How many of the NATO members are even equipped to intervene outside of Europe's neighborhood? Even a West Asian country like Iraq is too far for most -- they had to rely fully on American logistics.
If you think that getting four Belgian F-35 will significantly alter the strategic balance in South-East Asia... Let's look at things honestly: Europe, as a military power, is completely neutered. Only France and the UK have some remnants of expeditionary capabilities, but they're too small to have a significant impact on a high-intensity conflict in East Asia.
What's needed is to forget about NATO, it's too little and too far, and instead focus on the countries that are actually there. Problem: Japan and South Korea can't stand each other, mostly because Japan refuses to acknowledge what Imperial Japan did to Korea was bad. India is a champion of non-alignment and has always refused to enter alliances. Other countries are either too small or too poor to be military powerhouses.
Of course they do. But don't misunderstand the situation: they don't want to take the lead because they want a unified European defense; they want to take the lead precisely to prevent it from successfully happening. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer was the first to swear Europe's eternal fealty to the US as soon as Biden's electoral victory seemed in the bag, with an absolutely disgusting column about how strategic autonomy is "an illusion" and Europe will always "need" the US to defend them. And just look at how Germany reacted when two nations of the European Union, Greece and Cyprus, were threatened by a nation outside of the Union, Turkey. They were very harsh on Greece, and very mellow on Turkey. Do you think this is the attitude of a country that actually cares about "threats to the bloc"? The Germans don't care about European sovereignty and integrity, they only care about their banks and their export markets.
The only reason they have to want to lead European defense is because they want to make sure there's someone corrupt and incompetent at the helm.
It was not a NATO operation. It was an ad-hoc US-led coalition. It's true that for most people there's not much difference...
You are underestimating some aspects. Yeah, just 4 F-35s won't do much, but 4 from each NATO country can do quite a lot. Some can even contribute 8 and some can contribute 16. Some can contribute a destroyer or a frigate or two. Some can contibute a company or two of troops, some can contribute a whole brigade or two. It's all about helping the US make up for a numbers gap in an away game. This will be the first time in American history that they will be fighting a peer adversary with a significant disadvantage in numbers while being more or less a match in capability.
NATO can contribute forces that can play defence while the Americans go on the offensive. A Horizon and FREMM from Italy can protect that supply ship from Hawaii that would have taken 2 AB class to protect. A handful of such ships can free up quite a few AB class for other missions. A combined 2 squadrons of F-35s can protect 18 tankers. And so on.
But yeah, the main capability will have to come from the UK and France. But only UK has committed out of all NATO countries.
Japan is set to contribute though. Australia is also set to contribute. So will NZ and Canada, eventually. SoKo will sit out 'cause they have their own problems due to their proximity, else they will end up on the receiving end of a Chinese invasion that the US won't be able to stop without going nuclear.
India is large but is also too much of an under-equipped defensive force today. Which is why we keep saying we need to buy time, where we first get sufficient strength regionally before we create expeditionary capabilities. For us it's not a question of will, it's a question of money. Many European countries can overnight raise hundreds of billions in cheap debt using their AA and AAA credit ratings for security needs. But India has to go begging for a few billions at high interest rates for an irrigation project. Plus we are not dealing with the same level of threat as the US and EU are facing. And we also share the land dispute with Taiwan. Plus, in the long term we are a match for China.
As for ASEAN, Indonesia, Vietnam and Philippines with a combined population of 475 million today have the long term potential of standing up to China. So you can say that if you wish to buy long term security for Europe, you should contribute to security in the region now so you can buy time for other regional countries to match up to China over the next 20-30 years.
NATO's announcement of joining a Sino-US war over Taiwan would play a considerable part in isolating and reigning in China. It could even avoid a war entirely.
This might not be the attitude of all Germans though. And their banks and export markets will soon be supplanted by the Chinese through their Made in China 2025 plan anyway. Are they still sleeping on the MIC2025 threat to their entire industry?
: ) … A kalpa later: thank you.
The French PR is aN Euro-enthusiast person who pushes for european efforts in defence purposes. In this way, PR Macron has been the initiator, in 2019, of the European Intervention Initiative.
Unfortunately, I am far from being a believer in This hypothetic “European Defence”. I assume this deserves some explanations …
First of all, basically:
“the philosophy of the European project is historically dominated by a refusal of power”(1). Genetically, I’d say. The core problem. “Cooperation between nations, wrote Jean Monnet, solves nothing. What we need to strive for is to merge European interests and not simply to balance them. This very definition contains an explicit desire to get beyond the traditional balance of power”(1). In this way, “building the rule of law, protecting civil liberties, guaranteeing the free functioning of the market, preventing the risk of war are all essential components of the European project”(1).
This is governance, but That’s not power. At best: softpower (“values”, And all that
As a recent (dec. 2020, just before the Biden’s administration intrusts the White House) Example of this European “will for powerlessnes”: the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, which, if ratified, will for a large part, be of benefit to China… and Germany.
For Europe to become a Hardpower, it would take some form of federalization of its foreign policy. But in Europe, contrary to Bharat, Nations precede the Union, and each one has its own interests.
That is my second point about Europe: divisions.
From defence purposes to economic competition, allow me to illustrate these divisions with two examples:
- [li]After the 1952’s dead-born European Defence Community, in ’63, the German parliament (Bundestag) added to the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty]Elysee Treaty than the defence of the European Community would be NATO integrated. Despite the then France’s PR Charles de Gaulle’s will for autonomy, the French parliament ratified the treaty… ‘Eternal return” of the dead-born embryo of an European Defence: today, France still try to promote autonomy, sovereignty, powervis-à-vis the US (last avatar: the EEI above), while Germany and other countries still prefer rely on NATO.[/li]
- [li]2020’s events in Eastern-Mediterranean Sea are the context of my second example: « Qatars’hood » backed, pan-islamic, pan-Turk Turkey’s
roguereckless behaviour by violating Greece’s EEZ and maritim conventions (note to myself: that reminds me some Asian country), spreading Syrian jihadists in Armenia, Libya (and where else? (note to myself: that reminds me another Asian country)), and blackmailing EU with Muslim migrants. On The one hand, France’s reaction was very firm,destroying Turkish SAM’s at Al Watiya, Libya, in an air raid(i shouldn’t write that, i don’t have the accreditation to do so, and neither am i a predictologist of past events), and France is still supporting Greece, as i wrote in a previous post. While on the other hand the European Concil was indulgent, obliging, and on the errr other other hand Germany Sells 6 214Type SSKs to Turkey. No comment.
Divisions…
Thank you, this will introduce my third and last point about the so called “European Defence”:
Do you believe the US, Trump or else, dem’ or rep’, really want a Sovereign and powerful Europe? Of course they don’t! The reason why is pure logic: the increasing of a European power (towards sovereignty) would mean for the US, relatively, a diminishing of their own. They want us (France, or Europe, or any country willing for autonomy) to stay dependant, and they have “Trojan horses”, here in Europe, see above.
So please, be kind to me, don’t talk with me about “European Defence”, or European sovereignty” anymore: that thing is always-already dead. An aporia. Shukriya.
———
Now I will try to be positive and constructive.
Considering France’s partnerships in the area, considering France’s anNounced ambitions in Indopac, first of them:
“First, our actions take place in the area of security and defence. We want the Indo‐Pacific to remain an open and inclusive area, with each State observing each other’s sovereignty. In this zone, which is the epicentre of global maritime trade and where tensions are appearing regarding maritime borders, it is essential to ensure freedom of navigation and overflight, in full compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” (PR Macron, 2018, France’s
Indo‐Pacific Strategy)(2),
It would be logical, coherent, consistent and honest that future (2025) budgets&allocations for the French Armies prioritize our Navy (Marine Nationale, « MN »).
Particularly by building more (LEU propulsion tech.) SSNs; create and produce a new MAWS; and, for logistical aspects and permanence on zone issues: extend our naval bases in IOR and PO: La Réunion Island & New Caledonia. A minima.
But it remains true thaT thE islands are both far from Malacca & SCS. Long transits, so short playtime on zone for:
- RafAle and MRTT (AAE (French Air&Space Forces)),
- Atlas (AdT, (French army)),
- grey or black boats, and future MAWS (maybe a Falcon? (MN))
« France’s Tri-Services ».
To resolve this geographical and logistical issue, France need to have access to an ally’s naval/air base (like Fr-UAE do) in Gulf of Bengal, or Adaman Sea. In a strategic partnership frame. Or somewhere in Suvarnadvipa…
About that, i hope i’m not too late to wish an happy Diwali!
Thank you for reading and pardon mi French.
Notes:
(1): Norms over Force. The Enigma of European Power, Zaki Laïdi, Palgrave MacMillan, NY, 2008 [first edition: Presses de Science-Po, Paris, 2005]
(2): https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/e...3678/a892c4f93ab0687400274085650d6d72973af817
I don't think the Europeans are considering any of the very likely attitude change the Chinese will have in case of a victory over the Americans in a war for Taiwan.
A trade deal with China is basically a death warrant for your industry. Germany won't be able to compete with them in a few more years.
More than foreign bases, France needs a whole new navy, specifically dedicated for the Indo-Pacific.
Happy Diwali.
Last edited:
A post-AUKUS nuke sub deal between India and France will be very welcome.
Hell, it will be good if France sells 2 SSNs and the PANG to Germany as well.
Hell, it will be good if France sells 2 SSNs and the PANG to Germany as well.
Yep, they are not considering anything.
The European Union is defined by its complete investment in the American empire, making the mere idea that the status quo could change, or even has already changed, tantamount to blasphemy. It's not just that they don't want to think about it, it's also that anyone who talks about it is violently attacked. Why prepare for a defeat of America? America is God. America cannot be defeated. Why bother attempting to have hardpower capabillities? America will ensure the American world order will last forever and ever.
The European Union was largely an American project. It was designed to ensure that Europe would remain inconsequential and irrelevant on the world stage. And it was, in that respect, a complete success.
That's absurd.
- Germany will never procure anything from France. They're too proud to accept France may be their equal, or even more unconscionable, their better, in technological domains.
- Germany builds its own submarines, and TKMS is one of the fiercest competitors of Naval Group. We're pretty sure they (or the German secret services) had a hand in the Scorpene leak. That means that even without point #1, this would still be impossible.
- What the hell would they do with an aircraft carrier? They don't have a navy aviation. They don't have carrier-compatible aircraft. Also, they hate nuclear power. Did you know they're largely responsible for why the EPRs are such a boondoggle?
Then I suppose they are gonna have a very rude awakening within the next 10 years.
1 and 2 can be taken care of with something like a JV. Since the militarisation of Europe is inevitable post 2030, an offer can be made to create a new SSN design for all of Europe, which even France can buy in the late 2020s, after the Barracudas are complete. The same can be done with PANG.
This is even a German idea.
Germany proposes European aircraft carrier
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
3 isn't an issue due to the FCAS.
And it's fine if they skip out on nuke prop, then they don't need the SSNs, and they can go for a conventional PANG. In any case, if Germany, Italy and Spain go for 1 PANG each, this will free up the French navy to act elsewhere. Since Germany is keen on protecting Europe from Russia, they should be left to do that until they wake up. At the very least the Spanish and Italians are interested in carriers.
Anyway the militarisation of Europe is inevitable. Hell, considering Japan is already doing it, Europe will have no choice.
What's the story about the EPR?
Indeed.
Yeah, it'll go nowhere.
The FCAS will not exist.
Italy is married to its STOVL carriers. They've invested in the F-35B. They won't have any interest in CATOBAR stuff. Spain is also adverse to CATOBAR, thinking it's too expensive for their budget. I'm not even sure they'll keep a navy aviation -- either they get some F-35B and refit the Juan Carlos to handle them, or they pivot to helicopters only when the Harriers are retired. Germany doesn't have any carrier operation know-how.
In any case, aircraft carriers are not very useful against Russia. A Euro-Russian war would be fought over land, not over the seas.
The only way that will happen is if the USA pull out of NATO. The EU countries other than France and, to a lesser extent, Greece and Cyprus, are all hypnotized by NATO as their lord and savior and the perverse thing about that is that they think giving the EU some real military muscle would create an incentive for the US to pull out of Europe and focus fully on Asia. Basically the USA want Europe to remain weak so it stays under American control, and the Europeans want Europe to remain weak so it stays under American protection. The combination of this ensures that inertia always wins.
It's interesting to note that the only moves that have happened to strengthen Europe have happened only thanks to Trump, who did threaten to pull US forces out of Europe, or even to dissolve NATO. But these timid moves have been abruptly stopped as soon as Biden's victory was acquired.
It's a joint design between Framatome and Siemens. The Germans insisted on using Siemens tech everywhere, and they had some pie-in-the-sky specifications. Then after Fukushima, Germany said nein to Atomkraft and Siemens just up and pulled out of the project, forcing to redesign everything. A wonderful waste of time and money. Note that there weren't other problems anyway, but that really didn't help.
You have taken a hard stance that high end cooperation is not possible between the two countries at all. I think we need to see what Germany does after a new govt forms.
However Spain and Italy will need a new carrier each to replace the Juan Carlos and Cavour around 2040. Considering a second PANG is possible for the MN, as long as money is made available, there are at least two more potential PANG buyers available even without Germany. There's a potential for 3-4 PANGs after 2040 anyway.
2040 will be a very different time with a wholly different class of aircraft.
That doesn't make sense. A carrier in the Baltic is definitely the way to go in a Euro-Russian war. It puts Moscow within fighter jet range, and in case the Russians reach the German border, it gives NATO a fighter base behind Russian lines.
Anyway, as long as there is a sea near you, a carrier is a very good idea.
Then it looks like we have to wait for Europe to react to a threat rather than pre-empt it.
For Germany, a conventional PANG it is then. The Baltic and North Sea don't require long distances anyway.
Gravitas: Why is China not talking about the mysterious blasts?
Gravitas: Why is China not talking about the mysterious blasts?
At least 10 mysterious, high-intensity blasts have struck China in 7 days. Several people have died, many were injured. China is trying to cover up; nothing is being said on whether these blasts were accidents or coordinated attacks. Palki Sharma brings you the details.
Now who did this...
AUKUS could rock China’s boat in the Indo-Pacific
While there is nothing surprising about AUKUS, a Pacific-centric orientation has advantages in the context of China
(i just react to this (we are very far from aukus)),
Definitely No!
Russians have their own stretch of coast, with enough air/missile basing capacity to make the Baltic a deathtrap for a high-value target.
Into the Baltic, the carrier would be a « sitting duck ». This sea is very much more the realm of « black boats ».
Even normally it's difficult to hit a moving target. Even more so when soft kill countermeasures are used. Much more so when hard kill CMs become available.
Anyway, the biggest problem with attacking a moving target is detecting it. Carriers have the range that prevent it. So it doesn't matter how many missiles the Russians have, they need their targeting systems to enter line of sight to use those missiles, and the job of the air wing and escorts is to prevent that from happening.
The bigger threat comes from under water, but the US, British and French have that covered.
So Australia will get its first nuclear submarine post 2050 if it survives.... Great job uncle Sam...
