike you painted it, an EU army would actually be great if all steps are followed, an integrated industry, supplies, infrastructure and doctrine would MASSIVELY cut costs. The objective of an EU army isn't to attack other nations but to protect the EU borders and help with her (and by proxy her member states) peacekeeping missions.
The Italian defence spending is atrocious not because is much, but becuase it's awfully spent, with a vast majority of the budget going into one time bonuses, humongous paychecks and pensions.
@@dwightk.schrute8696Italy is the 10th most powerful country in the world, with one of the most advanced Navy and Airforce in the world, with a decent amount of modern experience and a decent Army.
You realise everything you want is more easily achieved if the EU can take advantage of economies of scale in their arms procurement. Both the private sector and EU commission believe that joint procurement alone would save the EU 30% per annum on defence spending. Never be an ideologue; it clouds judgement and often hides solutions to your problems.
You are talking about what you want to happen, and what you'd like, which is different from what is likely to, or is happening.
Agree with your sentiments though. The "peace dividend" from the 90's onwards has been squandered. Wealth is more concentrated in fewer hands than before. Houses are commodities to make money from, rather than places to live etc.
There's no reason to think that a benign peaceful attitude to others will be reciprocated by everyone unfortunately.
Do as you would be done by is a great base to work from. Some don't and won't comply with that sadly.
I have no problem with the U.K. or other ‘European COUNTRIES’ and NOT a United States of Europe working closely together militarily if the USA retreats from Europe but it mustn’t be as an excuse to call for a European army. Right now Russia is having difficulty with just Ukraine, so how will it fair against the U.K., France, Germany and Italy for example who are more then capable of having stronger militaries but right now even with smaller military budgets compared to the US is still enough to contain Russia or at least act as a deterrent to prevent Putin getting ideas about resurrecting the USSR. Sometimes I think the EU and its supporters calling for an EU army and closer integration use Russia and Americas exit from Europe as an excuse to give the EU even more powers. Those Brussel elites are narcissists and need to understand their hunger for more power by manipulating European countries will not work in the long run. I also agree Connor, European countries should not rely on America and should invest more in its own militaries but it should be done without creating an industrial military complex for all of Europe that is dictated to and controlled by Brussel elites who will act egotistical by calling for a foreign policy that would project the EU like the United States as a global superpower.
En Usa hay 50 millones de hispanoamericanos, 60 millones de italomericamos, millones de origen francés, millones de descendientes de irlandeses, todos son católicos y excepto irlanda con lenguas latinas, por no hablar de chinos, germánicos, eslavos o escandinavos. Cuantos britanicos hay en Usa? 😂
Typical that the EU starts to get it's act together now we left,lol
All eastern europe was part of the USSR, even the eastern 1/3 rd of Germany
I don’t mind a Eu army as long as the French and the Italians are not leading these armies if you know what I mean 🏳️🏳️🏳️
The original video is just garbage.
A lot of BS and speculation in the original video, along with vague assertions about the trajectory of European military planning. Fake news, as the orange man would say.