It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by stumason
Nice to see you twist this, Seeker, although not surpirsed.
What needs addressing is power projection capability and investment in new technologies by collaboration, rather than still competing against each other.
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?
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.
“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.