Operesheni maalum ya Urusi dhidi ya Ukraine ikiisha NATO itavunjika

[lee Vladimir cleef]

Kwa maoni yangu,Iwe Urusi imeshinda ama imeshindwa katika operation yake dhidi ya Ukraine mara TU baada ya operation hiyo kuisha Umoja wa NATO utavunjuka.

Hautavunjika kwa siku moja au mwezi,Bali miaka isiyozidi mitatu NATO haitaendelea kuwepo wataivunja.

Haya ni mawazo yangu TU kwa kuangalia mwendo wa mgogoro huu.

Sababu zangu ni kwamba.

Ulaya yote wanajua fika Urusi Haina chuku na nchi yoyote ya ulaya isipokua kibaraka Mkuu wa Marekani, uingereza.
Urusi haiitaki Marekani ikiwa kijeshi barani ulaya.

Nayo Marekani ili iwepo ulaya kijeshi ni lazima iwemo ndani ya NATO.

Na ukweli ulio wazi NATO ni chombo Cha Marekani Cha kuidhibiti Urusi,kama ikitokea vita kabla Urusi haijafika Marekani.

Hivyo wazungu wa ulaya wanaiona NATO kama chombo Cha kuiingiza matatizoni ulaya kivita na Urusi wakati wao hawana matatizo na Urusi, mwenye matatizo na Urusi Yuko mbali ila wao wanatumika kama buffer zone TU.

Mgogoro huu utawafanya waone kuwa kumbe Russia akitaka kutupiga anatupiga TU bila msaada wowote wa maana kutoka Marekani.

Waulaya wengi siku nyingi hawaitaki NATO ila Uingereza, Marekani na Poland wamekua wakisisitiza kuwa NATO ni muhimu.

Waulaya wengi mfano Ufaransa wanashabikia mbadala wa NATO kwa ajili ya ulaya ambayo ni "European Army"

European Army imekua ikipigiwa. Chapuo siku nyingi na nchi wastaarabu kama Ufaransa na wenzake lkini kikwazo ni USA,UK na Poland.

Urusi inapenda sana mahusiano mema na Ulaya lakini USA amekia akivuruga siku zote.
Na hata Bomba la gesi kwenda Ujerumani kavuruga makusudi kwa kua anajua Urusi atapiga Hela sana.

Vikwazo vya kiuchumi
Vikwazo vimekua ni kero kwa baadhi ya nchi.
Mfano ugomvi ni kati ya USA na Russia mfano,lakini USA analazimisha nchi ambazo hazina ugomvi na Russia kuiwekea Russia vikwazo.hoja Sasa je hizo nchi hazihutaji Hela ya Urusi?au hazihutaji bidhaa za Urusi?

Pengine ni rahisi zaidi kuagiza bidhaa Fulani kutoka Russia kuliko kuagiza bidhaa hiyo kutoka mfano china

Na kibaya zaidi vita Iko ulaya USA inazilazimisha mfano nchi za middle east kuacha kufanya biashara na Urusi .zikale wapi?

Vikwazo sio vya UN Bali ni USA na marafiki zake wachache TU.

Hivyo Kuna nchi hazitataka kujiunga Tena na NATO kwa kuogopa kuleta Tena mgogoro barani ulaya kwa kuifaidisha USA.

Pia hazipendi vikwazo dhidi ya Urusi kwa sababu baadhi Yao soko kubwa la bidhaa zao like Urusi.

Kwa machache hayo sioni NATO kuwepo Tena baada ya vita hii kwaiaka michache ijayo.

Haina faida kwa ulaya zaidi itawaletea majanga TU kutoka Urusi.

Urusi ilipigana na NATO hata bila nyukilia kwa kutumia makombora mengine TU ya maangamizi hakuna nchi katika ulaya zitakua kama zilivyo Leo. Nchi nyingi zitarudi zana za mawe. Sasa yote haya ni kwa sababu ya NATO TU. Hakuna nchi ulaya inapenda ujinga huu.

Litaanza vugu vugu ulaya la kuhoji uhalali wa NATO. Kumbuka vuguvugu hili lipo miaka mingi TU,lakini mgogoro huu wa Ukraine ndio utawafungua wengi akili. European Army inakuja kubatizwa nadhani wengi hawajui kuwa IPO.

Moja ya Sheria ya NATO inasema mwanachama yoyote wa NATO akichokoza yeye NATO haihusiki yatakayomkua yake.

Uturuki sio mwanachama wa European union,lakini ni mwanachama wa NATO. Kaomba kujiunga wee lakini kakataliwa.

NATO waliweza kuisaidia Kosovo ambae sio mwanachama wake alipokua akipigwa na Serbia. Leo NATO kaogopa kuisaidia Ukraine kibaraka wao. Kwa hiyo assurance ya NATO ni ndogo sana kama Mnato akiingia mgogoro na Urusi.

Sioni NATO kuwepo Tena baada ya vita hii. Urusi kaivua nguo pakubwa sana.

=========

France's Macron pushes for 'true European army'​

President Macron is visiting a series of monuments this week to mark the centenary of the World War One Armistice
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that Europeans cannot be protected without a "true, European army", as he marks the centenary of the World War One Armistice.

On a visit to the former Western Front in Verdun, he said Russia had shown it could be a threat and Europe had to be able "to defend itself better alone".

Russia's president will be among world leaders marking the Armistice in Paris. Mr Macron has already proposed a joint intervention force for crisis missions.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel backed the idea of an intervention force in June, but said it would have to be part of "the structure of defence co-operation".

The UK, while in favour of such a joint force, is opposed to a European army, because of the potential risk of creating a parallel structure to Nato.

President Macron has already warned that Europeans can no longer rely on the US to defend them, and he revived the theme on Tuesday, in response to President Donald Trump's decision to pull out of a 1987 nuclear treaty with Russia, banning medium-range ground-launched missiles.

"Who is the main victim? Europe and its security," he told French radio station Europe 1.

"I want to build a real security dialogue with Russia, which is a country I respect, a European country - but we must have a Europe that can defend itself on its own without relying only on the United States."

Speaking about cyber security, he also said: "We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America."

=============

Will there be a European army?​

There is no evidence that any group of European countries has the political will or economic muscle to spend sufficiently on defence to make up for the United States' raw power.

Indeed the deployment of troops "into harm's way" remains the ultimate sovereign decision of a national government. There is no "Nato army" today - merely an alliance of national components trained and accustomed to operating together.

President Macron's call for a greater European effort in defence derives from two sets of factors: his support for the greater European project on the one hand, but also horror at much that the Trump Administration is doing on the other, with its overturning of treaties and so on.

Media caption,
Nato holds biggest military exercise since Cold War
But could Europe really stand up to Russia alone? And what of the longer-term threat from China?
The US relationship may be problematic but it could be becoming more important than ever.

 

[Equitable]

Nalo neno.

 

[mugah di matheo]

Hayo ni maoni yako lakini kaa ukijua Hanna alieko salama kwa tabia za rassia

 

[highland]

uchambuzi murua kabisa 😄

 

[Chief Sam]

Hakika mkuu kwa kuongezea hata UN haiweki matamko sababu US ana big saying,nchi nyingine ni painted picture kufuata maagzo.US ni jipu kwenye world peace

 

[DALA]

NATO bado itakuwepo kwa muda tena sana. Wazungu wanatawaliwa na wanawake ambao wameua masculinity na feminism imetawala.

Maana yake ni kwamba wao wengi wanahisi NATO ndiyo kimbilio coz Marekani anahusika hivyo hawatahitaji nguvu kubwa ya kijeshi kwa nchi moja moja.

Finland kwa mfano inayochakia mpaka wa urefu wa 1,300km wameanza kwa kasi sana kujadili uwezekanao wa kujiunga na NATO pamoja na kwamba miaka ya nyuma walipojaribu kupitia kura ya maoni wananchi walikataa. Ila kwa sasa kuna petitions mbili bungeni za wananchi zilizokusanya kura zaidi ya laki moja wakilitaka bunge kuanzisha mchakato wa kujiunga na NATO.

Sweden bahati nzuri waziri mkuu mpaka sasa bado amelipiga chini hii hoja. Ila waziri mkuu na rais wa Finland wameanza kufanya kampeni kwa nchi wanachama wa NATO kuiunga mkono pindi itakapoomba kujiunga.

 

[eliakeem]

NATO bado itakuwepo kwa muda tena sana. Wazungu wanatawaliwa na wanawake ambao wameua masculinity na feminism imetawala.

Maana yake ni kwamba wao wengi wanahisi NATO ndiyo kimbilio coz Marekani anahusika hivyo hawatahitaji nguvu kubwa ya kijeshi kwa nchi moja moja.

Finland kwa mfano inayochakia mpaka wa urefu wa 1,300km wameanza kwa kasi sana kujadili uwezekanao wa kujiunga na NATO pamoja na kwamba miaka ya nyuma walipojaribu kupitia kura ya maoni wananchi walikataa. Ila kwa sasa kuna petitions mbili bungeni za wananchi zilizokusanya kura zaidi ya laki moja wakilitaka bunge kuanzisha mchakato wa kujiunga na NATO.

Sweden bahati nzuri waziri mkuu mpaka sasa bado amelipiga chini hii hoja. Ila waziri mkuu na rais wa Finland wameanza kufanya kampeni kwa nchi wanachama wa NATO kuiunga mkono pindi itakapoomba kujiunga.

Sweden wako smart sana. Hawaendeshwi na mihemko wala kufuata umati kama nyumbu. Waziri mkuu wao kasema suala la kujiunga na nato au la kwa kipindi hiki siyo zuri. Kwa maana litaongeza tension katika ukanda huu.
Nimewakubali sana kwa uamuzi huu.

 

[myoyambendi]

NATO HAIWEZI KUFA SASA....BADO SANA.

 

[DALA]

Sweden wako smart sana. Hawaendeshwi na mihemko wala kufuata umati kama nyumbu. Waziri mkuu wao kasema suala la kujiunga na nato au la kwa kipindi hiki siyo zuri. Kwa maana litaongeza tension katika ukanda huu.
Nimewakubali sana kwa uamuzi huu.

Sasa wenzao Finland wameingiwa na hofu kubwa sana ukizingatia waliwahi kuzichapa na Urusi mwaka 1939 ambapo Urusi ilifanikiwa kumega kipande cha nchi yao, japo walifanikiwa kumtuliza mawenge Urusi.

Wanaogopa sana ikitokea leo varangati kati yao na Urusi, wamekwisha. Ila Urusi ni soko la bidha zao kwa asilimia 80+

 

[Smart911]

Bora mambo yao wawaachie wenyewe, wakiingilia tu dunia haitakua sehemu salama tena...

 

[lee Vladimir cleef]

Chokochoko za kutaka kujitenga na NATO zilianza siku nyingi sana.

Wanajua USA ndio atawaletea janga Ulaya.

 

[lee Vladimir cleef]

NATO HAIWEZI KUFA SASA....BADO SANA.

Ukraine Crisis Boosts Macron's Call for a European Army​

Putin keeps trying to divide the U.S. and Europe, but he might just create two formidable enemies.

Ina maana NATO haitoshi?

Hapana Nia ni kuitema Marakani baraani ulaya.
Kwani wanaona kama USA ni kirusi hatari kwa usalama wa ulaya..
Kukiwa na European Army Urusi Haina tataizo,shida na USA TU.

 

[lee Vladimir cleef]

Is the EU about to build its own military capacity? Thanks to Germany, the jury’s still out.​

With a new ruling coalition in Germany, some experts are debating whether the ambitious foreign-policy goals it outlined in November suggest a major reset for the country’s international strategy, with implications for the European Union’s (EU) own external policy. Supporters of increased European military integration—especially of autonomous EU military capacity—have taken the new coalition’s interest in an assertive foreign policy, particularly against Russian aggression in Ukraine, as a sign that an EU-run military power may one day be feasible.

But while various idealistic coalition members endorsed the idea of an “European Army” in their campaigns, supporters should temper their hopes for its establishment. The parties that compose this new coalition all scrupulously avoided mentioning in their coalition pact this sensitive notion of a European Army, which evokes images of loss of national sovereignty and is more often used by Euroskeptics than not. Instead, they’re opting to work toward “European sovereignty.” But this will still require undergoing European military integration that today continues to contend with enduring political, logistical, and funding issues.

History also suggests the endeavor could be a difficult one, as there have been History also suggests the endeavor could be a difficult one, as there have been numerous failed attempts at forming autonomous EU military capacity. The United States once even fought such efforts: For example, when then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac signed an agreement in 1998 at Saint-Malo to form a European military force, the Clinton administration argued that it would render NATO “a relic of the past.” US opposition to integration remained for nearly the next two decades: In 2018, the Trump administration denounced plans for an EU army. Moreover, resistance to creating an EU army remains in Central and Eastern European countries such as Poland and Latvia, as these newer NATO and EU member states feared that any EU military structures could replace existing NATO institutions and reduce US military presence in the region.

It’s likely that this history of failed attempts pushed French President Emmanuel Macron and then German Chancellor Angela Merkel to avoid making specific promises when proclaiming their support for a theoretical future EU military capacity in 2018. Even the 2019 French-German Aachen Treaty, which Merkel hailed as a step towards the EU army, did not include any explicit steps towards forming an EU army. Today, the party leaders of Germany’s new “traffic light coalition” are aware of this history and may have consequently tempered their rhetoric on military integration during coalition negotiations.

With its commitments to strengthen European sovereignty, the new German government may successfully boost international support for existing European military-integration programs. These initiatives include the EU Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) program, which is meant to better coordinate military-equipment procurement across the EU and integrate military supply chains, and NATO’s Framework Nations Concept. But these are not intended to directly contribute to forming an EU army, and no military-integration initiative exists with the explicit long-term goal of forming an EU military.

Nor has their implementation been easy. PESCO especially has faced serious and repeated delays caused by hurdles such as the pandemic. Furthermore, PESCO projects depend on funds from multiple sources including the European Defense Fund (EDF), which launched in July, the EU, and national sources; but by July, twenty PESCO projects had still not received any funding from national sources. Meanwhile, the EDF also funds the development of common military equipment for EU members’ militaries—but the benefits of that funding would only come several years later, given how long it takes to improve the production of military equipment. Larger-scale military integration would need to address these deep logistical flaws that smaller programs like PESCO already face.

Despite such setbacks, some European interest in military integration remains—even in the form of smaller goals to strengthen European sovereignty—because of the United States’ wavering commitment to Europe. The German coalition agreement’s emphasis on European sovereignty follows the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the formation of the AUKUS defense pact between the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. While US President Joe Biden maintains a more conciliatory stance toward the European Union compared to his predecessor, recent events have cooled European hopes for a renewed US commitment to the region and incentivized more support for European sovereignty.

A partial acceleration in European military integration could also help the German coalition government deliver on its European-sovereignty ambitions. According to the European Foreign Affairs Review, PESCO has had some success in “de-fragmenting the defense market in the European Union.” Furthermore, the Biden administration has signaled its support for a PESCO project, in a move that suggests it is not as inherently opposed to integrated European armed forces as preceding US administrations. PESCO has been further reinforced by the European Intervention Initiative, a group that in practice hosts expert-level workshops to improve integrating Europe’s “strategic culture” without being a formal EU or NATO entity. And, although PESCO’s projects are behind schedule, some of the ones underway are gaining recognition, such as Cyber Rapid Response Teams and the European Medical Command.

Other developments could boost European military integration even more. Five EU members (including one that is not a NATO member) have committed in principle to one day expanding already existing EU battle groups, or multinational military units that rapidly respond in the event of crises. The European Commission has further discussed establishing a five-thousand-troop joint intervention force by 2025.

Altogether, there does appear to be momentum that the new German government can use if it wants to follow through on its commitments to strengthen European sovereignty. While the new German coalition cracks open the door to this pursuit a bit more, the new proposals for expanded EU battle groups and the material developments in European military integration should be seen as steps towards EU military capacity—if not an EU army.

There are still significant issues to overcome. Other factors include how well EU members address the problems of funding and procurement in military integration, and whether the Biden administration continues to support its development. The future of EU military integration could also hinge on the 2022 French presidential elections: If the new German coalition government cannot work with a like-minded president such as France’s Emmanuel Macron, these plans could very well stall (or worse). If more Euroskeptic candidates such as Éric Zemmour or Marine Le Pen manage to win the presidency, any breakthrough on European military integration will be impossible.

The idea of an EU military capacity is still likely to tantalize supporters of European military sovereignty for some time to come—but the debate over its utility and feasibility will last just as long.

 

[Proved]

Chokochoko za kutaka kujitenga na NATO zilianza siku nyingi sana.
Wanajua USA ndio atawaletea janga ulaya.

Umechambua vizuri sana...

Ila kumbuka Urusi na China wanaonekana ni kitisho kwa demokrasia na usalama wa Ulaya kwa miaka kadhaa ijayo.

Huu uvamizi wa Urusi huko Ukraine ndio umezidi kuongeza kitisho cha Urusi kwa ulaya na imesababisha nchi za NATO kufungamana zaidi na kujiimarisha zaidi huko Ulaya mashariki hasa kwenye mataifa ya Baltic na Poland.

Kwa Sasa bajeti za ulinzi za nchi wanachama wa NATO zitaongezeka zaidi ili kujiandaa kukabili tishio la Urusi.....kwa hali hii sidhani kama Nato itasambaratika Sana Sana watashikamana zaidi kumkabili Urusi na mshirika wake China (ikibidi).

Kwa mtazamo wangu nchi nyingi za ulaya magharibi zinaamini bado Nato (chini ya himaya ya Marekani) ndio jumuiya pekee itakayowahakikishia usalama wa kudumu kutoka Urusi na China.

NATO ambayo ndio umoja wa kijeshi wenye nguvu zaidi duniani bado utaendelea kuwepo kwa siku za usoni nyingi tu labda wavurugane wenyewe tu.

 

[makaveli10]

Umechambua vizuri sana...

Ila kumbuka Urusi na China wanaonekana ni kitisho kwa demokrasia na usalama wa Ulaya kwa miaka kadhaa ijayo.

Huu uvamizi wa Urusi huko Ukraine ndio umezidi kuongeza kitisho cha Urusi kwa ulaya na imesababisha nchi za NATO kufungamana zaidi na kujiimarisha zaidi huko Ulaya mashariki hasa kwenye mataifa ya Baltic na Poland.

Kwa Sasa bajeti za ulinzi za nchi wanachama wa NATO zitaongezeka zaidi ili kujiandaa kukabili tishio la Urusi.....kwa hali hii sidhani kama Nato itasambaratika Sana Sana watashikamana zaidi kumkabili Urusi na mshirika wake China (ikibidi).

Kwa mtazamo wangu nchi nyingi za ulaya magharibi zinaamini bado Nato (chini ya himaya ya Marekani) ndio jumuiya pekee itakayowahakikishia usalama wa kudumu kutoka Urusi na China.

NATO ambayo ndio umoja wa kijeshi wenye nguvu zaidi duniani bado utaendelea kuwepo kwa siku za usoni nyingi tu labda wavurugane wenyewe tu.

Sidhani kama urusi ana ugomvi na ulaya!!

 

[Proved]

Sidhani kama urusi ana ugomvi na ulaya!!

Ni kweli....kwa hili analofanya huko Ukraine hata akisema hana ugomvi unadhani watamuamini?

 

[lee Vladimir cleef]

Umechambua vizuri sana...

Ila kumbuka Urusi na China wanaonekana ni kitisho kwa demokrasia na usalama wa Ulaya kwa miaka kadhaa ijayo.

Huu uvamizi wa Urusi huko Ukraine ndio umezidi kuongeza kitisho cha Urusi kwa ulaya na imesababisha nchi za NATO kufungamana zaidi na kujiimarisha zaidi huko Ulaya mashariki hasa kwenye mataifa ya Baltic na Poland.

Kwa Sasa bajeti za ulinzi za nchi wanachama wa NATO zitaongezeka zaidi ili kujiandaa kukabili tishio la Urusi.....kwa hali hii sidhani kama Nato itasambaratika Sana Sana watashikamana zaidi kumkabili Urusi na mshirika wake China (ikibidi).

Kwa mtazamo wangu nchi nyingi za ulaya magharibi zinaamini bado Nato (chini ya himaya ya Marekani) ndio jumuiya pekee itakayowahakikishia usalama wa kudumu kutoka Urusi na China.

NATO ambayo ndio umoja wa kijeshi wenye nguvu zaidi duniani bado utaendelea kuwepo kwa siku za usoni nyingi tu labda wavurugane wenyewe tu.

Sawa kwa nje inaonekana wanaihitaji zaidi NATO ,lakini kwa ndani wanaona USA anawahutaji Zaid wa ulaya kwa maslahi yake.

Wanajua kabisa Urusi Hana tatizo na WA ulaya kabisa ,Tena anpenda sana kufanya biashara na waulaya,lakini kikwazo ni USA.

Nchi nyingi za ulaya Magharibi wala hazimuoni kama Urusi ni kitisho kwao na kwa sababu wanamuina kama jirani asie na madhara kwao.hakuna nchi ya west inayomchunguza Kijasusi Urusi nje ya NATO zaidi ya UK na USA TU.

Hawa Urusi akiwwona tumbo linamuuma.

Urusi yok vizuri na German,France,Italy,denmark na nchi nyingi za ulaya.

Ukiondoa adua yake wa jadi na kihelehele mgeni ndani ya NATO ndugu Poland.

Wengine hawana shida na Urusi. Anaewachochea ni USA TU.

Ndio maana Kuna mahusiano mazuri TU ya biashara kati ya German na urusi.na German ana ushawishi Mzuri TU kwa waulaya wenzie.
Nikiwahi Kuna kipande Fulani Cha Putin alikua akiongea na rais wa Ufaransa sumkubuki ni yupi akimwambia wazi kabisa Rais huyo kuwa "waondoeni wanajeshi wa Marekani ulaya Hawa ndio wanasababisha vurugu ulaya."

Nadhani hii ilikua ni baada ya ule mgogoro kuweka Lada na makombora ya kudungua makombora Romania na Poland kama sukosei,mpango ambao Urusi aliuoinga kwa nguvu mno.

With a new ruling coalition in Germany, some experts are debating whether the ambitious foreign-policy goals it outlined in November suggest a major reset for the country’s international strategy, with implications for the European Union’s (EU) own external policy. Supporters of increased European military integration—especially of autonomous EU military capacity—have taken the new coalition’s interest in an assertive foreign policy, particularly against Russian aggression in Ukraine, as a sign that an EU-run military power may one day be feasible.

But while various idealistic coalition members endorsed the idea of an “European Army” in their campaigns, supporters should temper their hopes for its establishment. The parties that compose this new coalition all scrupulously avoided mentioning in their coalition pact this sensitive notion of a European Army, which evokes images of loss of national sovereignty and is more often used by Euroskeptics than not. Instead, they’re opting to work toward “European sovereignty.” But this will still require undergoing European military integration that today continues to contend with enduring political, logistical, and funding issues.

History also suggests the endeavor could be a difficult one, as there have been History also suggests the endeavor could be a difficult one, as there have been numerous failed attempts at forming autonomous EU military capacity. The United States once even fought such efforts: For example, when then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac signed an agreement in 1998 at Saint-Malo to form a European military force, the Clinton administration argued that it would render NATO “a relic of the past.” US opposition to integration remained for nearly the next two decades: In 2018, the Trump administration denounced plans for an EU army. Moreover, resistance to creating an EU army remains in Central and Eastern European countries such as Poland and Latvia, as these newer NATO and EU member states feared that any EU military structures could replace existing NATO institutions and reduce US military presence in the region.

It’s likely that this history of failed attempts pushed French President Emmanuel Macron and then German Chancellor Angela Merkel to avoid making specific promises when proclaiming their support for a theoretical future EU military capacity in 2018. Even the 2019 French-German Aachen Treaty, which Merkel hailed as a step towards the EU army, did not include any explicit steps towards forming an EU army. Today, the party leaders of Germany’s new “traffic light coalition” are aware of this history and may have consequently tempered their rhetoric on military integration during coalition negotiations.

With its commitments to strengthen European sovereignty, the new German government may successfully boost international support for existing European military-integration programs. These initiatives include the EU Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) program, which is meant to better coordinate military-equipment procurement across the EU and integrate military supply chains, and NATO’s Framework Nations Concept. But these are not intended to directly contribute to forming an EU army, and no military-integration initiative exists with the explicit long-term goal of forming an EU military.

Nor has their implementation been easy. PESCO especially has faced serious and repeated delays caused by hurdles such as the pandemic. Furthermore, PESCO projects depend on funds from multiple sources including the European Defense Fund (EDF), which launched in July, the EU, and national sources; but by July, twenty PESCO projects had still not received any funding from national sources. Meanwhile, the EDF also funds the development of common military equipment for EU members’ militaries—but the benefits of that funding would only come several years later, given how long it takes to improve the production of military equipment. Larger-scale military integration would need to address these deep logistical flaws that smaller programs like PESCO already face.

Despite such setbacks, some European interest in military integration remains—even in the form of smaller goals to strengthen European sovereignty—because of the United States’ wavering commitment to Europe. The German coalition agreement’s emphasis on European sovereignty follows the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the formation of the AUKUS defense pact between the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. While US President Joe Biden maintains a more conciliatory stance toward the European Union compared to his predecessor, recent events have cooled European hopes for a renewed US commitment to the region and incentivized more support for European sovereignty.

A partial acceleration in European military integration could also help the German coalition government deliver on its European-sovereignty ambitions. According to the European Foreign Affairs Review, PESCO has had some success in “de-fragmenting the defense market in the European Union.” Furthermore, the Biden administration has signaled its support for a PESCO project, in a move that suggests it is not as inherently opposed to integrated European armed forces as preceding US administrations. PESCO has been further reinforced by the European Intervention Initiative, a group that in practice hosts expert-level workshops to improve integrating Europe’s “strategic culture” without being a formal EU or NATO entity. And, although PESCO’s projects are behind schedule, some of the ones underway are gaining recognition, such as Cyber Rapid Response Teams and the European Medical Command.

Other developments could boost European military integration even more. Five EU members (including one that is not a NATO member) have committed in principle to one day expanding already existing EU battle groups, or multinational military units that rapidly respond in the event of crises. The European Commission has further discussed establishing a five-thousand-troop joint intervention force by 2025.

Altogether, there does appear to be momentum that the new German government can use if it wants to follow through on its commitments to strengthen European sovereignty. While the new German coalition cracks open the door to this pursuit a bit more, the new proposals for expanded EU battle groups and the material developments in European military integration should be seen as steps towards EU military capacity—if not an EU army.

There are still significant issues to overcome. Other factors include how well EU members address the problems of funding and procurement in military integration, and whether the Biden administration continues to support its development. The future of EU military integration could also hinge on the 2022 French presidential elections: If the new German coalition government cannot work with a like-minded president such as France’s Emmanuel Macron, these plans could very well stall (or worse). If more Euroskeptic candidates such as Éric Zemmour or Marine Le Pen manage to win the presidency, any breakthrough on European military integration will be impossible.

The idea of an EU military capacity is still likely to tantalize supporters of European military sovereignty for some time to come—but the debate over its utility and feasibility will last just as long.

 

[lee Vladimir cleef]

Sidhani kama urusi ana ugomvi na ulaya!!

Ukweli Siku zote Urusi anatamani sana kuwa na uhusiano mzuri na Ulaya ili anunue bidhaa kwao na yeye auze bidhaa kwao.

Sioni mtu mjinga anaweza kuuvunja uhusiano wa namna hiyo kizembe.

 

[Proved]

Ukweli Siku zote Urusi anatamani sana kuwa na uhusiano mzuri na Ulaya ili anunue bidhaa kwao na yeye auze bidhaa kwao.
Sioni mtu mjinga anaweza kuuvunja uhusiano wa namna hiyo kizembe.

Hii Vita ya Ukraine ikiendelea huoni kama uhusiano kati ya Urusi na Ulaya utazidi kudidimia zaidi.

 

[lee Vladimir cleef]

Ni kweli....kwa hili analofanya huko Ukraine hata akisema hana ugomvi unadhani watamuamini?

Mkuu Yani mfano wajerumani wanajua kabisa Urusi kawa provoked kwa sababu ya Nord stream3 hakuna kingine.
Mwangalie Macron anavyohaha.
Sema kaka mkubwa anawawekea biti kwa maslahi yake..
Kwanza wa ulaya hawataki kabisa kusikia habari ya vita,poa sio vita TU,Bali vita na. Urusi.
Hebu fikiria Putin kwa utani TU aliwahi kusifu kombora lake moja hivi hapo zamani baada ya kulifantyia majaribio na kufanikiwa alisema kombora hili moja TU linaweza kuifuta Ufaransa kwenye ramani ya dunia.

Sasa Kuna nchi inataka vita vya hivyo?