Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "As Sweden and Finland seek to join NATO, just 4 EU states could be left out of the alliance" video.

It is questionable if any eu member state will be able to maintain independent neutrality, if or when the EU goes ahead with its plans for an defence force. Presumably its rules of engagement will be the same as that if NATO, in as much as an attack on one member state is an attack on all. Anything else would be pointless, as the purpose is to form a military force on the lines of the US. It will be decades before such a force could rival the protection of NATO, which depends so much on American nuclear power. When the UK left the EU, France became the only nuclear armed member state. This is a real problem for any eu military, as it depends on France being willing to extend a nuclear deterrent umbrella to the whole of the eu. It's difficult to believe that France would be willing to ceed control of its nuclear weapons to the bureaucrats in Brussels. One might suspect that France would really only use its nuclear deterrent to defend French soil. In terms of limiting nuclear arms deliberation, it is difficult to see how an EU military might acquire a nuclear deterrent of its own. Putin's actions in Ukraine have revitalised a moribund NATO, with the likelihood of increasing its membership by at least two and maybe three. It is worth note, that Macron is no longer talking about the "need" for NATO, or its future disbanding.
2
@mijicmugendo I did not say, he said it was disbanding, he was calling for it to disband.
1
@davidLAMF the EU needs its own military force for political reasons. It is one of the trappings of statehood, and the EU ambition is to be the United States of Europe. The French have a particular reason for wanting it, as the only nuclear power in the EU, they assume they will be the natural leader. Macron has spent a lot of effort to ensure the EU military HQ will be in France. In addition, the French and German military industrial complex anticipate making considerable profits from selling compatible weapons to the other member states. There are a number of R&D consortiums that have been set up to develop the next generation of weapons systems. There are a combination of a few other EU states involved, but a common factor is either the French or Germans. For some time I have been predicting a confrontation between the EU and the Russians. Such comments were met with derision, because of the trade dependence of the EU on Russia. Unfortunately events in Ukraine have proved me correct. I also predicted that the EU was decades away from being ready for such a confrontation, unless they received backup from NATO. That also proved to be accurate, since by NATO I indicated I ment the US. Please feel free to review my posts on a number of web site, including this one to confirm the veracity of the above. I did anticipate the flash point, but was surprised by the severity of the Russian action. Putin's madness was not expected.
1
@getyourfactsstraight6120 the argument will be, that to be a good European you must support the European super state. What the europhile do not seem to understand is the it has taken the US 400 years to get where they are, and they still haven't got it right, and they are not hampered by language barriers, or a complex history of interstate warfare. Where they are, in the case of the American civil war, the difficulties for Europe become apparent. I have often likened the EU to a flock of sheep, huddled together against the circling wolves of China, Russia, and the USA . The EU has the ambition to become a bullying wolf, but lacks the evolutionary DNA. It's liberal values make it a vegetarian predator. It has the bureaucratic mentality of a local council, so its response to the threat from a wolf, is to write a stiff letter. If pushed, it might consider redirecting its aid budget.
1
@getyourfactsstraight6120 remind me again when the EU was created and when the USA came into existence. Unless the EU has a time machine I don't know about, it is a little difficult to see how the US existence is in any way related to anything the EU has done. You seem to be confusing the activity of the individual soverign European states with that of the EU. I do hope you are not going to bring up that old chestnut about the EU keeping the peace in Europe for the last seventy years.
1
@getyourfactsstraight6120 i sm not sure what you are trying to suggest. The US made its fortune from ww2. It spent a lot of cash rebuilding Europe after ww2. For it own interest it spent a lot of cash defending Europe after ww2, mainly so it could have its nuclear confrontation with Russia on europia soil. The history of the EU dates back to the steel and coal Consortium, that was intended to limit Germany's ability to wage another war in Europe. The argument being that codependence would make a repeats of WWII impossible, with Germany as the aggressor. Things quickly moved on to the USSR being the new threat in Europe that needed to be contained. I would point out that as a member of the EU, you have been forced to sacrifice a significant part of your countries individual sovereignty, and will be expected to sacrifice even more as EU law takes precedence over member state laws and international policy. This was one of the reasons the UK left the EU.
1
@getyourfactsstraight6120 i don't think that the US is plotting this expansion, it is the result of Putin's illigal invasion of Ukraine. So unless Putin is being paid by the CIA, the US is just reacting to circumstances. The US is not losing anything, it's Russia that is becoming a third world state. Maybe a vassal of China.
1