Former NATO Chiefs Warn Of Europe Military Weakness

As limited in length as this article is, it speaks volumes as to the European military mind-set in relation to overall unity [the EU] in and for a cause or during crisis and the gap between its strategy and capabilities.

US General Joseph Ralston and General Klaus Naumann of Germany said bluntly that European leaders have "lacked the political will" to improve military capabilities.

Their warnings were contained in a 97-page study presented to European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders in Brussels, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

"Failure to meaningfully improve Europe's collective defense capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negative impacts on the ability of European countries to protect their interests," they said.

Former NATO Chiefs Warn Of Europe Military Weakness

And from this like article:

Nick Witney, Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency, today welcomed a report on European defence published by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and said the Agency shared its view that there was no viable alternative to Europeans working together to improve Europe's capabilities.

In a speech at the launch of the report in Brussels organised by the New Defence Agenda, Witney identified seven challenges for governments in addressing the industrial and technological aspects of European defence integration.

Bridging the Gap Between European Strategy and Capabilities

Anyone from Europe care to explain just what appears to be happening here with regards to the above mentions? Causes and/or reasons for? Etc.?





seekerof

[edit on 14-10-2005 by Seekerof]

They must be referring to the French...Sorry to any French posters. I couldn't help myself

"Those who forget history, tend to repeat it".

Apparently the EU has forgotten the period between the two world wars.. It will bite them in the end..

But when you think about it.. the US has also done the very same thing deriving the drawdown of the military to achieve the "peace dividend" of the Clinton Administration.

The US Armed Forces is a very powerful and effective force.. but its bursting at the seams in both equipment and manpower.. I see it all the time in my own little corner of the USAF side of the house. There will be a time where we ourselves is going to have to rebuild the force to a more stable force.

General Klaus Naumann has been touching in these issues in the past. He has made and has some very interesting and informative points in some of his available past texts and recent speeches. He touches quite a bit on terrorism, the EU and US relations, Russia, China and the Middle East. Gen. Naumann has some very sharp observations makes some very strong points (certainly not without some controversial statements either) as a strong proponent of NATO, its’ future and the EU, Canadian and US relations.

This speech back in May 2005,, has plenty of ‘food for thought’ and is a great read, he touched then on some of the issues which are currently being discussed by him in further detail. This guy has been fairly spot on historically, and he typically calls a ‘spade a spade’. Good reading.

Excerpt:

The EU lacks the military power projection capability to act at a global level and scale and the UN is by far to diverse in its composition to be able to identify a common set of values and interests which are after all the prerequisite for common action.

In addition, any comparison of the interests of all the hypothetical partners will reveal that there is no other grouping than the Americans and the Europeans who have so much in common. Ideas such as balancing American power by promoting a multi-polar world and partnerships between the Europeans, Russians and Chinese are simply not thought through and they are definitely not in the interest of Europe. Such ideas will at the end of the day divide Europe and make it impossible for Europe to be seen as a partner in Washington. Such ideas strengthen in reality the U.S. dominance and reduce European influence.

General Klaus Naumann—The first S.H.A.P.E. lecture series, May 2005.

If one takes the time to read some of his statements and work one may this 'general thread topic' has been one of his topics for over a decade and a bit before its' time.



.

Nice to see you twist this, Seeker, although not surpirsed.

European Military weakness?

Not so sure about "weakness", as collectively, the EU has the second largest military in the world. Describing the collective might of the EU as weak is a bit far fetched, isn't it?

What needs addressing is power projection capability and investment in new technologies by collaboration, rather than still competing against each other.

Here is an article on the BBC about the same thing:

EU defence ministers, meeting informally in the UK on Thursday, congratulated themselves on a job well done in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
But critics warned that, when it comes to defence, Europe has yet to pull its weight.

Last year, Nato handed over its peacekeeping duties in Bosnia-Hercegovina to the European Union.

The move, marked by a ceremony in the capital Sarajevo, was hailed at the time as a sign of Europe's willingness - and increasing ability - to take on military challenges.

With 6,600 personnel, Eufor is the largest EU military operation to date.

It also has two smaller missions in Africa: supporting the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo and offering logistical support to the African Union's mission in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, who attended Thursday's meeting, said the Bosnia operation "has been and continues to be a major success for the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)".

To drive home the message of success, ministers were treated to an impressive demonstration of the sort of expeditionary capability - including fast jets, light artillery and Apache attack helicopters - which Britain could deploy in future EU operations.

Source...BBC

Thanks for the cjf.
I remember reading that informative speech a few months back by General Klaus Naumann. Even though he is retired, his critical opinons bear merit and great validity. He is definately no loony tune. His voice and observations still carry weight. Very intelligent gentleman and officer.




seekerof

Originally posted by stumason
Nice to see you twist this, Seeker, although not surpirsed.

What is surprising here is that you do not realize that what you are calling my twist, as in my twisting this, was not my original words or saying, but those of retired General Klaus Naumann, stumason.

Seems to me that if you have issues with the twist of this matter, you may need to reconsider whom you are saying is doing the twisting by perhaps addressing your commentary to the distinguished General Klaus Naumann.

As for this mention:

What needs addressing is power projection capability and investment in new technologies by collaboration, rather than still competing against each other.

Very true, again, an observation that ret. General Klaus has mentioned or asserted.

The question then becomes, why is not the matters you and General Klaus have mentioned not been addressed or are they?





seekerof

[edit on 14-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Until the EU is integrated in policy and strategy its a paper tiger.

The disunity shown since the cold war ended within NATO and the political disunity within the EU should make it readily apparent that the only integrated military response would be a direct invasion or attack of one or more of the countries forming the EU.

There is definitely a disconnect between capability, policy and strategy in the modern European model.

Soon they will be challenged on this basic mistake, most likely by extra-national groups with national support by their unrecognized antagonist's. (Idealogical enemies)

The USA stands to suffer the same fate if people do not come out of their slumber.

In the past the growth and development of military was fueled by wars between european countries. Now with that out of the way, there is no need to invest so much money in military.

In terms of EU vs. the hypothetical rogue country starting a war with EU cause they're angry for no reason, we have found new ways to steal their oil and resources uhmmm I mean "protect our national interests" as they say these days: we buy them.
There is no need for raw force when you can buy everything with money and shady deals, plus you save yourself the trouble of having to rebuild the country you bombed into stone age.

In case some country throws us all into unnecesary WWIII we got enough nukes to contribute to destruction of planet Earth.

I think the EU simply has no interest in being a global military power.
They want a force adequate to defend themselves, contribute to peacekeeping ops, and that's it.

Where is the pressing need for them to build a larger force?
What realistic military threats do they face?

They are not particularly interested in spending gigabucks for some demented policy of "global dominance" - and I don't blame them.

Originally posted by xmotex
I think the EU simply has no interest in being a global military power.
They want a force adequate to defend themselves, contribute to peacekeeping ops, and that's it.

Where is the pressing need for them to build a larger force?
What realistic military threats do they face?

I believe you may have missed the information conveyed inside just this post. There are more than sufficient reasons by all ‘members’ to seek ‘power projection’ as an end means.

.

Originally posted by xmotex
I think the EU simply has no interest in being a global military power.
They want a force adequate to defend themselves, contribute to peacekeeping ops, and that's it.

Where is the pressing need for them to build a larger force?
What realistic military threats do they face?

They are not particularly interested in spending gigabucks for some demented policy of "global dominance" - and I don't blame them.

I would concur/agree with cjf here, xmotex.
This is not about being a global military power or about national military spending budgets in trying to obtain some sort of "global dominance."

Its about this:

“Failure to meaningfully improve Europe’s collective defense capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negative impacts on the ability of European countries to protect their interests, the viability of NATO as an alliance, and the ability of European countries to partner in any meaningful way with the U.S.,” according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by the Financial Times.

Former NATO Chiefs Warn of Europe Military Weakness





seekerof

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Seekerof]