Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Germany, U.S. defend NATO after Macron brands transatlantic alliance brain dead" video.

France is making a bid to be the titular leader of the EU and further its federal super state wnbitions, thanks to its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately it is a paper tiger that would be no match against a determined Russia attack. The only reason NATO worked for so long was because of the US overwhelming military superiority and it willingness to fight a limited nuclear war with Russia on the soil of Europe, notably in Germany. There was a long held NATO plan to stop a mass russian tank advance with tactical nuclear weapons. While the Russian might believe that European states would be reluctant to turn their own soil to nuclear ash, they could not be as sure about the Americans. French nuclear weapons are for the defence of France, not other EU member states, as would become quickly apparent if ever the EU was challenged by one of the other big power blocks, most likely Russia of China. Trump is the main reason NATO is being derided in Europe. The view is that the US can no longer be trusted to defend its NATO allies. ( Bit like France in that respect). This is only partly true, as the selfish reasons why the US supported NATO have not gone away. France is exploiting the doubts about NATO to advance its own agenda for a EU military force, inevitable commanded by France. This would greatly increase the status of France within the EU. This forms part of Macron's imperial ambitions. Also, the French military industrial complex is no doubt hoping to make money supplying arms to the other member states as they become part of the EU military defence force. One of the reasons France might veto any further Brexit extensions is to avoid the UK returning as a full member of the EU, as this would mean that France would again no longer be the only nuclear armed EU member state. A further reason the French want a EU military is to fight police actions in Africa. They would like to use such a force to defend French interests on that continent. Given the above is it any wonder that Germany and US do not support Macron's views. Both have a lot to lose if Macron's view of NATO gains traction with the other EU member state.
3
@niksarass neither are in NATO, why should the US get involved, let the EU discover that it's not capable of sorting out its own mess. It was the EU who triggered the attack on the Ukraine. Do you really think that an EU military would have stopped the Russians? I suspect that the Russians would have thought twice about invading if US forces were on the ground. They know any military contact would have quickly escalated. It is true that with Trump in the Whitehouse, the us military is much less effective as a deterrent, but it will take decades for a EU military to match the technical and military power of the US. The EU is a mino compared to the big three US, Russia and China. The risk is that EU military ambitions exceed reality. In a few years time the EU might get involved in a confrontation with one of the big military powers and be completely over matched. At best there will be an embarrassing clime down by the EU, at worst it might result in an all out war.
1
@eedragonr1576 the economic powers are buying gold because none of the currencies are very stable. The German banks are still sitting on a mountain of dept following the last crash. Any apparent strength of the euro is an illusion as is evident from the negative interest rates and QE being used by the ECB. The EU will not be financially stable until it has a federal government controlling economic policy. The Germans have dropped objections to a banking union. Previously it objected because it did not want Germany bailing out more profligate EU states. Maybe they have dropped their objections because they are the ones likely to want a bailout. As for having a military, this has more to do with vanity rather than practicality. One of the reasons the German economy has done so well is because it has had a free ride on its own defence. If the EU funds its military as required, it will quickly run out of money. The EU has until now been labeled as harmless by the big powers. If it goes ahead with its military ambitions, it will be down graded to mostly harmless. Should it try and use its new military, it will no longer be seen as harmless and be subject to attack. If the EU had a military at the time of the Ukraine invasion and tried to confront the Russians, it would have been quickly out gunned and calling for the help of NATO to bail them out. They might even have sparked world war three. So be very careful what you wish for as it may have undesirable consequences.
1
@eedragonr1576 the whole of the EU military is tiny in comparison to that of the US. The US budget is huge and has been for decades. That is decades of military R&D. There is no doubt that some EU countries could produce nuclear weapons given time, but there is a significant difference with having the capability of developing the weapons and already having a fully developed arsenal with a range of weapons from small handheld devices to ICBMs. I doubt if many EU countries would have this level of commitment. It might be true that the end f the cold war has blunted US resolve. We no longer live with the threat of nuclear annihilation at twenty minutes notice. In practice, nuclear weapons were never intended to be used, they are a deterrent. Unfortunately this deterrent is used to back up more conventional warfare, escalating from conventional explosives, through to chemical and biological WMD, to the ultimate thermonuclear weapons. Without this full range of capabilities an army would be forced to backdown when facing by foe with the full range of weapons at their disposal. In short to deter Russian or Chinese aggression it is necessary to match their capabilities to the point where further power becomes irrelevant. In effect nothing happens because both sides know it will end in mutually assured destruction. It becomes a virtual test of strength. It will be decades before the EU military reaches a state where its strength is sufficient to deter potential aggressor. That assumes that the EU member states are willing to waste so much money and energy to achieve this level of military fitness and maintain it. Consider a scenario, Russia or China make territorial demands, annexing once independent areas, in the case of China say in the South China sea or Taiwan. What is the EU going to do about it? Suppose North Korea decides to invade the south, who will stop them, given NK has a nuclear arsenal. Such attacks do not happen, because of the virtual power play that results from US overwhelming military power. When Russia invaded Crimea, what could the EU do other than raise political objections and impose sections. EU troops on ground would have been forced into a hasty retreat. If the US had a base close by, I doubt if Russia would have chanced its hand. I agree that the US has degraded its deterrent effect by showing itself to be fallible in so many small conflicts, something that Putin is taking advantage of at the moment. But I doubt if would have been attacked if the Ukraine had it been in NATO, with NATO troops on the ground, the risk of escalation would have been too great.
1
@eedragonr1576 Ukraine is not protected by NATO and Putin marched in and took what he wanted. Had the EU not destabilise the Ukraine by trying to turn it from a buffer between East and west into an EU member state, I doubt if Russia would have attacked. Syria was a proxy war. With the us and Russia being very careful not to confront each other directly. For the west it was a no win situation, as both sides in the conflict were despicable. Both the us and the EU have a habit of supporting unpleasant dictators, only to find it necessary to depose them at a latter date.
1
@eedragonr1576 interesting that your English breaks down when you are flustered. The Russians and the US do their very best to avoid direct confrontation as both know it could quickly lead to WWiii even now. That is why the fight proxy wars. Since Ukraine is not in NATO, maybe the us saw it as an opportunity to teach the EU a lesson about its military limitations. Trump is the unknown, as many suspect that he is in Putin's pocket, a view supported by recent US military decisions. Certainly NATO appears to have gotten flabby compared to its fighting fitness during the cold war, but that still does not discount the huge US military budget and 70 years of R&D. Something the EU cannot hope to match.
1
@eedragonr1576 I said that both Russia and the US will try and avoid direct confrontation between them, because of the risk of escalation. This as a direct deterrent where one of them is already on the ground. In other words, Russia will not attack US troops or installations. If you think Russia will risk starting wwiii you are deluded. You are even more deluded if you think the EU can deter a Russian attack where the US cannot.
1
@eedragonr1576 that is why they chose not to fight them. The largest child in the playground never has to fight, as no one is willing to risk confronting them.
1
@eedragonr1576 intercepts by who? In any case how does this justify the EU military. If the Russians are not deterred by the US, do you really think they will take any notice of the uncoordinated, bureaucratic bound EU. The Russians have been testing NATO defences since the start of the cold war. If the EU abandon NATO, it will be detected as a weakness by the Russians.
1