https://www.politico.eu/article/german-minister-to-macron-eus-dependence-on-us-is-sobering-facts/
QuoteGerman defense minister to Macron: EU depends on US security guarantee
Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer says the EU needs more independence but will still depend on the US.
BY HANS VON DER BURCHARD
November 17, 2020 3:25 pm
German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer doubled down Tuesday on her assertion that Europe must continue to rely on U.S. security guarantees, citing "sobering facts" in a response to criticism from French President Emmanuel Macron.
Kramp-Karrenbauer had become embroiled in an unusual public spat with Macron after the latter, in an interview with Le Grand Continent published Monday, criticized her over an op-ed in POLITICO in which she had argued that "Europe still needs America."
The French president said that he "profoundly" disagrees with Kramp-Karrenbauer's position and described her argument as "a historical misinterpretation," claiming that German Chancellor Angela Merkel doesn't agree either.
In a keynote speech on security policy Tuesday, Kramp-Karrenbauer tried to calm tensions by saying she agrees with Macron that Europe must do more to look after itself. "Only if we take our own security seriously, America will do the same. The French president has just stated this. And I agree with him," she said.
Yet the defense minister did not back down on her core argument — her insistence that the EU has no choice but to depend on the U.S. as a close partner. "For the foreseeable future" the U.S. will remain "the most important ally in security and defense policy," Kramp-Karrenbauer told the German army university in Hamburg in a virtual speech.
"Without the nuclear and conventional capabilities of the U.S., Germany and Europe cannot protect themselves. These are the sobering facts," she added.
Kramp-Karrenbauer's speech repeated, and defended, many arguments made during a previous speech in October as well as in the POLITICO op-ed in early November, in which the minister had argued that "illusions of European strategic autonomy must come to an end" because "Europeans will not be able to replace America's crucial role as a security provider."
Strategic autonomy is a concept championed by Macron, who argues the EU should become more powerful on the world stage and able to operate independently in a wide range of areas, from military operations to industrial policy — especially since the U.S. is increasingly shifting its focus from Europe to Asia.
"The idea of a strategic autonomy for Europe goes too far if it feeds the illusion that we could guarantee security, stability and prosperity in Europe without NATO and without the U.S.," Kramp-Karrenbauer told her audience.
She also referred to a speech by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier last week, who had warned that relying exclusively on military protection from the U.S. "would drive Europe into division" — seemingly alluding to the fact that French or Italian militaries, for example, might not be able or willing to defend the Baltic states against potential aggression from Russia as NATO and the U.S. currently do.
But Kramp-Karrenbauer said that Germany and France are united in wanting to increase Europe's military capability.
"Germany and France want the Europeans to be able to act independently and effectively in the future when it matters," she said. "We need the ability, in the event of a situation in which, for example, interests between the U.S. and Europe differ, that we can then potentially take action ourselves, even without the concrete support of the American side."
Yet, "this is something completely different from believing that a European army — however it might be set up and composed — can keep America completely out of Europe and replace America completely," Kramp-Karrenbauer said.
"We want Europe to be a strong partner for the United States on an equal footing and not a protegé in need of help," she added.
I would say she has a fairly adroit observation here, the idea that Europe will in any sense ever be militarily capable on its own is a fantasy.
Might be a good idea to start getting away from it. If the republican stay insane, the USA will not be trustworthy.
What do you mean by militarily capable here? I mean they probably cannot project power abroad to enforce their imperialist dreams but I don't see why them being capable of defending their territory and regional interests is fantastical.
As long as France is in the EU and willing to nuke people over some Pomeranian grenadier's bones in Eastern Europe we'll be fine.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
What do you mean by militarily capable here? I mean they probably cannot project power abroad to enforce their imperialist dreams but I don't see why them being capable of defending their territory and regional interests is fantastical.
On paper we have everything to do it. France has the nuclear deterrent and the combined size of armies of all euro nations are over 1 million active personnel and the budget is roughly half of the US' (of course, the spending is not nearly as efficient due to all national armies having overlapping structures and capabilities). There's plenty of caveats, not the least a political will to really have a semblance of coordinated defence policy (the EU does have an equivalent of NATO's article 5, but no formal structures to enforce it), but the basic capabilities to defend the EU are there.
What kind of defense is Kramp-Karrenbauer thinking about here? I think it is plainly obvious that Europe can't rely on the US anymore. That is a painful admission and one that never thought I would make but it is true.
Quote from: celedhring on November 17, 2020, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
What do you mean by militarily capable here? I mean they probably cannot project power abroad to enforce their imperialist dreams but I don't see why them being capable of defending their territory and regional interests is fantastical.
On paper we have everything to do it. France has the nuclear deterrent and the combined size of armies of all euro nations are over 1 million active personnel and the budget is roughly half of the US' (of course, the spending is not nearly as efficient due to all national armies having overlapping structures and capabilities). There's plenty of caveats, not the least a political will to really have a semblance of coordinated defence policy (the EU does have an equivalent of NATO's article 5, but no formal structures to enforce it), but the basic capabilities to defend the EU are there.
Yeah I think somebody on this board once described Belgium's armed forces as a pension program pretending to be a military organization.
The capability is the key. Currently the only force likely to threaten Europe physically is Russia and they are a bit of a paper tiger. If that situation ever changed and Europeans suddenly felt threatened they probably could put together a NATO-style joint command structure surprisingly fast.
Quote from: celedhring on November 17, 2020, 12:45:54 PM
On paper we have everything to do it. France has the nuclear deterrent and the combined size of armies of all euro nations are over 1 million active personnel and the budget is roughly half of the US' (of course, the spending is not nearly as efficient due to all national armies having overlapping structures and capabilities).
That's true but doesn't go far enough. So, yes there's a similar budget but in a number of countries a huge chunk of that is actually on pensions (I think in Belgium it's something like half the defence budget) - so it's not just duplication but not spending enough on operational stuff.
Also the overlapping is sort of true but that implies that there are 27 functioning militaries that are about the right size for each country which would be defensible. That's not true either - there's been a number of stories across Europe indicating this, especially the various stories about German soldiers lacking very basic equipment even on NATO training exercises.
QuoteThere's plenty of caveats, not the least a political will to really have a semblance of coordinated defence policy (the EU does have an equivalent of NATO's article 5, but no formal structures to enforce it), but the basic capabilities to defend the EU are there.
I'd almost flip it. The formal capabilities are there - there's an article in the treaties and a legal framework. The basic practical capability to actually do it isn't there. Just look at the recent issues between Greece and Turkey where France was the only EU country able to actively support Greece - and that one should be a given, both countries are in NATO, only Greece is in the EU. If the EU or member states can't back-up one of their member states that's an issue.
I think Macron is right on this, but AKK isn't entirely wrong. Europe will probably be within or under a US defence shield for a while and will need to remain so. But I don't think Europe can rely on the US to help secure Europe's periphery in the way it could during the 90s and 00s. I think the US will be far more focused on Asia-Pacific for very good reasons. What that means is that even if Europe relies on the US, it is likely that it will need to project power within its peripheries for its own interests. The Med (where the major powers are now France, Italy and Turkey), North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus and the eastern fringe are all areas that have a major knock-on effect in Europe and are places where the EU has interests - it's less clear what the US's are apart from counter-terrorism and being a good ally. France is acting (more or less alone out of European countries) in three of those areas - and in Libya was actually on the opposite side to the Italians. That's not feasible in the long-run and also European interests may not precisely overlap within French interests, but France is willing to engage.
I also think there is a naivete to some of German policies - at the minute it seems very shaped by that unipolar/neo-liberal moment. It's continuing with projects that could increase energy dependence on Russia, developing stronger commercial/economic relations with China and relying on American protection. We know now, unlike in the 90s and 00s, that Russia and China use energy and economic/commercial relations for political ends. They leverage them very well and, as I say, I don't think we can necessarily rely on America for anything short of an existential threat. That combination of policies seems risky to me.
And I think Europe (and I mean the UK and EU) needs to move quickly on this because I think we are moving into a different world with more power competition and less stability. I think there is something to that argument that the 20th century was short (1914-1989) but the 21st century is only just now starting after an end of history pause.
The EU is a 27 member-state body, I do not believe the EU or its constituent countries can independently guarantee the sovereignty and independence of all of the member states. I consider the notion that the EU has a practical nuclear deterrent to protect states like Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania to be fanciful. If Russia started really applying pressure on those states or started the kind of faux-war it has in Ukraine, there would be little that the EU could or would do about it. I even speculate a direct war of invasion against those three states would not be met by a French nuclear attack or a conventional resistance by larger EU countries.
Russia likely still fears American commitment to NATO enough not to do these things in the Baltics, I do not think it would feel similarly about an EU on its own.
I have no doubt the EU's sole nuclear state would use that deterrent in the face of certain aggression, probably against a larger EU country closer to France's own borders (like Germany for example), but do I really see the French being willing to use a nuclear weapon against Russia to protect the independence of countries like Bulgaria and Romania? I really don't. That's also the most extreme case involving thought of nuclear exchanges, the more likely scenario of Russian "irregulars" fracturing these border states with instability and quasi-occupation, I think the EU by itself would have no functional response to whatsoever, and I think some EU members would still want to mostly continue as-normal economic relations with Russia in such a scenario.
Eh, so I agree with the sentiment the EU and Europeans should not be banking on the United States as they did in the 20th century, and they should be trying to figure out a way to defend their interests in their immediate region. I don't think the EU needs to be able to perform the sort of late 20th century superpower global deployment shit the United States can or has done in the past--I'm not even sure China realistically ever aspires to that level of global force projection because it involves investment and strategic involvement in things that aren't obviously a positive return. I think Macron's sentiment is right, but AKK's analysis of the present is spot on. What is probably worth considering is Macron may have the right sentiment but the rest of Europe doesn't share it, and France cannot replace the US in the traditional role being talked about here, not without a massive increase in its military budget and the size and scope of its military. From everything I've seen the average European will just never care about these issues, and is thus simply unlikely to be on board for the sort of changes necessary for true military independence from the United States. That could be a problem when the United States may simply decide to make Europe militarily independent some day--whether the EU likes it or not.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2020, 01:12:59 PM
The capability is the key. Currently the only force likely to threaten Europe physically is Russia and they are a bit of a paper tiger.
That's not really true anymore.
Perhaps not "push through the Fulda Gap to the English Channel" capable...but as long as they're not looking at holding/occupying territory for the long term, they could probably make a wreck of the EU militaries on their periphery and force the greater EU to face some really tough decisions.
The paper tiger recently annexed the Crimea and gobbled a chunk of Ukraine, receiving only a short retaliatory strike of tut-tuts in return.
The Baltics are potentially vulnerable to such a little green men strike. And the experience of Hungary shows how easily Russia can compromise the EU from within.
Yeah. If Russia does a green men job in the Baltics many European governments will be very interested in using the fig leaf offered by Putin.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2020, 01:59:46 PM
Eh, so I agree with the sentiment the EU and Europeans should not be banking on the United States as they did in the 20th century, and they should be trying to figure out a way to defend their interests in their immediate region. I don't think the EU needs to be able to perform the sort of late 20th century superpower global deployment shit the United States can or has done in the past--I'm not even sure China realistically ever aspires to that level of global force projection because it involves investment and strategic involvement in things that aren't obviously a positive return.
I agree on China at this point. But a lot of US deployments are protecting the trade networks. I think China will look to similar deployments and arguably one of the biggest and most important shifts in the last 30 years is that China has moved from self-sufficient for oil to the world's largest importer and the US has become a net oil exporter. This may change from China's perspective depending on how serious Xi is about his recent net zero commitments and I'm not saying all of the US's military deployments are sort of based on oil. But I think countries generally commit militarily to defend or strengthen their interests - which starts with economics. I don't think China will try and project power in the way the US does but I think they will move in the near to medium term to protect their trade network, the one belt one road and I can see them, for example, helping stabilise a friendly regime in Africa or the Mid East - which is baby steps but would be a big shift.
And Russia does this as well - Russia's been quietly intervening in Africa quite a lot over the last 10 years because it's another income stream from resource production.
QuoteI think Macron's sentiment is right, but AKK's analysis of the present is spot on. What is probably worth considering is Macron may have the right sentiment but the rest of Europe doesn't share it, and France cannot replace the US in the traditional role being talked about here, not without a massive increase in its military budget and the size and scope of its military. From everything I've seen the average European will just never care about these issues, and is thus simply unlikely to be on board for the sort of changes necessary for true military independence from the United States. That could be a problem when the United States may simply decide to make Europe militarily independent some day--whether the EU likes it or not.
Agreed - and I agree with Minsky you know I'd have fears about how "European" other Europeans really see me if I were sat in Estonia.
QuoteThe EU is a 27 member-state body, I do not believe the EU or its constituent countries can independently guarantee the sovereignty and independence of all of the member states. I consider the notion that the EU has a practical nuclear deterrent to protect states like Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania to be fanciful. If Russia started really applying pressure on those states or started the kind of faux-war it has in Ukraine, there would be little that the EU could or would do about it. I even speculate a direct war of invasion against those three states would not be met by a French nuclear attack or a conventional resistance by larger EU countries.
Yeah. In part this is why Macron's other big idea of a European foreign policy "forum" between the EU, UK and Russia actually makes a bit of sense - to try and tie everyone into a system. But the common official British view I've seen is that France and Germany are slightly blind and naive with Russia, and apparently the French view is that the UK is blind and naive with Turkey.
The one difference between the Baltics and Caucasus and Ukraine is that because they are NATO member states there are NATO forces in those countries so it is very likely that any Russian action there would kill (I just looked up Estonia) British and Danish troops (there are broader European NATO deployments in Latvia and Lithuania) which might, sadly, change the perspective of other governments.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2020, 02:10:31 PM
The paper tiger recently annexed the Crimea and gobbled a chunk of Ukraine, receiving only a short retaliatory strike of tut-tuts in return.
The Baltics are potentially vulnerable to such a little green men strike. And the experience of Hungary shows how easily Russia can compromise the EU from within.
We are not talking about that kind of thing though, we are talking about being a military threat.
Russia may win other ways but having a big well funded and centrally controlled military will not help the Euros much with that stuff.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2020, 02:35:12 PM
We are not talking about that kind of thing though, we are talking about being a military threat.
True although I wonder about tech and the risks of cyber-warfare etc and part of me thinks that might be where Europe does diverge. I could see it basically ending up with a Five Eyes bloc, EU bloc and China-backed bloc. It'd be interesting to see how that would interact with the actual hard military stuff.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2020, 01:53:49 PM
The EU is a 27 member-state body, I do not believe the EU or its constituent countries can independently guarantee the sovereignty and independence of all of the member states. I consider the notion that the EU has a practical nuclear deterrent to protect states like Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania to be fanciful. If Russia started really applying pressure on those states or started the kind of faux-war it has in Ukraine, there would be little that the EU could or would do about it. I even speculate a direct war of invasion against those three states would not be met by a French nuclear attack or a conventional resistance by larger EU countries.
Russia likely still fears American commitment to NATO enough not to do these things in the Baltics, I do not think it would feel similarly about an EU on its own.
I have no doubt the EU's sole nuclear state would use that deterrent in the face of certain aggression, probably against a larger EU country closer to France's own borders (like Germany for example), but do I really see the French being willing to use a nuclear weapon against Russia to protect the independence of countries like Bulgaria and Romania? I really don't. That's also the most extreme case involving thought of nuclear exchanges, the more likely scenario of Russian "irregulars" fracturing these border states with instability and quasi-occupation, I think the EU by itself would have no functional response to whatsoever, and I think some EU members would still want to mostly continue as-normal economic relations with Russia in such a scenario.
I think the US has become such an unreliable ally that the EU is forced to become self reliant.
The problem though, is that with members like Poland/Hungary, the EU itself is internally unreliable. France will try to push everyone along...Germany will muddle, and Hungary will outright sabotage.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 17, 2020, 04:13:05 PM
The problem though, is that with members like Poland/Hungary, the EU itself is internally unreliable. France will try to push everyone along...Germany will muddle, and Hungary will outright sabotage.
France will only push if it fits in their own strategic plans.
A major European state will only go forward with something if it is beneficial for them. If not they'll agree to disagree, make a statement with some expensive sounding words and do nothing.
QuoteA major European state will only go forward with something if it is beneficial for them. If not they'll agree to disagree, make a statement with some expensive sounding words and do nothing.
Minor European states do that even when it is something beneficial for them though.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 17, 2020, 04:13:05 PM
The problem though, is that with members like Poland/Hungary, the EU itself is internally unreliable. France will try to push everyone along...Germany will muddle, and Hungary will outright sabotage.
Poland, leaving aside it's medieval politics, seems pretty gung ho about confronting a Russian threat. They are a front line state after all.
I don't see how Europe can protect themselves, they don't even have a Space Force.
Quote from: PDH on November 17, 2020, 04:37:13 PM
I don't see how Europe can protect themselves, they don't even have a Space Force.
Is that always a Supra?
I don't know very much about military matters. I do play Warthunder obsessively with my brother, which makes me almost as well qualified as some high faluting defense analyst, so I'll opine;
It does seem reasonable, assuming Russia as the primary security threat that the EU does a better job of organizing it's defense without assuming the US is coming to the rescue. I mean, Russia is sort of a criminal organization pretending to be a country with an economy about the size of Spain. Must be possible to rebuff their future advances, or perhaps dissuade them from making them in the first place, right?
I understand the fearsome reputation, the Red Army rolled over the Wermacht, no one saw that coming at the time. I've played enough Warthunder to know about Stalinium armor and depleted Putinite shells, but I still think it's well within reason that the EU, with an economy bigger than China and , what, about 500 million people, can match this brigand on it's eastern border.
A guy with a knife who is perfectly ready and willing to use it can easily intimidate 5 guys with knives who really want to avoid a fight, and get what he wants.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2020, 02:35:12 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2020, 02:10:31 PM
The paper tiger recently annexed the Crimea and gobbled a chunk of Ukraine, receiving only a short retaliatory strike of tut-tuts in return.
The Baltics are potentially vulnerable to such a little green men strike. And the experience of Hungary shows how easily Russia can compromise the EU from within.
We are not talking about that kind of thing though, we are talking about being a military threat.
Russia may win other ways but having a big well funded and centrally controlled military will not help the Euros much with that stuff.
Of course it would help. Having a credible threat to respond is the first step in being able to use diplomacy to stop that if needed, or perhaps never even letting it begin to start with.
US "reliability" is of a different kind than European reliability. I think.
If Putin is considering eyeing the annexation of Lithuania (after the requisit bullshit with Russian speakers and such), Putin might look at the US as not being a reliable defender of NATO because if there is a Trump in charge, who knows what he will do? Incompetence is hard to predict. But he wouldn't question the basic idea that the US would have the will at least in theory, to go to war in Eastern Europe or that they would have the capability of doing so in a fashion that matters.
When it comes to Europe where there is no NATO, just the EU with its rather vague guarantees that don't really seem to actually *obligate* anyone to do anything...I think he could reasonable conclude that not only is there a lack of political will on the part of Spain (as an example) to protect Lithuania, he would also conclude that Spain lacks the capability to do so anyway. And the EU overall lacks the kind of unified capability (even in aggregate), now or in the near future, to do much of anything should he decide to stroll into Lithuania or Estonia.
The US might not be reliable, but they have to be accounted for in the calculus. The EU is both unreliable, and probably can be dismissed (now and in the near future) as a credible block to regional military adventurism.
And this says nothing about the ability to the EU to extend military might even to its near sphere of influence, should they want to do so. Absent NATO, what could the EU do against an aggressive Turkey, for example, willing to invade a neighbor that the EU would really rather they not invade? IIRC, didn't some EU countries have to get munitions from the US in order to engage in the bombing campaign in Libya?
Quote from: celedhring on November 17, 2020, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
What do you mean by militarily capable here? I mean they probably cannot project power abroad to enforce their imperialist dreams but I don't see why them being capable of defending their territory and regional interests is fantastical.
On paper we have everything to do it. France has the nuclear deterrent and the combined size of armies of all euro nations are over 1 million active personnel and the budget is roughly half of the US' (of course, the spending is not nearly as efficient due to all national armies having overlapping structures and capabilities). There's plenty of caveats, not the least a political will to really have a semblance of coordinated defence policy (the EU does have an equivalent of NATO's article 5, but no formal structures to enforce it), but the basic capabilities to defend the EU are there.
I think the basic foundations are there to create the capabilities, but they have not yet been created, and doing so is not trivial. It involves more than just spending money, and even that hurdle doesn't seem like something the EU states are interested in overcoming.
When they are talking about an EU military I'm think of more of missions like keeping the peace in the Balkans, Caucus mountains, Cyprus, and North Africa.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2020, 07:13:26 PM
When they are talking about an EU military I'm think of more of missions like keeping the peace in the Balkans, Caucus mountains, Cyprus, and North Africa.
Let's learn to walk before we try to run.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2020, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2020, 07:13:26 PM
When they are talking about an EU military I'm think of more of missions like keeping the peace in the Balkans, Caucus mountains, Cyprus, and North Africa.
Let's learn to walk before we try to run.
So patrolling football games? That should be doable now that England is out.
Ok so what about all the lessons from the Armenian-Azeri War? With Drones appearing to be the future of warfare for awhile then all you need is money and tech know how to have a competitive military. That should be right up the Euros alley. A small professional well trained force with tons of fancy tech gear backing them up. The Russians might be powerless to threaten fortress Europe with the right kind of strategic thinking here.
Incidentally - Euro but not EU - the UK government has, after a very long time of salami-slicing the defence budget, announced a large increase with some quite important investments I think:
QuoteUK to boost defense budget by $21.9 billion. Here's who benefits — and loses out.
By: Andrew Chuter 4 days ago
LONDON — The British government has approved the largest rise in its defense budget since the end of the Cold War, with £16.5 billion (U.S. $21.9 billion) in additional funding made available for spending on shipbuilding, space, cyber, research and other sectors over a four-year period.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the increase could transform the military and bring to an end an era of retreat in the armed forces.
"For decades, U.K. government has pared and trimmed our defense budget. If we go on like this, we risk waking up to discover our armed forces have fallen below the minimum threshold of viability. I have refused to pick up the scalpel yet again. I've decided the era of cutting must end, and end now," the prime minister told Parliament in a statement.
The retreat to which Johnson referred is made up of capability cuts, program delays and cancellations, reductions in research and development, and slashed personnel numbers amid defense budgets that have regularly failed to match ambitions.
Winners and losers
Among the efforts likely to benefit from the commitment of new money are the Tempest future combat air program; a number of shipbuilding projects, including a fleet of logistics ships; and various space and cyberspace assets. Specifically, the spending commitment will finance the country's order of eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates, which are under construction in Scotland, where the U.K. government faces renewed calls for independence.
Johnson said he is also committed to the embryonic Type 32 next-generation frigate and the building of a multipurpose research ship.
Also included in Britain's transformation plans are the creation of a Space Command capable of launching a rocket from a site in Scotland by 2022 as well as a new agency focused on artificial intelligence.
But Johnson also warned some programs would not receive equal attention.
"We will need to act speedily to remove or reduce less relevant capabilities — and this will allow our new investment to be focused on the technologies that will revolutionize warfare," he said.
Johnson gave no clues to where the ax might fall, but new armored vehicle programs, of which the British Army have several currently running, are often cited by analysts as a potential target for cuts.
"Now is the right time to press ahead because emerging technology on the horizon will make the returns from defense investment infinitely greater," he told Parliament. "We have a chance to break free from the vicious circle where we ordered ever deceasing numbers of evermore expensive pieces of military hardware, squandering billions of pounds along the way."
The government said military modernization will be underpinned by a record investment of at least £1.5 billion extra and £5.8 billion in total on military research and development, including a commitment to further invest in the future combat air system.
"This reverses the systematic decline in this crucial area in the last 30 years," according to the Prime Minister's Office.
What's been the reaction?
Commitment to the major hike in extra spending came after the Treasury gave in to pressure from Johnson to provide extra funding for the armed forces over a four-year period rather than accept the chancellor's preference for a one-year funding settlement.
The announcement is being termed as the first phase of an integrated defense review being conducted to coordinate defense, security, foreign and development policies. The review was expected to already be published, but with plans in flux and the new factor of additional cash, a more detailed review will not likely be public until next year.
The Royal United Services Institute think tank in London said that over the next four years, the "additional cash represents a real-term increase of between 10 percent and 15 percent in the defense budget: equivalent to some £4 billion more annually than had been promised."
RUSI also noted the announcement, "provided little clarity on the foreign policy ambition, and it appears likely that we will have to wait until the new year for the full integrated review to be revealed. In the meantime, the [Ministry of Defence] will be under considerable pressure to ensure that its ambitions do not again outrun its (now significantly enhanced) means."
Analysts here say that despite the new spending commitment, the MoD will still have to cut a number of programs to balance it's books.
The National Audit Office, the government's financial watchdog, has repeatedly warned the 10-year equipment plan is unaffordable, saying it could be too costly by as much as £13 billion. The current annual defense budget is about £40 billion. The new spending pledge will see the defense budget account for 2.2 percent of gross domestic product, meeting NATO guidelines.
Johnson, who is currently self-isolating, having recently come into contact with a lawmaker who has subsequently tested positive for COVID-19, said he had taken the decision to raise spending in the teeth of the pandemic because the "defense of the realm must come first."
"The international situation is more perilous and more intensely competitive than at any time since the Cold War, and Britain must be true to our history and stand alongside our allies," he said.
A statement from the Prime Minister's Office said the increase will cement the U.K.'s position as the largest defense spender in Europe and the second largest in NATO, after the U.S. The announcement drew an immediate and welcoming response from acting U.S. Defense Secretary Christopher Miller.
"The [Department of Defense] applauds the announcement by the U.K. to significantly increase defense spending. The U.K. is our most stalwart and capable ally, and this increase in spending is indicative of their commitment to NATO and our shared security," he said. "With this increase, the U.K. military will continue to be one of the finest fighting forces in the world. Their commitment to increased defense funding should be a message to all free nations that the most capable among us can — and must — do more to counter emerging threats to our shared freedoms and security."
The move was also welcomed locally by ADS, a major industry lobby group. "This investment will boost our national security, help the U.K. address new and rapidly evolving threats by developing innovative world-class equipment, and support our economic recovery. The commitment to key projects will embed high-value design and manufacturing skills in all regions and nations of the U.K. for decades to come," said Paul Everitt, the ADS chief executive.
But Everitt also said the money must be quickly spent with the U.K.'s prosperity a priority.
"It is important that the procurement regime delivers quickly and in a manner that prioritizes U.K. industrial impact, aiding planning and clarity and helping to build back better," he said.
The £16.5 billion in extra spending is over and above the government's pledge to increase defense spending by 0.5 percent above inflation for every year of the four years remaining of the existing Parliament. The government said that on existing forecasts, this is an overall cash increase of £24.1 billion over four years. Johnson told Parliament that would represent spending of £190 billion over the next four years.
But how will the government's massive spending in the fight against COVID-19 impact these spending plans? Media and analysts here reckon Britain's huge overseas development budget is likely to take a hit to make these new efforts a reality.
This is another bit of foreign and defence policy where I'm actually quite impressed by the government - especially on building up cyber (and AI), focusing on the navy (not the army) and expanding space (the UK has quite a lot of private sector activity here so this should be something where there can be cooperation).
In terms of reaction and this thread it was very striking that the defence ministers of all the Baltic states were tweeting about this as a positive move.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 03:13:11 PM
Ok so what about all the lessons from the Armenian-Azeri War? With Drones appearing to be the future of warfare for awhile then all you need is money and tech know how to have a competitive military. That should be right up the Euros alley. A small professional well trained force with tons of fancy tech gear backing them up. The Russians might be powerless to threaten fortress Europe with the right kind of strategic thinking here.
You still need boots on the ground. And you can't send infantry without support, but you can't have drone patrolling a zone 24/24, hence the need for artillery and mobile infantry, armored vehicles, etc.
You also need a navy and an airforce to transport your people and equipement to the designated zone, be it in Africa or to the limits of Europe. You need submarines to hunt for Russian nuclear subs just so they don't get any fancy idea that they could try and sneak anywhere they want, hit the target, retreat to cover.
Drones are good for precision strikes, but I suspect they'd be much less efficient for heavily defended targets with anti-air defence. You would need bombers able to hit their target from outside the range of those defences. Modern fighter-bomber up to B-52 types of aircraft.
So, basically, what you need is a fully equipped army :P
Euros frown on that, a lot. At the same time they reject nationalism like you do, they hate the idea of having one unified chain of command with all Euro-zone countries. Somehow, being able to order the guns anywhere you want is a kind of fetish for Euro politicians and they ain't keen on abandoning it ;)
In all seriousness, I do understand part of their feelings. France had primal interests to intervene in Côte D'Ivoire and Mali. Germany, less so, Belgium, nil. Belgium may want to intervene somewhere X in the future to stabilize the country while Germany would have zero interest in doing so. It was already a tough sell to send soldiers in Afghanistan, and later Iraq for some of them, I can't imagine any politician relinquishing a fight with its constituants when it comes times to have their soldiers deploy in a foreign land to protect some other country's commercial interests.
QuoteAt the same time they reject nationalism like you do
If only :blink:
Even to the extent they reject nationalism it isn't usually the same way I do it, but some weird class consciousness or something else I reject.
QuoteYou still need boots on the ground. And you can't send infantry without support, but you can't have drone patrolling a zone 24/24, hence the need for artillery and mobile infantry, armored vehicles, etc.
Well they have that shit already but the most recent war showed how hopeless and ineffective all that is. The main thing artillery and armor did in that war was get destroyed. If the Europeans can master that then the Baltic States should be able to defend themselves with that kind of assistance.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 04:15:08 PM
QuoteAt the same time they reject nationalism like you do
If only :blink:
Even to the extent they reject nationalism it isn't usually the same way I do it, but some weird class consciousness or something else I reject.
Well, some of them get an allergic reaction to the word, and to overt display of patriotism like flag waiving the American way. Meh. I've had enough debates with the French guys over this in the past.
Quote
Well they have that shit already but the most recent war showed how hopeless and ineffective all that is. The main thing artillery and armor did in that war was get destroyed. If the Europeans can master that then the Baltic States should be able to defend themselves with that kind of assistance.
Artillery would be useful in a defensive position, to stall the attackers until an airstrike can be launched.
It's not that they don't have any of that, it's that they don't have enough of it, with the required army personnel to do it, with appropriate training.
Even with a drone, you don't just put a civilian used to play some Xbox games on this, they need retired pilots, or injured pilots that know their way around an aircraft.
None of them are really willing to increase their military expenses to the detriment of their social expenses like the US does, nor are they willing to surrender their sovereignty.
Other EU states have chipped in on the idea of aspiring to strategic autonomy.
The Spanish PM has said he is more with the German vision of transatlantic relations.
The Polish defence minister has also done an article - the key points are that he fully agrees with Germany. Europe cannot replace the US as a security provider and "we should abandon illusions of 'European strategic autonomy'". This makes sense from Poland's perspective as he explains "our embrace of the alliance is due to our close ties with the US for many generations, combined with our historical experience and deep knowledge of the threat of aggressive Russian policy. A number of other Central and Eastern European countries have similar experiences, and they fully share our point of view." Though, being from the current Polish government he couldn't resist a dig at the Germans: "we are pleased with the recent change in messaging among our key European allies, especially the Germans."
As I say my own view is that AKK's views are an accurate description of the position now, but that Macron's position is right as a goal. I also think Macron's view supports the alliance. Having said that, Macron has been quite big on working with Putin and bringing Russia in from the cold which probably makes CEE states even more suspicious of him (and I think lots of Europe's more populist leaders already hate Macron because he deliberately sets himself up as their opponent). But I think this is an optimistic take on US-EU relations. I don't know how long the US can be asked to view Europe's security interests as their own and I think the US's focus is, rightly, going to be on China and the pacific not Europe so European states need to build an alternative rather than discover that the US has moved on and they've got nothing (except for the French and, outside the EU, the UK).
The news out of the UK seems good to me. Some 7-8 years ago I was personally in favor of moderate trimming of the U.S. defense budget, but one thing I've somewhat come around to understanding is that as long as the projects aren't entirely unnecessary waste, defense spending almost always involves domestic manufacturers and can generally been seen as a "good" form of stimulus, contributing to higher income working class job creation. I was thinking of just that with reading about where some of these ships and space capabilities will be built (domestically in Britain), as something worth considering as a positive of more robust defense spending.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 25, 2020, 09:36:42 AM
The news out of the UK seems good to me. Some 7-8 years ago I was personally in favor of moderate trimming of the U.S. defense budget, but one thing I've somewhat come around to understanding is that as long as the projects aren't entirely unnecessary waste, defense spending almost always involves domestic manufacturers and can generally been seen as a "good" form of stimulus, contributing to higher income working class job creation. I was thinking of just that with reading about where some of these ships and space capabilities will be built (domestically in Britain), as something worth considering as a positive of more robust defense spending.
The budget isn't infinite. Whatever choicis you make to invest more or less in military spending will mean less money for social projects. American conservatives are always up in arms about big spending plans like Obama-care or Green New Deal (and I understand them), but they are always silent about the size of the military, there are never questions raised about how many ships should the Navy have, how many soldiers should be actively enlister vs a reserve force, how many aircrafts do you really need, etc.
Maybe in the end, more spending is necessary, I don't know. But it seems to me like conservatives are always asking for more military spending. Except maybe under Trump for a little while in the beginning, but that's been discarded. They ask hard numbers for any plans from the Dems, but are willing to accept basically anything for the military.
I am wondering when someone will say "Does the US REALLY need 12 carriers???"
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2020, 04:23:19 PM
I am wondering when someone will say "Does the US REALLY need 12 carriers???"
Well, the plan says that the US can't afford 12 carriers (long-term, it plans for 9-10 depending on the specific year) and you really don't want your ships driven so hard that they come back from 208 days straight at sea and looking like this:
(https://www.thedrive.com/content/2020/10/32424356.jpg?quality=85&width=1440&quality=70)
That one looks destined for a lengthy stay in a dry dock for repairs. :wacko:
Quote from: The Larch on November 27, 2020, 08:31:37 AM
That one looks destined for a lengthy stay in a dry dock for repairs. :wacko:
It seems to have water pouring out and not in so it can't be THAT bad. :P
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2020, 08:34:16 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 27, 2020, 08:31:37 AM
That one looks destined for a lengthy stay in a dry dock for repairs. :wacko:
It seems to have water pouring out and not in so it can't be THAT bad. :P
Well, that water had to get in in the first place... :lol:
Many scale modelers tend to go overboard with weathering. Less is more.
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2020, 08:25:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2020, 04:23:19 PM
I am wondering when someone will say "Does the US REALLY need 12 carriers???"
Well, the plan says that the US can't afford 12 carriers (long-term, it plans for 9-10 depending on the specific year) and you really don't want your ships driven so hard that they come back from 208 days straight at sea and looking like this:
Seems like 9 would be good. That would allow 6 to be at sea consistently, right?
3 at sea, 3 training or preparing or whatever and 3 in refit.
So 9 would allow 3 constantly at sea, with the possibility to surge a few more in a crisis.
It's not really "3 at sea" but, rather, "3 deployable." As Threviel notes, 1/3 are in the yards, just back from deployment, while 1/3 are working up for deployment after having come out of the yards.
For example, one carrier is needed to train carrier capable pilots, there are AFAIK no pure training carrier, so one of nukes have to do it.
Benjamin Haddad - a French thinktanker has been fairly scathing on this noting that the country in Europe with the closest current defence relationship and cooperation with the US is actually France. I broadly agree with this tweet: "Rebranding European free riding and lackluster defense spending as a love declaration to America, "the only security provider of Europe" is political and marketing genius. Many American policymakers are so terrified of the long-term effects of Trump that they're ready to buy it." :lol:
Not sure where else to put this but this is bonkers polling NATO members on whether their neighbouring countries have territory that really belongs to them:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpJgglNXYAIeWwu?format=jpg&name=medium)
I mean Hungary and Greece are not that surprising. Presumably Spain is Gibraltar? I like that Italy is more or less evenly balanced on whether it has any territorial claims - and what are they, Albania?! :blink:
The French number I understand because France should be 130 Departments. The UK presumably has an irredentist lot who either want Ireland or Calais back.
Surprised at the number of Canadians and Americans though. I mean with Canada that can only be the US who is illegitimately holding your territory, right?
Edit: Incidentally could get behind UK irredentism for Aquitane :ph34r:
That's Aquitaine or Guyenne, not Aquitane (sic). :contract:
As for 130 départements. :lmfao:
PS: otoh, parts of Normandy are still occupied by the UK. :P
Perhaps the Italians want Dalmatia back.
UK figure is a bit strange, people not reconciled to Irish independence :hmm: ?
What's the deal with Sweden? They seem low-energy.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 14, 2020, 06:24:46 AM
Perhaps the Italians want Dalmatia back.
UK figure is a bit strange, people not reconciled to Irish independence :hmm: ?
If it were Corsica, lots of French people would agree. :P Not so for Nice.
Istria before Dalmatia, though even the latter is unlikely.
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2020, 06:29:42 AM
What's the deal with Sweden? They seem low-energy.
Scania (not the lorries) taken away from Denmark is already too much for them. :console:
I'm guessing for Germany it's the parts that are now Polish or Russian. Still surprised at how many think Germany has claims on neighbors.
Quote from: Syt on December 14, 2020, 06:32:26 AM
I'm guessing for Germany it's the parts that are now Polish or Russian. Still surprised at how many think Germany has claims on neighbors.
Cores expire after 150 years, so Germany still has them in those areas until 2095. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Surprised at the number of Canadians and Americans though. I mean with Canada that can only be the US who is illegitimately holding your territory, right?
Don't forget Denmark. Those treacherous bastards.
The Canadians must still be remembering the the Pig War.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 14, 2020, 06:24:46 AM
UK figure is a bit strange, people not reconciled to Irish independence :hmm: ?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eo_jijeW4AAW-D4?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Presumably Spain is Gibraltar?
It has to be, no other place really makes sense. Unless it's about the Rosellón/Rosselló/Roussillion, and I guess that Catalan separatists would be the ones most interested on it. :P
QuoteI like that Italy is more or less evenly balanced on whether it has any territorial claims - and what are they, Albania?! :blink:
I'd put my bets on the Istria peninsula, which had a sizeable Italian minority until the 50s, and to this day still has some towns where Italian speakers are the majority. Dalmatia would maybe follow down the list. More outlandish claims could be the Ticino canton, Nice, Corsica or Malta.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2020, 07:18:59 AM
I'd put my bets on the Istria peninsula, which had a sizeable Italian minority until the 50s, and to this day still has some towns where Italian speakers are the majority. Dalmatia would maybe follow down the list. More outlandish claims could be the Ticino canton, Nice, Corsica or Malta.
Absolutely love it if it's some PCI hold-outs demanding annexaction of the Vatican City :lol:
Whatever happened to Italian Eurocommunism. It's all fascists now :(
Quote from: Sheilbh
Presumably Spain is Gibraltar?
Quote from: The Larch
It has to be, no other place really makes sense. Unless it's about the Rosellón/Rosselló/Roussillion, and I guess that Catalan separatists would be the ones most interested on it. :P
QuoteI like that Italy is more or less evenly balanced on whether it has any territorial claims - and what are they, Albania?! :blink:
Quote from: The Larch
I'd put my bets on the Istria peninsula, which had a sizeable Italian minority until the 50s, and to this day still has some towns where Italian speakers are the majority. Dalmatia would maybe follow down the list. More outlandish claims could be the Ticino canton, Nice, Corsica or Malta.
QuoteI like that Italy is more or less evenly balanced on whether it has any territorial claims - and what are they, Albania?! :blink:
Spain still has claims on Portugal, the Ilhas Selvagens mostly though, nowadays. :P
FYI, between Madeira and the Canary Islands.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Not sure where else to put this but this is bonkers polling NATO members on whether their neighbouring countries have territory that really belongs to them:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpJgglNXYAIeWwu?format=jpg&name=medium)
Looks like Balkanism starts at 40-45%, that's good to know.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 07:21:47 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2020, 07:18:59 AM
I'd put my bets on the Istria peninsula, which had a sizeable Italian minority until the 50s, and to this day still has some towns where Italian speakers are the majority. Dalmatia would maybe follow down the list. More outlandish claims could be the Ticino canton, Nice, Corsica or Malta.
Absolutely love it if it's some PCI hold-outs demanding annexaction of the Vatican City :lol:
Never in my life have I seen anyone claiming the Vatican for Italy, maybe that's only taking place in your imagination. :P
QuoteWhatever happened to Italian Eurocommunism. It's all fascists now :(
Nah, not really, unless you count the Lega as proper fascists. At the moment the only "proper" post-fascist party in Italy is "Fratelli d'Italia" who fill the historical role that "Alleanza Nazionale" fulfilled in the Berlusconi era, junior party in a broader right wing coallition.
Eurocommunism in a way completely succeeded in Italy by following Berlinguer's thesis and becoming an essential part of its left wing bloc through alliances with other moderate parties, the "Compromesso Storico". When the PCI dissolved in 1991 it split in two, its mainline joining the newly created PDS which, in turn and after successive evolutions ended up becoming the PD, the country's largest left wing party. The splitter branch who refused to do so became the PRC, which to this day is still part of progressively more minoritarian left wing alliances.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2020, 07:57:13 AM
Never in my life have I seen anyone claiming the Vatican for Italy, maybe that's only taking place in your imagination. :P
:lol:
QuoteNah, not really, unless you count the Lega as proper fascists. At the moment the only "proper" post-fascist party in Italy is "Fratelli d'Italia" who fill the historical role that "Alleanza Nazionale" fulfilled in the Berlusconi era, junior party in a broader right wing coallition.
Yeah I am thinking of FdI but also a Lega-FdI-Berlusconi coalition, which is plausible, is ideologically different and a lot further to the right than a Berlusconi-LN-AN coalition, even if they are made up of the same political forces because of the power balances within them if you know what I mean.
QuoteEurocommunism in a way completely succeeded in Italy by following Berlinguer's thesis and becoming an essential part of its left wing bloc through alliances with other moderate parties, the "Compromesso Storico". When the PCI dissolved in 1991 it split in two, its mainline joining the newly created PDS which, in turn and after successive evolutions ended up becoming the PD, the country's largest left wing party. The splitter branch who refused to do so became the PRC, which to this day is still part of progressively more minoritarian left wing alliances.
God I love Berlinguer :wub:
But I feel like a more vigorous left needs to break from the PD given how flabby and broad it is <_<
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 07:46:48 AMSpain still has claims on Portugal, the Ilhas Selvagens mostly though, nowadays. :P
No, not even those. And nobody knows them anyway.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2020, 08:10:47 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 07:46:48 AMSpain still has claims on Portugal, the Ilhas Selvagens mostly though, nowadays. :P
No, not even those. And nobody knows them anyway.
Spanish fishermen know them. ;) I'll grant you they are not always representative of your average Spaniard.
Not to mention Spain disputes the southern limit of the Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone by claiming those islands are not islands but rocks.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2020, 08:10:47 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 07:46:48 AMSpain still has claims on Portugal, the Ilhas Selvagens mostly though, nowadays. :P
No, not even those. And nobody knows them anyway.
Spanish fishermen know them. ;) I'll grant you they are not always representative of your average Spaniard.
Not to mention Spain disputes the southern limit of the Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone by claiming those islands are not islands but rocks.
No man is a rock.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Not sure where else to put this but this is bonkers polling NATO members on whether their neighbouring countries have territory that really belongs to them:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpJgglNXYAIeWwu?format=jpg&name=medium)
I mean Hungary and Greece are not that surprising. Presumably Spain is Gibraltar? I like that Italy is more or less evenly balanced on whether it has any territorial claims - and what are they, Albania?! :blink:
The French number I understand because France should be 130 Departments. The UK presumably has an irredentist lot who either want Ireland or Calais back.
Surprised at the number of Canadians and Americans though. I mean with Canada that can only be the US who is illegitimately holding your territory, right?
Edit: Incidentally could get behind UK irredentism for Aquitane :ph34r:
I feel like 10-20% of the population is just always going to agree regardless of specific claims.
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2020, 08:57:08 AM
No man is a rock.
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/18383/442053-dwaynejohnson_aka_the_rock.jpg)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 11:43:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2020, 08:57:08 AM
No man is a rock.
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/18383/442053-dwaynejohnson_aka_the_rock.jpg)
He's not "a rock".
He's "The Rock".
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2020, 11:54:33 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 11:43:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2020, 08:57:08 AM
No man is a rock.
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/18383/442053-dwaynejohnson_aka_the_rock.jpg)
He's not "a rock".
He's "The Rock".
The Rock is still a Rock, he just happens to be The One, byzanteen pedant :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Not sure where else to put this but this is bonkers polling NATO members on whether their neighbouring countries have territory that really belongs to them:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpJgglNXYAIeWwu?format=jpg&name=medium)
I mean Hungary and Greece are not that surprising. Presumably Spain is Gibraltar? I like that Italy is more or less evenly balanced on whether it has any territorial claims - and what are they, Albania?! :blink:
The French number I understand because France should be 130 Departments. The UK presumably has an irredentist lot who either want Ireland or Calais back.
Surprised at the number of Canadians and Americans though. I mean with Canada that can only be the US who is illegitimately holding your territory, right?
Edit: Incidentally could get behind UK irredentism for Aquitane :ph34r:
I'm really curious what land Americans seem to think should belong to them. The US is the third biggest country in the world. We're pretty good on the whole land thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
I'm really curious what land Americans seem to think should belong to them. The US is the third biggest country in the world. We're pretty good on the whole land thing.
Let me guess. Not Mexico for starters. Not anymore, at least.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 14, 2020, 06:24:46 AM
Perhaps the Italians want Dalmatia back.
UK figure is a bit strange, people not reconciled to Irish independence :hmm: ?
It depends on how you define countries. Maybe some Scots still demand Cumberland back.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
I'm really curious what land Americans seem to think should belong to them. The US is the third biggest country in the world. We're pretty good on the whole land thing.
Maybe some die hard Polk-ists still want to fight for 54 40.
The most surprising part of this poll is that there are Hungarians and Greeks and Bulgarians who don't want their nationalistic claims still. Good on those people.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
It depends on how you define countries. Maybe some Scots still demand Cumberland back.
Nah. Borders on Great Britain are relatively settled - have been for about 600 years.
Maybe they want Berwick back for the original Northern Ireland protocol where Berwick was legally part of Scotland (and had Scots law) but administered by England :lol:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 05:13:23 AM
That's Aquitaine or Guyenne, not Aquitane (sic). :contract:
As for 130 départements. :lmfao:
PS: otoh, parts of Normandy are still occupied by the UK. :P
What about Belgium and Luxembourg? France was always trying to grab those back in the day.
I am not sure why the French would still want them but hey...
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
What about Belgium and Luxembourg? France was always trying to grab those back in the day.
I am not sure why the French would still want them but hey...
Of relevance, Talleyrand's proposal in 1830 during the Belgian revolution. Which would have solved a lot of problems, frankly:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpEomUMVEAAyz97?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 05:13:23 AM
That's Aquitaine or Guyenne, not Aquitane (sic). :contract:
As for 130 départements. :lmfao:
PS: otoh, parts of Normandy are still occupied by the UK. :P
What about Belgium and Luxembourg? France was always trying to grab those back in the day.
I am not sure why the French would still want them but hey...
Having Wallonia means the no Walloon vote PS no matter what crowd so that does not interest much the French conservatives or RN. Marine Le Pen mentioned it once though it's hard to tell if she was serious. :P
Monaco should disappear, yes. :D
Talleyrand's plan would have left French-speaking areas in Prussia so not that great.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
I'm really curious what land Americans seem to think should belong to them. The US is the third biggest country in the world. We're pretty good on the whole land thing.
54 40 or fight you pinko
All your crazy canucks is belong to us.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
I'm really curious what land Americans seem to think should belong to them. The US is the third biggest country in the world. We're pretty good on the whole land thing.
Probably Native American land.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 03:18:48 PM
Talleyrand's plan would have left French-speaking areas in Prussia so not that great.
't was bad enough France invaded the region to fight against the Dutch during the revolution. Not intervening and letting the dutch crush the rebellion would have been far better.
As it is Talleyrand's plan fits in perfectly in centuries of attempts by France to occupy those regions, and none of the attempts were positive for the people living there.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 14, 2020, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2020, 03:18:48 PM
Talleyrand's plan would have left French-speaking areas in Prussia so not that great.
't was bad enough France invaded the region to fight against the Dutch during the revolution. Not intervening and letting the dutch crush the rebellion would have been far better.
As it is Talleyrand's plan fits in perfectly in centuries of attempts by France to occupy those regions, and none of the attempts were positive for the people living there.
Probably better than the Germans attempts to occupy those regions though.
I am curious why supporting those people is worse than letting them be put down by a reactionary king though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 04:52:23 AM
Edit: Incidentally could get behind UK irredentism for Aquitane :ph34r:
Not just Gascony-Aquitaine!!! Return all the lands stolen by the oath-breaker Phillip Augustus!
[OK, so Richard was dead and John was never a Crusader...but who cares after 800 years? :P]
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
I'm really curious what land Americans seem to think should belong to them. The US is the third biggest country in the world. We're pretty good on the whole land thing.
some non inhabited islands off the coast of Maine are still under dispute, IIRC. Possibly some too around Vancouver and Washington State.
EDIT:
here's the full list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States)
EDIT 2:
Also, there are water rights dispute around the Rio Grande.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:09:12 PM
The most surprising part of this poll is that there are Hungarians and Greeks and Bulgarians who don't want their nationalistic claims still. Good on those people.
I'm sure there are Ukrainians who don't their nationalist claims still, on Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Good on those people.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
It depends on how you define countries. Maybe some Scots still demand Cumberland back.
Nah. Borders on Great Britain are relatively settled - have been for about 600 years.
Maybe they want Berwick back for the original Northern Ireland protocol where Berwick was legally part of Scotland (and had Scots law) but administered by England :lol:
aren't there some disputes about northern islands between Denmark and Scotland? I'm talking of these island/chains way up north (sorry, I'm seriously bad in geography). Or is it between Scotland and England?
Danes are always eager to pick a fight for some island or another, so it wouldn't surprise me :P :P
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2020, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:09:12 PM
The most surprising part of this poll is that there are Hungarians and Greeks and Bulgarians who don't want their nationalistic claims still. Good on those people.
I'm sure there are Ukrainians who don't their nationalist claims still, on Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Good on those people.
Yeah because that is the same shit. In any case what does that have to do with this poll? Ukraine isn't even on it.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2020, 07:29:33 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2020, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
It depends on how you define countries. Maybe some Scots still demand Cumberland back.
Nah. Borders on Great Britain are relatively settled - have been for about 600 years.
Maybe they want Berwick back for the original Northern Ireland protocol where Berwick was legally part of Scotland (and had Scots law) but administered by England :lol:
aren't there some disputes about northern islands between Denmark and Scotland? I'm talking of these island/chains way up north (sorry, I'm seriously bad in geography). Or is it between Scotland and England?
Danes are always eager to pick a fight for some island or another, so it wouldn't surprise me :P :P
Norway I think.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 08:07:59 PM
In any case what does that have to do with this poll? Ukraine isn't even on it.
People always trying to deny Ukraine's existence. :(
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 08:07:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2020, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2020, 03:09:12 PM
The most surprising part of this poll is that there are Hungarians and Greeks and Bulgarians who don't want their nationalistic claims still. Good on those people.
I'm sure there are Ukrainians who don't their nationalist claims still, on Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Good on those people.
Yeah because that is the same shit. In any case what does that have to do with this poll? Ukraine isn't even on it.
It is, 2nd from the bottom, after the NATO median.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2020, 07:29:33 PM
aren't there some disputes about northern islands between Denmark and Scotland? I'm talking of these island/chains way up north (sorry, I'm seriously bad in geography). Or is it between Scotland and England?
Danes are always eager to pick a fight for some island or another, so it wouldn't surprise me :P :P
Orkney and Shetland islands (plus Caithness), they became Scottish as part of Margaret of Denmark's dowry. But I think the extent there's a claim, they're Norwegian not Danish :P
I wonder how many of those Czechs/Slovaks are pointing at each other. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2020, 04:36:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2020, 07:29:33 PM
aren't there some disputes about northern islands between Denmark and Scotland? I'm talking of these island/chains way up north (sorry, I'm seriously bad in geography). Or is it between Scotland and England?
Danes are always eager to pick a fight for some island or another, so it wouldn't surprise me :P :P
Orkney and Shetland islands (plus Caithness), they became Scottish as part of Margaret of Denmark's dowry. But I think the extent there's a claim, they're Norwegian not Danish :P
see, I just knew the Danes had something to do about it! :P :P
But reading about it, I probably mixed the situation of Faroe islands belonging to Denmark with the autonomous movement of the Shetland islands from the 70s. :)
It's hard to judge what territory some people of Scotland may think should belong to them. I'd be curious to know specifically what they had in mind though. :)